Open Letter to Jordan Peterson

Dr. Peterson;

This is a rather deep question so hope you will tolerate the bit of wordiness in asking this question by analytic means. ūüėČ


We can tell as much about a person, his understanding, his ethics, his culture, his civilization by the methods of his argument as by its content.

When we speak, when we describe, when we persuade, when we argue, we can transfer meaning with error or without. With hazards or without. With suggestions or without. With deceptions or without.

When we hear speech, we must both construct the meaning, but also test it.  And it turns out that testing meaning is quite a difficult thing.  Because we seem to have evolved to describe, opine, negotiate, and deceive more so than testify.  We did not evolve to speak the truth independently of our biases. Otherwise mathematics, science and law would not be necessary.

While I’m glad that over the past ten months or so you’ve joined the “ok, this is enough” movement in western civilization. And while I’m glad your mastery of the literature of the social, psychological, and cognitive sciences is thorough. ¬†And while many of us appreciate your ability to teach what seems extemporaneously – and with passion and conviction. ¬†There is something very troubling in with your reliance on literature that I’d like to ask you to consider.


You’ve made the case that the Postmodernists (we’ll avoid the Marxists for now) not only practice falsehood, but intentionally deny truth. And that they do so to circumvent discourse. ¬†Presumably because they cannot win an honest, truthful, true, and moral (test of reciprocity) argument. You’ve made the case less directly that Postmodernists are not engaging in reciprocity. (Correct) But not necessarily that they are doing so for the purpose of parasitism, or theft, rather than engaging in voluntary exchanges. (I believe you position this as ‘wrong’ or ‘immoral’ but not ‘theft’ or ‘predation’.)

You’ve made the case that Truth is has been the competitive advantage of the West. (I am not sure if you have made the point that this reduces transaction costs, and therefore reduces opportunity costs, and therefore increases experimental velocity in a division of perception, valuation, labor, and advocacy.

You’ve demonstrated that you rely heavily on the literary model of Jung. (Understandable – but questionable.) Why choose wisdom literature instead of scientific, economic, and historical literature? Isn’t the difference one of precision?

You’ve made the case that you have worked for many years to understand the myth and literature of civilizations – and that is was hard work. ( Understandable – but curious why one would choose ‘wisdom literature’ for one’s research? )

You’ve demonstrated that you’ve kept current with the research in cognitive science and (recently operationalized) experimental psychology. (Obvious, understandable, and necessary)

You’ve demonstrated that you can identify correspondences between the research and the survival of the content of these myths over many generations: Monomyth, Archetypes, and then less specifically virtues.

You’ve made the case that one must extract from this (vast) literature, that which allows you to functionally (demonstrably) succeed, and NOT what prevents you from functionally (demonstrably) succeeding.

I am not sure if you’ve distinguished between the western use of DEFLATIONARY TRUTH, common law, philosophy, and science that preserves competition between institutions and disciplines, and the Fertile Crescent use of CONFLATIONARY WISDOM using Supernaturalism to produce a monopoly that doesn’t preserve competition between institutions and disciplines.

I am pretty certain that you haven’t distinguished between the decidability of deflated truths and conflated wisdom. Or the difference between low context deflationary truth, and high context wisdom literature. Or the costs of producing each. Or the difference of rule by via-negativa (common law) versus via-positiva (commanded law), and the consequences it produced.

Because high context low precision monopoly wisdom literature empirically produces very different rates of innovation and adaptation compared to the use of low context, high precision, competitive literature (or the difference in consequences between heroic and scientific (western pagan), and submissive and religious (persian/abrahamic), and familial and ‘rational’ (Sinic/Japanese) forms of literature.

You’ve tried to maintain the difficult position of conflating the true (decidable), good(commons), preferential (personal) and useful (possible) in the fertile crescent tradition, as a method of argument (decidability) rather than as a method of advice (wisdom). (‘darwinian arguments’).

And I don’t think you’ve touched on the use of conflationary fictionalisms as methods of deception:
1) Pseudo-mythology: scriptural monotheism that conflates law, wisdom, and truth. False promise of life after death. Promise of life after death.
2) Pseudo-science: the construction of cosmopolitan pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises), Promise of paradise.
3) Pseudo-rationalism: the construction of modern idealism (platonism, the the frankfurt school, the postmodernists) – creating ‘reality by chanting’ (social construction) Promise of power.

And perhaps most importantly you don’t illustrate, that I know of, that the west lost to conflationary wisdom literature (christianity) in the ancient world, including the closure of the institutions of ‘deflationary literature’ (the stoic schools), and was resurrected by the restoration of truthful literature in the enlightenment, and that conflationary literature is the means by which the postmodernists have adopted the work of the marxists.

And this all leads me to a set of questions:

How does one know what to select without knowing what to select already? Or worse, how does one know what NOT to select? From the herd of literary preachers of wisdom literature, how does one decide between them? How does one choose: a) that which I prefer, b) that which is good independently of what I prefer, c) and that which is true regardless of whether I prefer it, or  whether we think it is good or not Рbecause we can only decide conflicts over goods by what is true. So, we can only decide between the useful, the preferable, and the good, by what is true (decidable)?

What is the cost of teaching wisdom (conflationary) literature versus truthful (deflationary and decidable)literature? What are the consequences of teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful? And most importantly, what opportunities do we perpetuate and create by teaching wisdom literature instead of truthful literature?

How is fictionalism not only a terrible thing to teach, a terrible method of transferring meaning, but it is the means by which we have been defeated in the ancient world, and nearly defeated in the present?

How is fictionalism only not an answer, but demonstrably the reason for the failure of the west to complete the enlightenment by its extension to the economic, legal, social, and political disciplines?

Hasn’t psychology largely rescued itself from fictionalism and justifiable criticism as a pseudoscience precisely by abandoning fictionalism and adopting the ‘operationalism’ (in psychology, ‘operationism’, and mathematics ‘intuitionism’)?

How can one deflate the Fertile Crescent fictionalisms (‘lies’) and still convey them without at the same time merely perpetuating the crime?

Why is there not enough non-false, non fictionalist, non omnipotent and omniscient mythos, history of heroes, saints, scientists?  Why do we have to appeal to that which has harmed us so deeply?

Why can’t we teach people meaning through the lenses of hyperbole of myth, the hyperbole of heroes, the hyperbole of history, the empirical evidence of our history, ¬†and our truthful speech? Is that not the reason for the west’s continued outperformance of other peoples? Is truth not how we dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, poverty, disease and tyranny?

If conflationary literature is the vehicle by which we have been lied to and the vehicle for deceit, the why teach it? Why do we not want to teach people how to identify the differences?  To negatively value such conflationary literature? And is there any value in the conflationary that cannot be obtained from the deflationary?

I know that in the spectrum of methods by which we can convey meaning that the dream state is the most subjective, the rational less so, the calculative much less so. And I understand that creativity requires that we enable free association by the construction of habits that allow us to easily enter the waking dream state most creative people call ‘the zone’.

But what evidence suggests that we need to do so by the very means of exploiting it: suggestion. Deceit by suggestion. Deceit by loading, framing, overloading such that the suggestion is created by statement or by inference or by inference from absence?

What is the difference between the transfer of meaning, the transfer of truth, and the transfer of deception?

In other words, Why do we need to teach people to lie?


A few series that suggest we have far and above the necessary deflationary content available to teach every necessary scale of comprehension and decision.

Any truth proposition must survive those tests that are applicable.
1) categorical consistency (identity)
2) internal consistency (logical)
3) external consistency (empirical)
4) existential consistency (operational language and grammar)
5) rational consistency (rational choice of the actor)
6) moral consistency (reciprocity – at least intertemporal)
7) scope consistency (full accounting and limits [no cherry picking, no unlimited theories])
8) cognitive consistency (test by jury: theory)
9) survival consistency (test by market: law)
10) exhaustive consistency (Parsimony / tautology)

1) “No truth proposition can be tested without appeal to the subsequent dimension”.

What existing sets of categories and values do we have to work from in the spectrum of problems of decidability?

5) History.

4) Wisdom: Greek/Roman/Germanic/Slavic Paganism (archetypes) (categories and measures)

3) Morals: Roman Stoicism (virtues) (via positiva) (subcategories and measures)

2) Ethics: Roman Law (limits) (via negativa) (further subcategories and measures) (Natural Law of Reciprocity)

1) Psychology: Acquisitions or stoic ‘pursuits’ rather than ‘psychology’ (all moral intuitions and all emotions can be expressed as reactions to change in state of acquisitions).

0) Existence: The Laws of Nature (science) further subcategories and measures)


What methods of measurements do we have to work with?

7) THE MONOMYTH – Transcendence (Transformation)
6) THE ARCHETYPES – Characters (Categories)
5) THE VIRTUES – Comparison Operators (Values)
4) THE ORDERS – Axioms (Relations: sets of conditions – social orders)
3) THE NARRATIVES – Operations (Methods of change in state)
2) THE DISCIPLINES – Mindfulness/Stoicism ( Noise Reduction)
1) THE SCIENCES – Measurement (reduction of ignorance, error, bias, deception reduction)
0) THE TRUTH – Parsimony (Most Parsimonious Operational Name of a Recipe of Transformation.)

There exists only one objective – transcendence – ‘Agency’.
There exists only one narrative – personal transcendence
There exist only a few sub-narratives – methods of transcendence (the N-number of plots)
There exist only so many non-false virtues – variables of transcendence (stoic virtues?)
There exist only so many portfolios of virtues – transcendent characters. (Archetypes)
There exist only so many methods of non-false noise reduction – transcendent mind. ( physical rituals, stoic disciplines, discursive prayer, recitative prayer, buddhist contemplation – and some combination)
There exist only so many methods of non-false elimination of falsehoods – reason.
There exists only so many sets of primary operations – transcendent truths.

A myth can employ animism and anthropomorphism in an act of transcendence.
A myth can employ hyperbole (super-normalism) in an act of transcendence.
A myth can employ any technique to create an immoral condition against which one employs virtues to transcend.
A myth can employ virtues in an act of transcendence.

Via Negativa:
A myth cannot contradict the virtue of transcendence.
A myth cannot contradict of a virtue of transcendence in an act of transcendence.
A myth cannot employ a falsehood in an act of transcendence
A myth cannot employ luck or miracles in an act of transcendence.
A myth cannot employ fictionalism (idealism, supernaturalism, pseudoscience/pseudo-rationalism) in an act of transcendence.

If a myth can survive these tests then it is true, and good.
If a myth cannot survives these tests then it is false, and evil.

I can find no reason to perpetuate the use of fictionalism in pedagogy or even in public speech.  I can find every reason to treat it as the most malicious form of deception ever invented by man, and the principle target of ethical and moral criticism.

I see every reason to complete the enlightenment, not leave the door open for yet another conquest of the west Рor by mankind Рthrough the use of suggestion by the process of  loading, framing, conflation, fictionalism, and overloading,  by the use of that which cannot be tested, because it either cannot be deflated, or because the act of deflation is far beyond the abilities of those most susceptible to suggestions.

Just because the mind ‘want’s, does not mean we should feed it. There are many wants. Many impulses. And civilization was constructed by the suppression of those impulses and the direction of them to constructive ends – what we would call somewhere between delayed gratification, and longer production cycles, producing higher multiples than could be obtained by discounted means.

So why perpetuate the lie?  ( Nietzsche was right. As right as a literary philosopher can be.)

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine


The Not So Austrian School vs Science and Mathematics


I‚Äôve written extensively on this and I‚Äôll make a few (possibly unpleasant) but clarifying points to explain why Today’s “Austrian School” is to the original “Mengerianism”, what Today’s “Liberalism” is to the original “Classical Liberalism”: an ‘appropriated term’. And Misesianism has little if anything to do with Mengerianism other than the most trivial inclusion of marginalism.

If we are talking about the Mengerian revolution, there are no shortcomings, and those insights as of 2008 appear to have been fully incorporated into mainstream economics.

If we are talking about how mainstream Austrians practice economics today, by the successors to both the Mengerian and Misesian ‚Äėbranches‚Äô of the Mengerian revolution, we have one insight that is not incorporated into mainstream economics: the test of the ethics and morality of economic statements by construction a ‚Äėproof of possibility‚Äô: that any such proposition can be demonstrated by a series of both rational choices and tests of reciprocity. Mainstream Economists rely on Rawlsian (left) ethics and Pareto optimums, where Austrian Economists would rely on Classical Liberal ethics, and each solve for solutions under those ethical constraints.

If we are talking about the propaganda put out by the Rothbardians then that’s something altogether different, and has nothing to do with either of the above.

But let’s go into some detail.

The Mengerian school applied the insights of calculus to economics, producing marginalism, and as a consequence, subjective value, and as a consequence overthrew the historical error of the labor theory of value.
The mengerian school attempted to construct a DESCRIPTIVE social and political science from economic evidence. In contrast to the Chicago school which attempts to produce policy under rule of law – meaning ‚Äėwithout human discretion‚Äô; and in contrast with the Saltwater School (new york), attempting to maximize consumption by policy – meaning ‚Äėarbitrary rule‚Äô.
So the Austrian, Chicago, and New York schools of economics pursued very different ‚Äėlimits‚Äô and ‘methods of decidability’ (categories and values) in their investigation of economic phenomenon, and for very different reasons. Instead of all of these schools pursuing ‚Äėeconomic science‚Äô it is more accurate to say that they each practice the application of economics to politics in three different ways.

Austrian (Virginia/GMU):
The production of institutions that eliminate frictions, allowing the greatest cooperation among peoples in a market economy. This, under the assumption that interferences in the economy were unwise, and would merely increase the severity of future corrections. (The Conservative Position)

Freshwater (Chicago):
The use of monetary policy to insure the economy and the polity against the unavoidable corrections that occur whenever certain combinations of opportunities, organizations, talents, and resources are disrupted either incrementally or by shocks, by the discovery of formulae that allowed rule of law to persist, yet insure people against harm. This, under the assumption that while interference in the economy was a moral hazard, a violation of rule of law, and would spiral into increasingly worse forms of harm, that the value of limiting shortages, insuring against shocks, was better than the consequences of not doing so. (The Classical Liberal Position)

Saltwater (New York):
The use of fiscal (spending) policy (debt) for the purpose of maximizing consumption and therefore overall wealth – under the assumption that any harms caused by the misallocation of organizations, talents, and resources to exhausted opportunities, would provide greater interim benefit that would compensate for any future harms. (The Leftist Position) (Krugman, Delong et al)

This spectrum: Austrian (Social Science/conservative), Chicago (Rule of Law/classical), New York (Arbitrary Rule/progressive) also reflects Time Preference: Long, Medium, and Short term. Which in turn reflects class and gender moral biases (Mature Male, Maturing Male, and Female). Which in turn reflects institutional emphasis: i) Austrian: Demographics, educational policy, formal and informal institutional policy. ii) Industrial policy, Trade Policy, Monetary Policy, iii) Monetary, fiscal policy, and redistributive policy.
At this point in time, Mengerian insights are fully incorporated into mainstream economics – although until 2008, the mainstream resisted the hypothesis that all attempts to correct the economy through monetary policy produced cumulative distortions of increasing duration. At this point that matter is settled, and the Mengerian insights have been incorporated into Mainstream thought.


-Full Accounting (Ending Economic Cherry-Picking)-
At present, we measure economic velocity (relative change) in may different ways but we do not measure absolute change: the change in state of the total set of capital. In other words, the economic profession produces Income Statements but never Balance Sheets. So in the very broad set of capital that constitutes a polity and its economy we actually measure almost nothing: genetic, cultural, normative, scope-knowledge (what), technical knowledge (how), legal, institutional, territorial, resource, monumental, built, physical, and private.

The measurement of relative change (velocity) rather than changes in capital stocks, is the reason why economics consists very largely of cherry picking in order to justify our different gender, class, cultural, and civilizational biases.

So, this is why the Krugman/Delong and the French, The Chicago and mainstream american, and the ‘old fashioned’ Austrians all make different claims about economics: None of them practices full accounting, and therefore engages in cherry-picking. (They will all give you similar excuses. Which I ought to start collecting for the sake of posterity and future laughter.) The reason is simple: (a) we lack sufficient data because of our accounting methods and the financial use of ‘pooling’ to provide sufficient data. (b) we willfully do not measure changes in capital. (c) the people who best understand this problem are in the financial sector and profit from it. (d) the people who are in government lack the knowledge (and usually the intellectual capacity) to understand it. (e) because it is difficult to understand it is (fairly) difficult to legislate changes to the status quo. (f) if the people did understand what is done to them (they intuit it’s wrong but can’t explain it) they would make the french revolution look like church service.

-Economics (Money)-
There is clear benefit to recording, analyzing and publishing economic information that prevents malinvestment (or misuse of investment funds). There is clear benefit to managing the money supply as long as it does not create malinvestment. It is not clear that savings should be conducted with the same currency as the commercial currency. It is not clear that savers have a right to appreciation of a commercial currency at the expense of others any more than they have an obligation to absorb losses. And given that the value of insuring the money supply against shortages that might minimize consumption and investment, How do we manage the money supply? What basket of targets do we use? Is it moral (or wise) to allow interest on consumer credit issued from the Treasury when it is not any longer de facto insured by banks? (My answer is ‘no’ – it’s predatory on a scale that the most extractive of despots could not dream of). Is any of our policy or economics meaningful in an era where liquidity can be provided directly to consumers via debit cards from the treasury and the consequences immediately measured regardless of financial sector and entrepreneurial sector estimates of the future ending the zero interest rate problem, and ending the problem of cheaper money reinforcing and expanding patterns of malinvestment.

-Government (Production of Commons)-
It is increasingly clear that the silicon valley model of investment is indistinguishable from the christian monarchies under the combination of local rule of law and federal church sanction, in the same way the chinese model of government is indistinguishable from the management of a fortune 50 conglomerate. And it is increasingly clear that both of these models are superior to the results of 20th century democracy. The difference is that the Han are a single sub-race (extended family), as Europeans were until the present. While the silicon valley model is closer to the Cosmopolitan, for the same reason: silicon valley does not have to insure itself, it’s territory, or its currency So we can see three future political models: the homogenous kin-corporate (chinese), the homogenous kin-private, and the ‘borderland’ diverse non-kin private (silicon valley).


Mises was creative, and had read a great deal of the work of contemporaries – which is why his ideas are not his but others (Weber, Simmel). He had a very clear if not the clearest – understanding of money. But had a very poor understanding of mathematics and science. And was not very clear on the broader intellectual movements that had preceded him, or were current.
So while Mises discovered and articulated ‚Äúeconomic operationalism‚ÄĚ, he conflated mathematics (axiomatic declarations, and proofs of possibility) with science (theoretical observations, and survival from criticism) into a pseudoscience of Praxeology – in which he claimed all economic research should be performed operationally.

He confused the Moral and Legal (justificationary), with the True and Scientific (survival from criticism).

Praxeology – Economic Operationalism – is a method of testing rational choice and moral reciprocity in economic propositions when people are possessed of information heavily weighted by prices, and when they are rational actors, working from simple stacks of priorities. Just as is Intuitionistic Mathematics, Operational Language in the Sciences, and Operationism (the newest application of operationalism) in Psychology.

But this is logically and empirically false.

People act irrationally because of a set of cognitive biases and fragmentary information;

People decide preferences on networks not stacks – meaning Mises did NOT – like Menger – rely on the calculus, and worse, he used a very narrow interpretation of marginal utility – that humans decided by a stack of values, rather than the sum of the weights of a set of values.

Prices are but one factor of economics and prices decline rapidly in interest after commodities. People purchase heavily on signal value, not investment or commodity value.

Empirical measurements can in fact identify economic phenomenon not rationally identifiable by rational construction (ie: sticky prices).

What appear to be cumulatively immoral actions by the state can (in some circumstances) produce superior returns that do not violate the material interests of risk takers dependent upon intertemporal calculation.

So it’s somewhat tragic, that in the science in which Operationalism is most important, and Mises’ discovery of Economic Operationalism, approximately coincided with Popper’s invention of Falsification, Poincare’s Criticism of Cantor, Brouwer’s Intuitionism (mathematics), Bridgman’s Operationalism (physics), and Hayek’s later discovery that the empirical common law is both the origin of the empirical method, and the only scientific means of governance: Nomocracy – Rule of Law.

And that because all these thinkers failed to grasp that they had formed a movement, and that this movement’s value culminated, not in mathematics – but in economics. Because Science is but a moral discipline by which together we seek to remove ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that economics is the discipline in which pseudoscience is most harmful to us and mankind, if for no other reason than the consequences of our folly and deceit are both profound, and distant.


We all bring our culture’s methodologies to the intellectual table, and Mises brought conflationary jewish law to the table. All the enlightenment era thinkers have done so Рand still do. We tend to use the names of philosophers rather than the Operational names of their methodologies but we can illustrate the drag of intellectual traditions on the enlightenment by stating the method: The anglo empirical-legal-protestant, the french moral-catholic, the german rationalist-prostestant, the russian literary-orthodox, and the jewish-conflationary-legal.

The only deflationary method was the original: the anglo empirical-legal. ‘Science’ in the ancient world, like science in the later medieval and early modern, evolved out of the practice of competitive, testimonial, evidentiary, empirical, common Law.

The problem for the anglos has been that contracts presume equality under the law, and this assumption led to the utopianism of ‘an Aristocracy of Everyone’. Just as the French a ‘Family of Everyone (dressed up in aristocratic clothing)’, Just as the German ‘An Army of Pious Duty of Everyone’, Just as the Jewish led to a ‘Wandering Separatism of Everyone’.

The ‚ÄėVienna‚Äô intellectual group – “Austrians” housed two very different sets of thinkers: The Christians who were German and Polish: the Mengerians, and the Misesian, who was Jewish and from L‚Äôviv Ukraine.

Both regions were in then ‚ÄėGalacia‚Äô under the control of the Austrian Empire. At that point in time L‚Äôviv was one of the most populous jewish cities in europe as well as the ‚Äėborderlands‚Äô (where russians allowed jews to settle).

The categorization of Mises as a member of Menger‚Äôs Austrian school has been the subject of disagreement and still is – in the past, justifiably criticized as ‘jewish economics’.

Methodologically, Misesian thought relies upon jewish thought, just as much as Mengerian thought relies upon Germanic.

-Deflation vs Conflation-

Western Deflation (Competition:Institutions) vs Semitic Conflation (Monopoly:Religion)

While one of the hallmarks of western civilization is deflationary truth, and as a consequence, deflationary disciplines (mathematics, science, law, morality, literature, religion), deflationary institutions (divided govt), Mises, in the Jewish tradition, ( in the Abrahamic tradition in general) conflated morality, law, mathematics and science into ‚Äėpraxeology‚Äô and his arrogance ( not unlike Marx) prevented him from acknowledging his failure until late in life, when he acquiesced to economics being a mixture of empirical and operational but he still did not draw the conclusion that had been made by Weber, Brower, Bridgman, if not Popper: that the ‚Äėtruth‚Äô is discovered by the market competition between the scientific method‚Äôs attempt to deflate reality down into operations (laws), and the test of whether an intermediate theory survives construction from laws (axioms).

Given that we know the first principles of social science: rationality and reciprocity we can test all economic propositions even though due to categorical plasticity due to substitution effects.

Given that we do not know (yet) outside of perhaps chemistry, the first principles (operations) of the physical universe – because the universe cannot ‚Äėchoose‚Äô it is fully deterministic (even if so casually dense it is not predictable through measurement) and we must be able to describe the physical universe in mathematics as proof of construction instead.

This is only possible because mathematics is correlatively descriptive of external phenomenon, even if it is internally fully operational (real).
So mathematics provides a good substitute for the operations of the universe – until we know the first principles of the universe.

Which is what our friend Mr Wolfram‚Äôs (ack) ‚Äėnew science‚Äô (confusing a logic and a science again) is: the study of the consequences of operations, INSTEAD of the DESCRIPTION of the consequences of operations using mathematics.


So it is better to say that Mises created a ‘jewish heresy’ or branch of the Vienna school, and that followers have used the marxist strategy of a) ‘appropriating terms’ (austrian school), b) ‘heaping of undue praise’, c) ‘straw man criticism as a vehicle for pseudoscientific propaganda’, d) ‘pseudoscientific or pseudo-rational argument (justificationary apriorism, praxeology as a science exclusive of empirical science rather than that scientific propositions require survival of the tests of both empirical consistency and operational consistency), d) vociferous evangelism, and voluminous propagandizing (‘gossip’).

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

*I know this might be heavy reading but it’s very important, and profound.*

NOTE: This facebook Page contains a series of articles that cover his position in intellectual history in detail. (See Facebook Page for Scientific Praxeology-Economic Operationalism)



The Oath of Transcendent Man


I am a pagan 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 4) if I deny the existence of a supreme being with dominion over the physical laws, and treat all gods, demigods, heroes, saints, figures of history, and ancestors as characters with whom I may speak to in private contemplation in the hope of gaining wisdom and synchronicity from having done so. And 5) if I participate with others of my society in repetition of oaths, repetition of myths, repetition of festivals, repetition of holidays, and the perpetuation of all of the above to my offspring. 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 Pagan.

I 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 to non-kin. 3) 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.

I 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.

I 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.

As far as I know, if I succeed as a Pagan, 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. We leave the rest for ordinary men.

Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Sovereignty
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Reciprocity
The Propertarian Institute,
Kiev, Ukraine


Why Is The Koran Open To Interpretation?


If the Koran can be converted to law – a sequence of operationally testable statements, as has all of christendom then why has it not been?

If the koran can be converted into law so that it cannot be interpreted, why has it not been? To preserve interpretation rather than decidability?

If the koran can be interpreted, then how can anyone claim it is law?
Laws are decidable. Opinions are not. Until you can reduce literature to laws that are decidable, then one has no claim other than that all DEDUCTIONS FROM IT are in fact REPRESENTATIVE OF IT.

In other words, if you can’t DECIDE because of operationally testable statements, then the DECISION is to leave open interpretation. Therefore the decision is to leave open interpretation, and justification of it is just making excuses for licensing interpretation.

Therefore all actions derived from interpretation are the result of the decision NOT to eradicate interpretation.

In other words, jihadists, in all their flavors, and islamists in all their flavors, are specifically licensed by all other muslims because they have not DENIED them the ability to interpret the Koran, by stating the Koran in decidable verse: a sequence of operationally testable statements.

In other words, muslims accommodate terrorist ideologies by not regulating their religion such that it is FREE of terrorist ideologies.

Jews and Christians have both historicized and legalized their literature. Islam has NOT historicized and legalized its literature, and resists it at every opportunity.

With every denial we see only confirmation: islam licenses jihadis, terrorism, and interpretation.

The truth is,that the Koran *CAN* be converted into law.

At which point it will be untenable.

Which is why it has not been done.


It’s Time For a Class Action Against Facebook to Force Remedies The Government Has Not.



Despite years of criticism and threats of nationalization or regulation, Facebook has failed to implement features that are technologically possible, in many cases technologically trivial, and in all cases, in the public interest, for reasons we cannot know but appear to suit commercial and personal political interests of management, investors, and staff, whether by conspiracy of intent, conspiracy of common interest, or conspiracy of biases, political, cultural, and personal.


  1. It is inexpensive for Facebook to implement the demanded remedies.
  2. The court has acted similarly to Microsoft and AT&T as well as others. Yet none of those actions were as severe a threat to a polity as the those of Facebook.,
  3. The remedies will force Facebook to bear a short term cost, but pose no threat to the ongoing operations of Facebook.  Even if it did, nationalization would be preferable to current condition. Furthermore, Facebook spends far more heavily on experimentation than it does on operations and features compared to other organizations.
  4. Facebook has evolved into the primary platform for political discourse in the world, as is evident in political use both revolutionary and conformative.
  5. The problem is a matter of long standing domestic public criticism and discourse, with accusations of interference in the election. The problem is a matter of long standing international criticism.
  6. Facebook has a record of flaunting a personal, cultural, and political bias over the will of different nations.  Facebook as a record of avoiding these remedies even though trivial to accomplish. And where facebook has submitted to pressure merely hires individuals to subjectively curate user postings and continuing its propagation of personal, cultural, and political bias, and circumventing the will of people and state.
  7. The remedies are in the interest of free speech, civic discourse, and the people. Failure to remedy the circumstance is against the interest of free speech, civic discourse, and the people.



  1. If AT&T and Microsoft warrant action because of monopolistic dominance of the market then Facebook warrants action because of monopolistic dominance of communications for the same reasons.
  2. Facebook’s constitutes a practical Monopoly due to¬†its¬†Network Effects: because Facebook functions as a necessary personal, commercial, and political utility; and because Facebook delivers information over publicly regulated infrastructure; and because Facebook de facto functions as¬†a privately operated civic utility within the civic ¬†Commons – no different from Water, Power, Telecommunications, and Broadcast Media.
  3. Facebook differs from other utility services in that it has operationally limited fixed capital costs, makes use of private and public distribution of its services, where the method of distribution is paid for and maintained by public and private organizations; requires operationally trivial service costs for the individual user of the utility, and operationally trivial costs of customizing the presentation and distribution of information by individual preference and jurisdiction.
  4. Facebook provides both publication, communication, and information-repository services. Publication services distribute information outside of intentionally selected subscribers.  Communication services assist in voluntary communication between users. Facebook can separate publication from communication.
  5. Because of dependence upon advertising as a means of revenue, Facebook is subject to malicentives of distributing private information to its customers, against the will of the users of the utility; and Facebook is subject to malincentives to maximize the distribution of user created content in order to market to advertisers; and Facebook is subject to malincentives to limit free speech of users in order to provide an attractive vehicle for advertisers.


Facebook serves as a principle method of communication within and across the polity on matters personal, familial, communal, commercial, educational, scientific, and political, and because of its ubiquity and network effects faces and cannot face competition, despite major efforts of equally capitalized attempts.

We seek remedies such that free speech is preserved, individuals may voluntarily associate and disassociate in all forms of speech, and individuals may communicate or not, in the informational commons provided by the monopoly utility of Facebook.

We seek to prevent Facebook from interference in personal, family, communal, educational, scientific, and political discourse, both domestic and foreign, due to commercial interests, and personal, cultural, and political bias.

We seek specific remedies that will preserve the independence of Facebook as a private provider of a civic commons, financed through advertising, while at the same time providing a means of disassociation for the purpose of discourse in matters of personal, familial, communal, educational, commercial, and public interest.


Facebook shall not:

  • Destroy user-created content, only sequester it.
  • Inhibit the communication between individuals with declared subscriptions to one another.
  • Use art or artifice, to circumvent the intent of these remedies.

Facebook shall:

  • Provide for the recording of user-created content on the user’s account in the form of publications (posts or their future variations), collaboration¬†on publications or their future variations, and communication (chats, messages or future variations) between individuals and groups outside of publications.
  • Preserve sequestered content for one calendar year, during which the user may download it in human readable form.
  • Provide for¬†the subscription of one person’s user-created content by another, and visa versa. (Current features termed: Friends, Follows, Likes and Comments, serve this purpose.)
  • Provide for the communication of user-created content between individuals who have in any way subscribed to one another’s content.
  • Provide for the isolation of user-created content via declared subscriptions between users, from the publication of user-created content outside of declared subscriptions between users.
  • In user interface¬†similar to the selection of other¬†‘interests’ Provide for the user-selected option of participating in discourse on Sensitive¬†Topics (“Taboos”), and limit the distribution of all user-created ‘Posts’ or their equivalent, to those who have selected to participate in that same Taboo.
    • Absolutely Prohibited Taboos: ¬†Believable threats of interpersonal physical or sexual harm. Pedophilia.
    • State Regulated Taboos: Criticism of the state. Criticism of Political Individuals.
    • Religious Taboos: Advocacy of or criticism of any major world religion.
    • Political Taboos: Advocacy of or criticism of any political ideology, philosophy, or party. Tolerance for advocacy or criticism of
    • Psychological Taboos:¬†Race, Gender, Disability
    • Sexual Taboos: ¬†Erotica
    • Purity Taboos: Gore.
    • Honesty Taboos: Ridicule, Shaming, Rallying;
  • Provide for the automatic prohibition on State Regulated Taboos by jurisdiction of author and delivery.
  • Provide for the user-reporting of Taboo violations, by the selection of the Taboos that were violated, only for those Taboos the reporting users has not elected to participate in. ¬†Prevent reporting of taboos the user has elected to participate in.
  • Incorporate the ‘Sliding Scale’ technology by __________ that filters profane, hostile, and emotive content, and preserves rational content, so that users may filter content, with the understanding that english exists, but the algorithms for other languages must be implemented incrementally.
  • Expose a measure¬†of the number taboo violations in the past year as well as the number of violations by the user, on each user account, so that ‘sensitive’ and ‘offensive’ users can be identified, and excluded from association. ¬†Require approval of ‘followers’ who have either sensitive or offensive ratings higher than those of the user.
  • Expose a record¬†of all user profile data that is exposed to Facebook customers within the user’s account profile.
  • Provide for verification of identity by passport country, name, and passport id, and the decoration of users
  • Provide for both “Display Name” and “Real Name”, as well as the invisibility of “Real Name”, if the user has survived verification of identity by passport.

Facebook may:

  • Sequester user-created content if it advocates a specific instance of violence
  • Sequester user-created content if in violation of specific regulatory limitation by a National¬†Government
  • Limit distribution of user-created content to those that subscribe to the creator’s account
  • Limit the user from posting on the pages of those who have not subscribed to the user’s content. Limit the user from Chat, Text, and other communication to those who have subscribed to the user’s content

As a consequence:

  • Users shall retain access to their information and ability to communicate, yet lose rights of publication if they violate taboos.
  • Users may elect to participate escape from or include in the discourse of subjects which others deem Taboo. ¬†And users who do so will be limited to those who subscribe in the same Taboo.
  • Users will self-select into groups that favor their Taboo subjects, but self select out of groups that antagonize them.
  • Users of common interest and common ability will form echo chambers;¬† those seeking compromise¬†and understanding will cross echo chambers; and those that lack ability to engage in the discourse of understanding and compromise will be eliminated from one another’s discourse.
  • Advertisers will obtain more accurate profile information – whether they like that information or not. ¬†And this more accurate profile may prove a disincentive to advertisers if the profiles of their customers are understood, just as it is a disincentive to users. ¬†Therefore this may cause negative impact to the financial condition of Facebook until advertisers acclimate to this information.
  • These remedies¬†will drastically reduce the conflict in a world of peoples with different interests, and will prevent the use of Facebook as a means of imposing least common denominator discourse via monopoly and thereby forcing¬†by consequence a set of least common denominator political propaganda upon diverse populations with diverse interests. ¬†No commercial interest may claim moral or legal priority over the the function of advocacy, debate, and criticism in matters of the commons, all of which are taboo to one individual or another, because it is this advocacy, debate, or criticism that is the purpose of free speech, and individuals do not wish the competition by free speech, only achievement of their ends, regardless of truth or consequence.



We the undersigned join this action in whatever jurisdiction it is filed, transferred, adjudicated, or enforced.


Natural Law on The Restoration of The Church

Independence of the Church
The Natural Law exists independent of any Territory, Polity, Institution, or Opinion. The Church shall exist independently of any Territory, Polity, or Institution, and Opinion. The Church shall in the service of Natural Law and Transcendence alone.

The Church or Church Proper refers to the interests of the Church Body, past, present, and future. All shareholders must acquire a share of the Church through specific performance specified by each Body of the church, and the material payment required by each body of the church to that body.

The Church Body, or Body, refers to the shareholders of one or more church buildings and their territories.

The Church House, or House refers to a territory and building in which a Church Body operates.

The Church of the Realm refers to all Bodies and Houses within a Political Territory.

The Church shall bear responsibility for the production of Generations using the institution of the family, in furtherance of transcendence of man one generation at a time.

The Church of the Realm and the Church Proper shall form an administrative body as needed and only as needed, by drawing lots from those leaders of the bodies of the Church, for the term of service of one year. And no contrivance shall be constructed to circumvent the randomness provided by this method. The Church Bodies shall organize as Corporations, with Shareholder agreements, organized and operated as they see fit, as long as compatible with this application of the Law.

The Church of the Realm shall exist as an Independent Institution, and Peer of the Houses of the Commons, subject only to the Natural Law, and the Adjudication of Natural Law by the Judiciary. The Houses of the Commons may petition the Church, and the Church the Houses of the Commons and conventional contracts may be constructed at the discretion of any Church Body, so long as they do not violate this Code nor the Law.

The Church shall educate the Generations. The Church shall Specifically add Add Natural Law, Grammar, Logic, Testimony and Rhetoric and History, Marriage, Family, Finance, and Fitness to the Teachings of the Church. The Church Body shall teach from the canon of Speech (Drawing(Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Drawing, Etching and durable forms of decoration of physical spaces), Records(Vocabulary, Glyphs, Reading, Writing, Letters (Myths, Parables, Literature, History)), Testimony ( observation description, testimony, grammar, logic, rhetoric,) Measurements (Mathematics of all types), Cooperation ( Natural Law, Contract, Money, accounting, finance, economics ), The Crafts (Engineering of all types), The Laws of Nature (physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, sentience,) where not a violation of Natural Law due to use of Idealism or Supernaturalism.

The Church likewise shall remove Supernaturalism from The Church. Remove idealism from The Church. Remove submission from the Church – leaving only Supernormal Mythology stated in Historical Terms. In particular, mathematics and logic shall be laundered of idealism and platonism; and also, the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are reducible to, and shall be taught as, the extension of kinship love to non kin as a means of crossing family, clan, tribe, and national boundaries, such that we tolerate our differences until sufficient cooperative economic and political advantage has been achieved that Natural Law of Reciprocity evolves due the accumulated investment in one another that we no longer try to free ride, cheat, parasite or prey upon one another. Furthermore, the Teachings of Siddhartha Buddha are be reducible to and shall be taught as the development of mindfulness such that one is not influenced by impulses of the self, pettiness, the competition of others, or the vicissitudes of Nature. The teachings of Confucius were less harmful but promoted stagnation via advocacy of harmony rather than invention, and shall be taught with that caution. And in all cases the Stoics and the accumulation of Stoic Virtues shall be superior to all other methods of achieving mindfulness, including harmony, prayer, meditation, and ritual, of achieving the same discipline. While testimony to ancestors, heroes, demigods, and gods, in request for wisdom or fortune can serve us well or better than conversations with living people; Meditation can be a beneficial addition for some,; and ritual in the form of recitation and action is beneficial for all of us. Particularly when performed in voice, or in song, with a body of one’s peers.

(Counsel: In the choice between Zoroastrian tolerance, Abrahamic Submission, Buddhist Surrender, Chinese non-conflict advocated under the rubric of harmony, and Stoic Action – Stoicism provides both mindfulness as well as personal improvement by demonstrated action in the real world, rather than the alternatives which withdrawal from it. Only Stoicism promotes defeat of the self, others, and nature rather than acquiescence. Therefore only Stoicism contributes to transcendence.)


The Church shall select teachings from the record of Warriors, Statesmen, Scientists, Artists, and Saints. But shall eliminate the teachings of the philosophers and prophets who rely upon conflation, rationalism, idealism and supernaturalism to deceive the people through art and artifice.

(Counsel: This process converts myth to history, and in particular converts the supernatural deceptions, to wisdom literature in the form of parables. Testimony, the Natural Law and Transcendence are very simple rules, and parables that teach its many applications are uncomplicated.)

(Counsel: We convert submission to achievement and the combination of monotheism and saints to the Laws of the Nature of which Natural Law is a subset, and heroes who are bound by Laws of Nature and Natural Law, but achieve supernormal ends on the behalf of mankind, by their actions. We create myth from supernormal individuals that each individual if he tries, may seek to achieve.)

(Counsel: We do not seek to create a religion, only allow new religions to form independently of the falsehoods alien to our peoples, and in particular the deceptions of the Abrahamists.)

(Counsel: We expressly sever the Church, Family, and Moral Teachings, from the Academy and Professions and Technical Teachings.)

The Church shall educate boys separately from girls, and after the age of 9, boys must be taught exclusively by men, and girls exclusively by women.

The Church shall maximize physical activity, maximize speed and strength, maximize competitive interpersonal play, maximize the consumption of literature,  maximize discourse, deliberation, and debate, and minimize seated instruction.




The Church shall require Marriage, a minimum of three children, and one grandchild, ownership of property, and professional achievement in the Markets, prior to administrative or teaching position in the Church.

(Counsel: Preventing careerists, escapists, and ideologues, lacking demonstrated ability from access to generations, and requiring success in marriage, in raising a family, and in professional achievement in order to demonstrate worthiness to train subsequent generations. )

The Treasury of the Realm shall Grant all Church Bodies, upon possession of territory and House, and upon employment of Insured, Professional Bankers (professionals in family finance, investment, and economics), access to zero interest loans directly from the treasury, for all Family (not personal, not business) direct consumption.

Grant all Church Bodies in this model, upon hosting of a regimental militia, may form a bank for the service of its members, and provision against unemployment, illness and age, and the funds stored in the church may not be taken, attached, or interfered with by any individual, or organization, private, common, judicial, or monarchic, without voluntary transfer of the individual controller of the accounts, nor may any contrivance be used to force such an action directly or indirectly. These funds are non-existent for all but the individual who controls them.

(Counsel: insulate the family from the state, provide incentive for membership, and convert the institutions of the state to a utility, preventing the future defeat of the family by the concentration of capital and violence.)

The Church Body shall have exclusive dominion over matters of family. All rules of marriage, divorce, birth, adoption, inheritance shall be determined, adjudicated, by the Church, according to regional needs, with family structures varying from nuclear to traditional but with the constraint of a marriage consists of one man and one woman; there shall exist no community property; in matters of dispute, the children are the property of the mother until the age of consent, and the father thereafter.

The Church Body shall not seek profit and demonstrate no interests other than that of its Bodies. It shall practice all caution in its administration and policy. The Judiciary is instructed to practice intolerance for the conspiracy of intent or interest in the creation of rents and cartels in the church and to treat such attempts quickly and harshly.

The Church Body shall engage in no commerce other than to cover the costs of administration through use of membership dues, education, and fees. And may raise money only from donations, or loans from the Treasury proxied by members of the Body.

All Holidays whether promoted or demoted must be approved by the majority of the body of the church as represented in a vote of its leadership.

All religious symbolism shall be limited to the interior of the church, and the interior of the individual, and all religious symbolism and verse shall be prohibited from the commons in construction, dress, decoration, and information. The purpose of such symbolism is the domination of others, the claim of territory, and the intent to influence political processes, or to interfere with natural law, or to promote the separatism from others, regardless of felt or argued intent and consequence.

Architecture shall follow the various Christian conventions beginning in the Norman Era, however, all future churches, and all repairs or improvements to existing churches shall require hand-building, using man-portable materials, and the total absence of panel products. And no church may engage in financial or educational matters until it possesses land and such a monument.

Prostheletyzing all supernatural religions shall be prohibited, and all temples to supernatural religions not immediately converted to Natural Law shall be disassembled.

(Counsel: These requirements are costly, require civic cooperation by design, and provide advantages by design, such that the era of deceitful seduction of the people by all branches of the Zoroastrian and Abrahamic deceptions are prohibited.)


All within the universe is bound by laws of nature and all Sentient life capable of voluntary cooperation is bound by Natural Law, and no pretense shall be made otherwise. The value¬†of the Heroic myths by which man outwits, out fights, and out works man and nature is superior in the production of a transcendent polity to that of all other literatures. All gods, demigods, heroes, and saints are but literary contrivances by which to teach the the young and the simple about the world that is existential. The purpose of these characters is to make use of hyperbolic exaggeration of abilities, personalities, and ideas, virtues, follies and sins, such that we learn by the most basic method: sympathy that all of us are capable of, by the anthropomorphism and exaggeration of traits that are open to direct experience by imitation. But under no conditions must the young, simple, or otherwise ignorant or disabled, be subject to the deception that these are other than fictional characters. Yet, even as fictional characters we can ask ourselves, “What would this god, demigod, hero or saint, do in this circumstance?” And we can ask “If I asked this god demigod, hero or saint for advice, assuming our conversation was private and would always be sacred between the two of us, what would he say?” And we can ask this God, Demigod, Hero, Saint, for comfort,forgiveness, safety, rescue, or luck, and we will find that the act of doing so will often result in solutions we can make use of, advice we can make use of, and comforts we can make use of. And as such we need only grasp that there is no difference between the various formulae and recipes we use to manipulate the physical world, and those we use to manipulate the mental world. And in this way gods, demigods, heroes and saints serve as recipes for the measurement and transformation of questions and problems that cannot be solved by more analytic means. As such we may not deprive people of the utility, only limit them from self deception and the deception of others.

Men and Women, Boys and Girls vary in their abilities. While most are capable of speech and interaction, the minds of some border on dreams, and the minds of others border on machines, and the rest lie somewhere in between. And some people will always attempt to create a pretense rather than perform the work necessary to transcend the animal or childlike or immature mind. And while in private they may commit all sorts of self harm, they may not infect others in order to find allies in the realization of their falsehoods though the spreading of falsehoods. Charlatans of all stripes have produced fantasies to sell to people by appealing to their abilities, for most of human history – if only sold for attention and status, but too often sold for attention and power. But it is all lies. It is much less expensive to lie to the simple than it is to educate them in the Truthful. So one may not profit from the distribution of lies whether the purpose is to obtain psychological, emotional, intellectual, social, political or material gain. One may choose to lie to the self, but one many not spread the lies to others for any form of gain. Nor may one seek release by the word, deed, or display of such falsehoods. If the freedom of the feasts, and festivals is not enough, then one seeks not release from the stresses of reality but to drag others into unreality with him.





No individual, no organization, no matter what pretense or argument, shall intervene claim power to intervene in the mission or operations of the Church unless in violation of Natural Law under consent of the highest offices of the Judiciary in the Realm and at least three other Bodies of the Church.

(Counsel: Restoration of the Separation of Church and state and the inversion of the state and the family in priority, prohibiting the construction of corporatism in any form.)

Jesus of Nazareth

God and Gods


All holidays imposed by the conversion of our Natural Holidays of the Celebration of Life to Abrahamic Deceits shall hereby be rescinded and restored to original name and purpose: the appreciation of the natural world and our integration with its cycles. In particular, the four seasonal holidays of October 31 and November 1, December 21, March 15th, May 1, June 21, September 15 shall be restored and observed with celebrations of the cycle of death and rebirth, the onset of winter and feasts, the end of the winter, the welcoming of the spring, the feast of the harvest and hunt. In those places where December 25th is practiced, it shall remain St Nicholas’ Day and Christ’s Mass and retain its celebration of Charity to Kin, Family, most of all to Children. In Honor of the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth in his efforts to compel us to extend love to one another and not offend, not abuse, and not prey upon one another, the Holiday of Easter shall be preserved, and not diminished, for his innovation and his sacrifice is worthy of our devotion. The holidays of the Saints may be observed by any body if their acts demonstrated in the service of others rather than imagined devotion as a means of self gratuity and escapism from the Transcendence of man. The Soviet, Jewish, and Islamic holidays shall be forbidden, in word, deed, or display. And no others, in word, deed, or display, if not pagan, and not in the adoration of nature, shall be tolerated.

If at any time, the method of calculating the calendar is revised, the birth of Aristotle shall be used as the base date of our civilization, because it was Aristotle who discovered the means by which to drag mankind from its prison of ignorance.

The Restitution of the Seminaries, Monasteries, and Retreats
The Church shall take possession of the Seminaries, and convert them from Abrahamic and Platonic, into exclusively Supernormal, Historical, Aristotelian, and Natural Law and Stoic literature alone. In particular, there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that cannot be stated in rational, aristotelian, uncolored, language, and vast frauds in the literature of the Abrahamists of all sects.

The Restitution of Land, Structures, and Monuments
The Church Proper and all its Bodies lays claim of interest upon all Christian territory, monument, and structure in current and prior Christendom regardless of denomination or current possession, if constructed prior to the Third Conquest of Europa in 1917. No Transfer of such shall take place except to a Body of The Church. Any attempt shall be construed as an act of war, and the Monarchies The Militaries, The Militias, The Church Bodies, and all men able of action, shall require restitution and expenses times ten for any such violation, and in addition the lives and property of all signatories and participants to such violations shall be forfeit.

(Counsel: The Conquests of Europe by Abrahamic Deceits are: 1) Christianization, 2) Islamic conquest of people and territories and the hundreds of millions of deaths that they caused, the darkness and ignorance they imposed on mankind, and the suffering they caused directly and indirectly. 3) The Combination of Jewish-Marxism/French-Postmodernism/Arab-Islamism and the one hundred million deaths that they caused, and continue to cause.)

The Papal State
The Papal state, its territory, structures, possessions and the Vatican Bank shall be seized. The Vatican II shall be vacated, all policy under it vacated, and all signatories declared traitors to Christendom. John Paul shall be declared the Last Pope. Francis Shall be declared a False Pope and redacted from the history of the Catholic Church. The Cardinals and Priests and Laity returned to their home countries. The Natural Law shall ascend in place of Vatican II, and the Natural Law, the Histories shall replace all Church Dogma, Theology, Propaganda and Deceits. Those districts that

The Redaction of Abrahamism
The Invention of the God of Abraham, in all his incarnations, under all his names, shall be restated in all histories of the intentional invention of a false god, and the intentional construction of a deceit, and restated in mythical literature as a trick of the devil in the forms of Abraham, Peter and Paul, and Mohammed, and their followers, designed to entrap us in superstition, ignorance, tyranny, poverty, disease, and to trick us by these methods to from which man must never again fall victim

The Restoration of Nature
Each Church Body shall, for each of the Body’s Houses, demonstrate the Restoration by planting one of the Great Trees of Europa in prominent position on its territory, and care for it, in compensation for having allowed the Romans to kill, and the Abrahamists to occupy and desecrate our people. And the Muslims to destroy our ancient civilization. Any harm of any kind to any such tree, as to any House, by act of intent, or supposition of intent, shall require restitution from the extended family of a tree of equal size, age, and health and the death by hanging of those that committed the crime.



All men in the Military, Currently or Formerly, capable of bearing arms, who shall voluntarily and contractually form a squad, shall be freed of all obligation to any state, and given license for Murder and Plunder, performed in the service of the restoration of the Church, in any capacity, so long as that license is asked and granted by a Judge of the Restoration. Furthermore such brothers shall swear upon pain of death that they shall Preserve the church and its property from harm and plunder. And the Body shall have no mercy upon those who violate it.

All men of able body, in possession of weapons, or able to carry them, who shall voluntarily and contractually form a squad, shall be free of all obligation to any state, government, or contract, and given license for Murder and Plunder, performed in the service of the Restoration of the Church, so long as that license is asked and granted by a Judge of the Restoration. S

All men in Christendom, Currently or formerly in Prison, for any crime other than Rape or Child Molestation, who shall join a brotherhood of no less than eight, and no more than 20, under command of their chosen leader, shall be freed, Forgiven, and given license for Murder and Plunder, performed in the service of the restoration of the Church, to any who resists the Restoration of the Church, in any capacity, so long as that license is granted by a Judge of the Restoration. Furthermore such brothers shall swear upon pain of death that they shall Preserve the church and its property from harm and plunder. The leader will choose two sergeants. They shall take liability for the actions of their brothers in arms. And the Body shall have no mercy upon those who violate it.

(Counsel: Judges of the Restoration, having learned the Natural Law, having learned this declaration, having learned the methods of possession and transition, shall be published. The purpose is not to obtain permission, but merely to prevent interference in transitions already in progress and conflict between the Militia in service of the Church.)

All able bodied men shall enforce these words without limit and without exception, and with complete license, with all the violence at their disposal


Natural Law on Gender


There exist but two genders. Male and Female. These genders are compatible. Both genders provide necessary reciprocity to one another in the production of family and offspring.  Both genders develop traits for each gender, and each gender divides the labor of transcendence with different traits, but with greater or lesser intensity of either. Individuals are born with determining genitalia and genetics. Individuals are born with in utero successes and in utero failures. Individuals mature with developmental successes and developmental failures. Individuals develop psychological successes and failures, primarily due to insufficient training by socialization, shocks or trauma that disrupt the psychological training.

Defects of birth that cannot be changed or that individuals desire to preserve, must be either tolerated or not. Defects of development must be tolerated or not. But defects of training of one’s psychology need not be tolerated. And the export of the costs of one’s defects in utero, development, or training may not be imposed by any means onto the body of the people for whom the transcendence of man by the transcendence of their family is of necessity, and the accommodation and tolerance of failures in that transcendence a cost they may choose to bear or not. As such homosexuality may not be punished, nor accommodated. And all other deviations of gender need not be tolerated if they are perceivable in the commons. And deviations that threaten the young or less able, need be cured or the individual terminated.

The Natural Law recognizes only two genders male and female, defects of birth, defects of training, and defects of choice. And therefore no imposition shall be forced upon those with defects other than that of birth defect, fraud of weights and measures,  or imposition of costs upon the commons.

All public word, deed, and display shall conform to one’s gender such that none impose his defects upon others in the commons. And none shall impose upon private word, deed and display, unless it imposes costs upon those external to the voluntary exchange of word, deed, and display.

Knowledge of a thing’s existence is not the same as sense of its existence. It is only sense and cost of existence that the Law prohibits.