Tag: history

Veriphysics: The Treatise 009

X. Transition: The Present Void

The Enlightenment is dead. Its premises have been tested and found wanting. Its political philosophy produced tyranny in the name of freedom, oligarchy in the name of democracy, censorship in the name of liberty. Its economics produced models that do not describe reality and policies that impoverish those they claimed to enrich. Its science produced institutions incapable of correcting their own errors and a theory of life that cannot survive contact with basic arithmetic. Its epistemology consumed itself, beginning with the enthronement of reason and ending with reason’s abdication.

And yet nothing has taken its place.

The modern educated person, the heir of the Enlightenment, the product of its institutions, and speaker of its language, now finds himself in an uncomfortable position. He cannot return to the pre-Enlightenment world; too much has changed, too much has been learned, too many of the old certainties have been genuinely superseded. But he cannot remain in the Enlightenment world either, for that world has been exposed as built on sand. He is suspended between a past he cannot recover and a present he cannot believe.

This suspension is not sustainable. Human beings require coherent frameworks for understanding reality, grounding morality, and orienting action. The borrowed capital of Christendom, upon which the Enlightenment drew even as it denied the debt, has been spent. The contradictions can no longer be papered over. Something must replace what has failed.

But what will replace it. What can replace it.?

The pre-Enlightenment philosophical tradition was Aristotelian, Scholastic, and Christian, avoided the pathologies that have undone modernity. It understood reason as participatory rather than autonomous, as a faculty for apprehending truth rather than constructing it. It grounded rights in the nature of things rather than in social contracts that no one signed. It integrated fact and value, knowledge and goodness, in a unified vision of reality ordered toward transcendent ends. It did not make the errors that the Enlightenment made, and therefore it did not create the series of self-inflicted catastrophes that the Enlightenment has inevitably caused the men of the West to suffer.

But the classical tradition, as it existed before the Enlightenment, is not sufficient for the present need. It was formulated to address questions that were live in the thirteenth century; since then it has ossified and has not been adequately developed to address the questions that challenge Man today. It failed to seriously resist the rise of the Enlightenment, in part due to the false promises of the Enlightenment, in part because it had grown rigid, defensive, and backward-looking, more concerned with preserving past formulations than with pursuing present truth. A tradition that neglects to evolve to meet present and future challenges is a tradition that is unlikely to endure.

What is needed is neither a return to the pre-modern tradition or modern philosophies, but something new: a philosophical framework that recovers the structure and coherence of traditional thought while incorporating what has been genuinely learned in recent centuries, an intellectual structure that avoids the errors of the Enlightenment without ignoring the challenges it raised, a conceptual architecture that not only offers a critique of what has failed but provides a positive vision for what actually works to build successful societies and a healthy, thriving civilization.

The outline of this framework begins to take shape in what follows in Part Two: The Defeat of the Western Philosophical Tradition.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Significance of (d) and (k)

A doctor who has been following the Probability Zero project ran the numbers on the Selective Turnover Coefficient (d) and the mutation fixation rate (k) across six countries from 1950 to 2023, tracking both values against the demographic transition. The results are presented in the chart above, and they are considerably more devastating to the standard evolutionary model than even I anticipated. My apologies to those on mobile phones; it was necessary to keep the chart at 1024-pixel width to make it legible.

Before walking through the charts, a brief reminder of what d and k are. The Selective Turnover Coefficient (d) measures the fraction of the gene pool that is actually replaced each generation. In a theoretical population with discrete, non-overlapping generations—the kind that exists in the Kimura model, biology textbooks, lab bacteria, and nowhere else—d equals 1.0, meaning every individual in the population is replaced by its offspring every generation. In reality, grandparents, parents, and children coexist simultaneously. The gene pool doesn’t turn over all at once; it turns over gradually, with old cohorts persisting alongside new ones. This persistence dilutes the rate at which new alleles can change frequency. The fixation rate k is the rate at which new mutations actually become fixed in the population, expressed as a multiple of the per-individual mutation rate μ. Kimura’s famous invariance equation was that k = μ—that the neutral substitution rate equals the mutation rate, regardless of population size. This identity is the foundation of the molecular clock. As we have demonstrated in multiple papers, this identity is a special case that holds only under idealized conditions that no sexually reproducing species satisfies, including humanity.

Now, to explain the following charts he provided. The top row shows the collapse of d over the past seventy-three years. The upper-left panel tracks d by country. Every country shows the same pattern: d falls monotonically as fertility drops and survival to reproductive age climbs. South Korea and China show the most dramatic collapse, from d ≈ 0.33 in 1950 (when TFR was 5.5) to d ≈ 0.12 in 2023 (TFR 0.9). France and the Netherlands, which entered the demographic transition earlier, started lower and have plateaued around d ≈ 0.09. Japan and Italy sit between, at d ≈ 0.08. The upper-middle panel pools the data by transition type—early, late, and extreme low fertility—and shows the convergence: all three categories are heading toward the same floor. The upper-right panel plots d directly against Total Fertility Rate and reveals a nearly linear relationship (r = 0.942). Fertility drives d. When women stop having children, the gene pool stops turning over. It is that simple.

The second row shows what happens to k as d collapses. The middle-left panel tracks k by country, with the dashed line at k = μ marking Kimura’s prediction. Not a single country, in any year, reaches k = μ. Every data point sits below the line, and the distance from the line has been increasing as k climbs toward a ceiling of approximately 0.5μ. This is the overlap effect: when generations overlap extensively, new mutations entering the population are diluted by the persistence of old allele frequencies, and k converges toward half the mutation rate rather than the full mutation rate. The middle-center panel pools k by transition type and shows all three categories converging on approximately 0.5μ by 2023. The middle-right panel plots k against TFR (r = −0.949): as fertility falls, k rises toward 0.5μ—but never reaches μ. The higher k seems counterintuitive at first, but it reflects the fact that with less turnover, drift rather than selection dominates, and the fixation of neutral mutations approaches its overlap-corrected maximum. The mutations are fixing, but selection is not driving them.

The third row is the knockout punch. The large scatter plot on the left shows d plotted against k across all countries and time points. The Pearson correlation is r = −0.991 with R² = 0.981, p < 0.001. This is not a rough trend or a suggestive pattern. This is a near-perfect linear relationship: d = −2.242k + 1.229. As demographic turnover collapses, fixation rates converge on the overlap limit with mechanical precision. The residual plot on the right confirms that the relationship is genuinely linear—no systematic curvature, no outliers, no hidden nonlinearity. The data points fall on the line like they were placed there by a draftsman.

The bottom panel normalizes everything to 1950 baselines and shows the parallel evolution of d and k across all three transition types. By 2023, d has fallen to roughly 35–45% of its 1950 value in every category. The bars make the asymmetry vivid: d collapses while k barely moves, because k was already near its overlap limit in 1950. Having stopped adapting around 1,000 BC and filtering around 1900 AD, the human genome was already struggling to even drift in 1950. By 2023, genetic drift has essentially stopped.

Now what does this mean for the application of Kimura’s fixation model to humanity?

It means that the identity k = μ—the foundation of the molecular clock, the basis for every divergence date in the standard model—has never applied to human populations in the modern era, and while it applies with increasing accuracy the further back you go, it never actually reaches k = μ even under pre-agricultural conditions, since d never reaches 1.0 for any human population. The data show that k in humans has been approximately 0.5μ or less throughout the entire modern period for which we have reliable demographic data, and was substantially lower than μ even in high-fertility populations. Kimura’s cancellation requires discrete generations with complete turnover. Humans have never had that. So the closer you look at real human demography, the worse the molecular clock performs.

But the implications extend beyond the molecular clock. The collapse of d is not merely a correction factor for dating algorithms. It is a quantitative measurement of the end of natural selection in industrialized populations. A Selective Turnover Coefficient of 0.08 means that only 8% of the gene pool is replaced per generation. A beneficial allele with a selection coefficient of s = 0.01—which would be considered strong selection by population genetics standards—would change frequency by Δp ≈ d × s × p(1−p). At d = 0.08 and initial frequency p = 0.01, that works out to a frequency change of approximately 0.000008 per generation. At that rate, fixation would require on the order of a million years—roughly two hundred times longer than the entire history of anatomically modern Homo sapiens.

The response of the demographic transition to fertility is not a surprise. Every demographer knows that TFR has collapsed across the industrialized world. What these charts show is the genetic consequence of that collapse, quantified with mathematical precision. The gene pool is freezing. Selection cannot operate when the population does not turn over. And the population is not turning over. This is not a prediction, an abstract formula, a theoretical projection, or a philosophical argument. It is six countries, four time points, two independent variables, and a correlation of −0.991. The human genome is frozen, and the molecular clock—which assumed it was running at a constant rate—was never accurately calibrated for the organism it was applied to.

Probability Zero and The Frozen Gene, taken together, are far more than just the comprehensive refutation of Charles Darwin, evolution by natural selection, and the Modern Synthesis. They are also the discovery and explication of one of the greatest threats facing humanity in the 21st and 22nd centuries.

This is the GenEx thesis, published in TFG as Generational Extension and the Selective Turnover Coefficient Across Historical Epochs, now confirmed with hard numbers across the industrialized world. The 35-fold decline in d from the Neolithic to the present that we calculated theoretically from Coale-Demeny life tables is now visible in real demographic data from six countries. Selection isn’t just weakening — it’s approaching zero, and the data show it happening in real time across every population that has undergone the demographic transition.

The human genome isn’t just failing to improve. It’s accumulating damage that it can no longer repair through the only mechanism available to it. Humanity is not on the verge of becoming technological demigods, but rather, post-technological entropic degenerates.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 008

IX. The Inevitable Self-Corruption

The deepest failure of the Enlightenment was not in politics or economics or science. It was in the very premise from which all else followed: the autonomy of reason.

Reason was to be self-grounding, answerable to no external authority. But reason cannot ground itself. Every attempt to provide a rational foundation for reason either assumes what it seeks to prove or regresses infinitely. The Enlightenment’s greatest minds recognized this problem and attempted to solve it, but their solutions have not survived either scrutiny or the experience borne of the passage of time.

Descartes sought certainty in the thinking self, but the existence of the self is precisely what requires demonstration; the cogito is an assumption, not a proof. Hume, being slightly more honest, admitted that reason could establish nothing beyond immediate impressions and the custom of conjunction; causation itself was a habit of mind, not a feature of reality. Kant attempted to rescue reason by distinguishing the phenomenal from the noumenal and confining knowledge to the realm of appearances, but this concession was fatal, because it amounted to an admission that reason could never directly touch reality itself.

The subsequent centuries have traced the consequences of this admission. If reason cannot reach reality, then reason is not discovering truth, it is constructing a variant of it. The positivists of the early twentieth century attempted to restrict knowledge to empirically verifiable propositions, but their criterion of verifiability was itself unverifiable. They constructed a self-refuting standard. The postmodernists of the late twentieth century finally admitted the inevitable result of Enlightenment philosophy: truth is a construction, a social product, an artifact defined by those with the power to enforce it. What counts as knowledge is what the powerful have decided to call knowledge. Reality is what those in authority define it to be. Reason is not a tool for discovering reality; it is merely a weapon in the struggle for dominance.

This is why the scientific authorities can declare that evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact. This is why the government authorities can declare that a married couple is divorced and that a man is truly a woman. In the postmodern world, there is no objective truth or objective reality, literally everything is subjective and capable of being redefined at any moment. War is Peace, Love is Hate, Free Association is Racism, and we have always been at war with Eastasia.

This Orwellian world is not a corruption of the Enlightenment; it is its idealistic completion. If reason is autonomous and answerable to nothing beyond itself, then reason is also groundless. And groundless reason is not reason at all, but sheer will dressed in rational costume. Nietzsche saw this more clearly than anyone: he understood that in Enlightened terms, the will to truth was only a form of the will to power, and those who claimed to serve truth were only serving themselves while wearing a more flattering mask.

The Enlightenment began by enthroning reason and ended by destroying it. The progression from Descartes to Derrida is not a decline or a betrayal, but the logical and inevitable path. Each generation discovered that the previous generation’s stopping point was arbitrary, that the foundations assumed were not foundations at all, that the certainties proclaimed were merely conventions. The Enlightenment’s acid dissolved not only tradition and revelation but eventually reason itself.

The modern West now lives among the ruins. The vocabulary of the Enlightenment persists, and men pay homage to its rights, progress, science, reason, freedom, but the very meanings of those words have been hollowed out entirely. No one can say what a human right is grounded in, or why progress is desirable, or how science differs from ideology, or what reason can legitimately claim, or where freedom ends and license begins. These concepts are invoked ritually, habitually, but they no longer make sense nor command belief. They are just antique furniture sitting in a ruined house whose foundations have collapsed.

DISCUSS ON SG

Ricardo’s Deliberate Deception

I recently had the privilege of assisting one of the world’s greatest economists in his detective work that comprehensively completes the great work of demolishing the conceptual foundation of the free trade cancer that, far from enriching them, has destroyed the economies of the West. The subsequent paper, The Deliberate Deception in Ricardo’s Defence of Comparative Advantage, was published today by the lead author, Steve Keen. And while it’s a pure coincidence that he happened to notice Ricardo’s textual amphiboly at about the same time that I noticed Kimura’s algebraic amphiboly, I don’t think it’s entirely accidental that two intellectual fixtures of modernity should prove to be constructed on such fundamentally flawed foundations.

Abstract
Ricardo’s arithmetical example of the gains from trade considers only the transfer of labour between industries, and ignores the need to transfer physical capital as well. He discusses the transfer of capital in the subsequent paragraph in Principles, but uses a textual amphiboly: whereas exploiting comparative advantage involves transferring resources from one industry to another in the same country, Ricardo speaks instead of the transfer of resources “from one province to another”. The fact that this verbal deception has escaped attention for over two centuries is in itself notable. When considered in the light of subsequent discussions of capital immobility by Ricardo, this implies that the person whose model led to the allocation of existing resources becoming the foundation of economic analysis, was aware that this foundation was fallacious.

Introduction
The theory of comparative advantage is perhaps the most influential and celebrated result in economics. Challenged by a mathematician to nominate an economic concept that was both “logically true” and “non-obvious”, Samuelson nominated the theory of comparative advantage:

That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that it is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.(Samuelson 1969, pp. 1-11)

From Ricardo’s original demonstration in 1817, to modern trade theory, the conclusion has remained constant: even if one nation is more efficient at producing everything than all others, it and its trading partners will gain from specialization and trade.

However, there is an obvious flaw in the logic: while labor can hypothetically be moved between industries at will, fixed capital cannot. Ricardo’s own text contains evidence that he knew that this reality invalidated his theory, since his defense of comparative advantage relied on an amphiboly that conflates two categorically different forms of capital mobility. Remarkably, though this evidence was hiding in plain sight, it has not been noted until now.

The Amphiboly: Province Versus Industry

In Chapter VII of the Principles, Ricardo presents his famous example of England and Portugal trading cloth and wine. Portugal has an absolute advantage in both goods but a comparative advantage in wine; England has a comparative advantage in cloth. Gains to both countries result from specialization according to comparative advantage. Portugal ceases cloth production and England ceases wine production, both countries focus their resources on the industries where they have a comparative advantage, and total output of both cloth and wine rises:

England may be so circumstanced, that to produce the cloth may require the labour of 100 men for one year; and if she attempted to make the wine, it might require the labour of 120 men for the same time. England would therefore find it her interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth. To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place, notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the manufacture of cloth. (Ricardo, Sraffa, and Dobb 1951, p. 135)

Ricardo next explains that international trade means that “England would give the produce of the labour of 100 men, for the produce of the labour of 80”, something which is not sensible with domestic trade. He then states that:

The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another in the same country. (Ricardo, Sraffa, and Dobb 1951, p. 136. Emphasis added)

“Province”? Why does Ricardo give the example of moving capital between provinces here? His model involves something categorically different: to exploit comparative advantage, capital must move between industries—from cloth production to wine production.

This is not a minor distinction. Geographic mobility of financial capital means that financial resources can flow to wherever returns are highest—a bank in London can lend to a manufacturer in Yorkshire. Geographic mobility of physical capital means moving equipment by road or canal, rather than by sea and ship. But sectoral mobility of physical capital means that the physical means of production in one industry can become the physical means of production in another—that looms can become wine presses, and vice versa. These are entirely different forms of mobility—one feasible, the other impossible.

Ricardo elsewhere in the Principles demonstrates his awareness of the distinction between physical and financial capital, and the fallacy inherent in treating physical capital as if it has the fungible characteristics of financial capital. In Chapter IV, “On Natural and Market Price,” he explains how the profit rate equalizes across industries: “the clothier does not remove with his capital to the silk trade” (Ricardo, Sraffa, and Dobb 1951, p. 89). Adjustment happens through the financial system, not through physical transformation of productive equipment. Only money moves between industries, and only relative prices change; the looms and the wine presses stay where and as they are.

Read the whole thing on Steve Keen’s site.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 007

VIII. The Pattern of Failure

Across every domain—political, economic, scientific—the same pattern emerges. An elegant theory is proposed, grounded in Enlightenment premises. The theory gains acceptance among the educated, becomes institutionalized in universities and governments, and achieves the status of unquestionable orthodoxy. Objections are raised, first on logical grounds; these are dismissed as mere philosophical and religious tradition and out of touch with practical reality. Objections are raised on mathematical grounds; these are dismissed as abstract modeling, irrelevant to the empirical world. Finally, empirical evidence accumulates that directly contradicts the theory, and the evidence is ignored, or misinterpreted and woven into the theory, or suppressed.

The defenders of the orthodoxy are not stupid, nor are they uniquely corrupt. They are responding to structural incentives. The infrastructure of modern intellectual life, of academic tenure, peer review, grant funding, journal publication, awards, and media respectability, all punish dissent and reward conformity. The young scholar who challenges the paradigm does not become a celebrated revolutionary; he becomes unemployable. The established professor who admits error does not become a model of intellectual honesty; he is either sidelined or prosecuted and becomes a cautionary tale. The incentives select for defenders, and the defenders select the next generation of defenders, and the orthodoxy perpetuates itself long after its intellectual foundations have crumbled.

The abstract and aspirational character of Enlightenment ideas made them particularly resistant to refutation. A claim about the invisible hand or the general will or the arc of progress is not easily tested. For who can see this hand or walk under that arc? By the time the empirical test that the average individual can understand becomes possible, generations have passed, the idea has become institutionalized, careers have been built upon it, and far too many influential people have too much to lose from admitting error. The very abstraction that made the ideas appealing in the first place—their generality, their elegance, their apparent applicability to all times and places—also made them difficult to pin down and hold accountable.

The more concrete ideas failed first. The Terror exposed the social contract within a decade. The supply and demand curve was refuted by 1953, though few noticed. The mathematical impossibility of Neo-Darwinism was demonstrated by 1966, though the biologists failed to explore the implications. The empirical failures of free trade have accumulated for forty years, and even to this day, economists continue to prescribe the same failed remedies for the economies their measures have destroyed. The pattern of Enlightenment failure is consistent: logic first, then mathematics, then empirical evidence—and still the orthodoxy persists, funded by corruption and sustained by institutional inertia and the professional interests of its beneficiaries.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 006

VII. The Scientific Failures

Science was the Enlightenment’s proudest achievement. Here, at last, was a method that worked: systematic observation, controlled experiment, mathematical formalization, rigorous testing. The results were undeniable. Physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering—the sciences transformed human life and demonstrated the power of disciplined reason applied to nature.

The prestige of science was not unearned. But the Enlightenment made a subtle and consequential error: it confused the success of scientific method within its proper domain with the sufficiency of scientific method for all domains. If physics could explain the motions of the planets, perhaps it could also explain the motions of the soul. If chemistry could analyze the composition of matter, perhaps it could also analyze the composition of morality. The success of science in one area became an argument for its supremacy in all areas.

This confidence has not aged well.

The institution of science, as distinct from the method, has proven vulnerable to precisely the corruptions that the Enlightenment imagined it would transcend. The guild structure of modern academia—tenure, peer review, grant funding, journal publication—was designed to ensure quality and independence. In practice, it has produced conformity and capture. The young scientist who wishes to advance must please senior scientists who control hiring, funding, and publication. Heterodox views are not refuted; they are simply not funded, not published, not hired. The revolutionary who challenges the paradigm does not receive a hearing and a refutation; he receives silence and exclusion.

The replication crisis has revealed the extent of the rot. Study after study, published in prestigious journals, approved by peer review, celebrated in the press, has proven impossible to replicate. The effect sizes shrink, the p-values evaporate, the findings dissolve upon examination. In psychology, in medicine, in nutrition science, in economics, the literature is contaminated with results that are not results at all but artifacts of bad statistics, selective reporting, and the relentless pressure to publish something—anything—novel and significant.

Peer review, that supposed guarantor of quality, has been exposed as inadequate to its function. The peers are competitors; the reviews are cursory; the incentives favor approval over scrutiny. Fraud, when it is detected, is detected years or decades after the damage is done. The process filters for conformity to existing paradigms, not for truth. The Enlightenment imagined science as a self-correcting enterprise; the corrections, it turns out, are slow, partial, and fiercely resisted by those whose careers depend on the errors.

It is in biology that the Enlightenment’s scientific project reaches its apex—and its most consequential failure.

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, proposed to explain the diversity of life through purely natural mechanisms: random variation and natural selection, operating over vast stretches of time, producing all the complexity we observe. No designer, no purpose, no direction—only the blind filter of differential reproduction. The theory was not merely scientific; it was the completion of the Enlightenment’s program to explain the world without recourse to anything beyond material causation.

Darwin’s idea, as Daniel Dennett observed, was “universal acid”—it ate through every traditional concept. If man is merely the product of blind variation and selection, then there is no soul, no purpose, no inherent dignity. Ethics becomes an evolved adaptation; consciousness becomes an epiphenomenon; free will becomes an illusion; man becomes a clever animal, nothing more. The stakes could not be higher. If Darwin was right, then the Enlightenment had completed its work: the world was fully explained in material terms, and everything else—meaning, value, purpose—was either reducible to matter or mere sentiment.

The scientific establishment embraced Darwin not merely as a hypothesis but as a foundation. To question evolution by natural selection was to mark oneself as a rube, a fundamentalist, an enemy of reason. The theory became unfalsifiable in practice—not because it was so well-confirmed, but because no alternative could be entertained within respectable discourse. The question was settled, and to reopen it was professional suicide.

But the question was never settled. It was merely avoided.

The mathematical problems with the theory were identified almost immediately. In 1867, Fleeming Jenkin raised an objection that Darwin never adequately answered: blending inheritance would dilute favorable variations before selection could act on them. The discovery of Mendelian genetics resolved this particular difficulty, but it raised others. The “Modern Synthesis” of the 1930s and 1940s combined Darwinian selection with Mendelian genetics and mathematical population genetics, creating the Neo-Darwinian framework that remains official orthodoxy today, even though it is honored mostly in the breach.

In 1966, mathematicians and engineers gathered at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia to examine the mathematical foundations of the Modern Synthesis. Their verdict was devastating. The rates of mutation, the population sizes, the timescales available—the numbers did not work. The probability of generating the observed complexity through random mutation and natural selection was effectively zero.

The biologists were unimpressed. They did not engage with the mathematics; they simply noted that the mathematicians were not biologists, and continued as before. The pattern established in 1966 has held ever since: mathematically literate outsiders raise objections; biologically credentialed insiders ignore them; the textbooks remain unchanged.

The mapping of the human and chimpanzee genomes in the early 2000s provided the data necessary to test the theory quantitatively. The genetic difference between the species requires approximately forty million mutations to have become fixed in the relevant lineages since the hypothesized divergence from a common ancestor. Using the fastest fixation rate ever observed in any organism—bacteria under intense selection in laboratory conditions—and the most generous timescales proposed in the literature, the mathematics permits fewer than three hundred fixations.

The theory requires forty million. The math allows three hundred. The gap is not a matter of uncertainty or approximation; it is a difference of five orders of magnitude. No adjustment of parameters, no refinement of models, no appeal to undiscovered mechanisms can bridge such a chasm. The theory of evolution by natural selection, as an explanation for the origin of species, is mathematically impossible.

This is not a controversial claim among those who can do the arithmetic. It is simply not discussed by those whose careers depend on not discussing it. The Enlightenment’s greatest scientific achievement—the explanation of life itself through material causes alone—is empirically false. And the institution of science, that much-hallowed engine of supposed self-correction, has proven incapable of acknowledging the mathematical falsification for sixty years.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 005

VI. The Usury Revolution

The failures of Enlightenment philosophy examined thus far—political, juridical, economic, scientific—share a common feature: they all represent the systematic failure of ideas. The social contract is a logical fiction. The law of supply and demand does not describe real markets. The theory of evolution by natural selection cannot survive the genetic arithmetic required. These are intellectual errors, and intellectual errors can, at least in principle, be corrected by the presentation of better arguments and more predictive models.

But the Enlightenment itself did not triumph through better arguments. It triumphed through rhetoric and institutional capture, and institutional capture requires resources. Ideas need patrons, publishers, platforms, and time. The philosophers needed salons; the salons needed hosts; the hosts needed wealth. The question of how the Enlightenment acquired the resources to propagate itself across centuries is not peripheral to its success; it is central. And the answer lies in a revolution that preceded and enabled all the others: the revolution in usury.

The Ancient Prohibition

The prohibition on usury is older than Christianity. It is older than Rome. The condemnation of lending at interest appears in the earliest legal codes of civilization and persists across cultures that had no contact with one another.

In Rome, the Twelve Tables—the foundation of Roman law, dating to approximately 450 BC—restricted interest rates and imposed severe penalties for usurious lending. The Lex Genucia of 342 BC banned interest entirely, though enforcement proved difficult. Cato the Elder, asked what he thought of lending at interest, replied: “What do you think of murder?” The Roman tradition understood usury as a form of theft—the extraction of wealth without the creation of value, the exploitation of necessity, the conversion of time itself into a commodity to be sold.

Long before Rome, the Greek philosophers concurred. Aristotle, in the Politics, condemned usury as the most unnatural form of wealth-acquisition. Money, he argued, is a medium of exchange, a measure of value, a tool for facilitating transactions. It is sterile; it does not breed. To charge for the use of money over time is to treat money as though it could generate offspring—to pretend that a tool has become a living thing. The unnaturalness of usury, for Aristotle, was not merely economic but metaphysical: it violated the nature of what money is.

The Jewish tradition prohibited usury among Israelites while permitting it in dealings with foreigners, a distinction that would later have significant historical consequences. The relevant passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy are unambiguous: “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.” The prohibition was grounded in the covenantal relationship among the people of Israel and the recognition that interest charges exploit vulnerability.

Christianity universalized the prohibition. The Fathers of the Church—Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome—condemned usury without exception. The medieval canonists developed the prohibition into a sophisticated legal and theological framework. The Third Lateran Council (1179) declared that manifest usurers should be denied Christian burial. The Second Council of Lyon (1274) prohibited rulers from permitting usury in their territories. Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica, provided the definitive philosophical analysis: to charge for the use of money is to sell what does not exist, to charge twice for the same thing, to violate both justice and the nature of money itself.

This was not arbitrary religious scruple. The prohibition rested on reasoned analysis of what money is and what lending involves. It reflected practical observation of what usury does to communities: concentrating wealth, dispossessing debtors, converting productive economies into extractive ones, transferring resources from those who labor to those who lend. The ancient and medieval world understood what the modern world has forgotten: that unrestricted usury is a solvent that dissolves social bonds and a weapon that transfers power from the many to the few.

The Erosion

The prohibition held for over a millennium. But it eroded, gradually, under the pressure of commercial expansion and the ingenuity of those who wished to circumvent it.

The medieval casuists—the canon lawyers and moral theologians who applied general principles to particular cases—developed increasingly sophisticated distinctions. Certain forms of return on investment were permissible: the census, a contract to purchase future income from productive property; the societas, a partnership in which both profit and risk were shared; the triple contract, a complex arrangement that nominally converted a loan into an investment. The lender who forewent profitable opportunities by lending his money could claim lucrum cessans—compensation for the gain he had sacrificed. The lender who suffered loss because of the borrower’s default could claim damnum emergens—compensation for actual damage incurred.

These distinctions were not always sophistical. There is a genuine difference between a loan at interest and an investment in productive enterprise, between compensation for actual loss and extraction of gain from another’s necessity. But the distinctions multiplied, and as they multiplied, the exceptions threatened to swallow the rule. What had been a clear prohibition became a maze of qualifications that only specialists could navigate—and specialists could usually find a path to the desired destination.

The Reformation accelerated the erosion. Luther initially condemned usury in terms as strong as any Church Father, but Protestant practice soon diverged from Protestant rhetoric. Calvin, in a famous letter, argued that the blanket prohibition on interest could not be sustained from Scripture alone—that the Old Testament texts applied to specific circumstances, that changed conditions required changed applications, that moderate interest on commercial loans was permissible where the borrower was not destitute. Calvin’s position was hedged with qualifications, but the qualifications were soon forgotten while the permission was remembered. The Protestant nations became laboratories for liberalized finance.

England, after Henry VIII’s break with Rome, began relaxing usury restrictions almost immediately. The Act of 1545 legalized interest up to 10 percent, technically as a pragmatic measure, but effectively turned out to be the abandonment of the principle. The rate ceiling was adjusted over the following centuries, always in the direction of liberalization, until the Usury Laws Repeal Act of 1854 abolished restrictions entirely. What had been sin became policy; what had been crime became commerce.

The Financial Revolution

The full consequences of usury’s legitimization emerged with the development of central banking and the instruments of modern finance.

The Bank of Amsterdam, founded in 1609, pioneered the model: a central institution that accepted deposits, transferred payments, and provided a stable currency for commercial transactions. It was a modest innovation compared to what followed. The Bank of England, established in 1694, added something new: the bank was created to lend money to the government, and the loan was funded by the creation of money that had not previously existed. The national debt was born—a permanent obligation of the state to its creditors, serviced by taxation, rolled over in perpetuity.

The implications were revolutionary. A government that can borrow against future revenues can spend beyond its current means. It can fund wars, projects, and patronage that would be impossible if limited to present taxation. And if the lenders can create the money they lend—as fractional reserve banking permits—then the constraint of actual savings is removed. Money becomes an abstraction, created by ledger entries, backed by promises, untethered from the production of real goods.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries elaborated these instruments. Central banks multiplied across Europe. Fractional reserve lending became standard practice: banks lent out more than they held in deposits, creating money through the act of lending. National debts grew, funded by bonds that became the foundation of financial markets. The gold standard imposed some discipline—currency was nominally redeemable in precious metal—but the discipline was progressively relaxed and finally abandoned in the twentieth century. Fiat currency, backed by nothing but government decree, became the norm. Money was now purely abstract: a number in an account, a promise from an institution, a claim on future production that might or might not be honored.

The twentieth century completed the transformation. The Federal Reserve, established in 1913, gave the United States a central bank with the power to expand and contract the money supply at will. The abandonment of the gold standard—partially in 1933, completely in 1971—removed the last constraint on money creation. Deficit spending became not merely possible but routine. Governments discovered that they could fund present consumption by borrowing from the future, that they could create money to purchase political support, that the costs would be dispersed through inflation while the benefits would be concentrated among the recipients of spending.

The Consequences

The usury revolution transformed the material conditions of intellectual life. Ideas require resources; resources could now be generated without limit by those who controlled the mechanisms of credit creation. The long game—patient investment over generations to capture institutions and shape minds—became possible in a way it had never been before.

Consider what is required to shift the intellectual orientation of a civilization. Scholars must be funded; chairs must be endowed; journals must be subsidized; books must be published; students must be supported. The process takes decades at minimum, generations in full. It requires patient capital, deployed consistently, according to a long-term strategy. Under the old dispensation—when wealth accumulated slowly through production and trade, when lending at interest was restricted, when money could not be created by fiat—such a project was difficult to sustain. Patrons died; fortunes dispersed; priorities shifted.

The usury revolution removed these constraints. Those who controlled credit creation had access to functionally unlimited resources. They could fund the salons, the academies, the journals, the chairs. They could sustain the funding across generations, with compound interest working in their favor. They could outspend any opponent operating on honest money and real savings. The tradition’s patrons—the old aristocracy, the Church—were increasingly constrained by the new financial order. The Enlightenment’s patrons had discovered infinite leverage.

This is not to reduce the intellectual contest to mere economics. The ideas mattered; the arguments mattered. But ideas need vectors, arguments need platforms, and truth needs defenders who can sustain the fight. The tradition brought dialectic to a financial war. It was outspent before it was outargued.

The consequences extend beyond the propagation of ideas. Usury transforms the structure of society. Wealth flows from debtors to creditors, from the productive to the financial, from the young to the old. Communities that once owned their land and tools become tenants and employees. Independence gives way to dependence; proprietorship gives way to wage labor; stability gives way to the anxiety of those who owe more than they own.

The Enlightenment promised liberation; the usury that funded it delivered a new form of bondage. The serf owed labor to his lord; the modern debtor owes money to institutions he has never seen, created through mechanisms he does not understand, compounding at rates that ensure the debt can never be fully repaid. The chains are invisible, but they are chains nonetheless.

The Inversion Complete

The trajectory is now complete. What was prohibited has become mandatory. Modern economies do not merely permit usury; they require it. The entire financial system rests on debt: consumer debt, corporate debt, government debt. Money itself is debt—a liability of the central bank, created through lending, destroyed through repayment. An economy that repaid its debts would be an economy without money. The system requires perpetual expansion of debt to function; deleveraging is not an option but a crisis.

What was vice has become virtue. Borrowing is “investment.” Saving is “hoarding.” The debtor is a contributor to economic growth; the saver is an obstacle to prosperity. The moral vocabulary has been inverted along with the practice. Prudence, the ancient virtue of providing for the future, is now deemed to be an economic drag. Profligacy, once considered the ancient vice of consuming beyond one’s means, has become the primary engine of economic growth through consumer and government spending.

The Enlightenment’s intellectual victory was underwritten by this financial revolution. The ideas could not have propagated without the resources; the resources could not have been generated without the legitimization of usury; the legitimization of usury required the abandonment of the tradition’s moral and economic framework. The battles were connected. The tradition lost on multiple fronts simultaneously, and the losses reinforced one another.

Understanding this history is essential for any project of renewal. The tradition was not merely out-argued; it was out-spent. Any attempt to recover what was lost must reckon with the material conditions of intellectual life. Ideas need institutions; institutions need funding; funding, in the modern world, is controlled by those who control credit. The tradition cannot simply reassert its truths and expect them to prevail. It must build alternative structures, cultivate alternative resources, play the long game with the same patience and persistence that its opponents displayed.

The usury revolution was not incidental to the Enlightenment’s triumph. It was foundational. And the financial, social, and moral consequences of its acceptance remain with us, shaping the conditions under which any attempt at civilizational renewal must operate.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 004

V. The Economic Failures

The Enlightenment extended its confidence to the economic realm. Just as reason could discern the laws of nature and the principles of just government, so too could it uncover the mechanisms by which wealth is created and distributed. The result was classical economics, with its promise of prosperity through rational organization of production and exchange.

Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, became the founding text of this enterprise. At its heart lay the law of supply and demand: the elegant mechanism by which prices adjust to balance what producers offer and what consumers desire. Let the market operate freely, Smith argued, and an invisible hand would guide individual self-interest toward collective prosperity. The baker bakes not from benevolence but from self-love, and yet we all have bread.

The law of supply and demand became the bedrock of economic reasoning. It appeared in every textbook, was taught in every university, and informed the policy of every nation that aspired to modernity. For two centuries, it seemed as solid as Newton’s laws.

It was an illusion. In 1953, the economist William Gorman demonstrated mathematically that individual demand curves cannot be aggregated into a coherent market demand curve under the conditions that actually obtain in real economies. The proof is technical, but its implications are devastating: the supply and demand curves that generations of economists drew on their chalkboards, the intersecting lines that determined equilibrium prices, do not correspond to anything that exists in actual markets. The law of supply and demand, as commonly understood, is not a law at all. It is a pedagogical simplification that fails precisely when applied to the phenomena it was meant to explain.

This was not a minor qualification or a boundary case. It was a falsification of the foundational model. Yet the economics profession continued teaching supply and demand as though Gorman had never written. Decades later, Steve Keen brought Gorman’s work to wider attention and documented the discipline’s remarkable capacity to ignore what it could not answer. The emperor had been shown to be naked in 1953, even though in 2025, the textbooks still describe his magnificent robes that supposedly improve things for everyone.

David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage suffered a similar fate. Published in 1817, the theory purported to demonstrate that free trade benefits all parties, even when one nation is more efficient at producing everything. Each nation should specialize in what it produces relatively best, trade for the rest, and all will prosper. This elegant argument became the intellectual foundation of free trade policy for two centuries.

The argument contains a fatal assumption: that the factors of production, and especially labor, do not move between nations. Ricardo’s proof works only if English cloth-workers cannot become Portuguese wine-makers, and vice versa. In the early nineteenth century, this assumption was approximately true. In the twenty-first century, it is obviously false. Cheap transportation and communication have made labor mobility a defining feature of the global economy. The assumption upon which the entire edifice rests no longer obtains, and with it falls the conclusion.

Ian Fletcher systematically demolished the theoretical foundations of comparative advantage. The assumptions required for the theory to hold—not only labor immobility but perfect competition, no economies of scale, no externalities, no strategic behavior—describe no economy that has ever existed. More recently, Steve Keen has identified the amphiboly that rendered the proof invalid from the start. Comparative advantage is not a law of nature; it is a fictional fantasy describing a hypothetical world, and our world is not that world.

The empirical verdict has been equally damning. After three decades of trade agreements, including NAFTA, the EEA, and the WTO, the prosperity that was promised by free trade has proven highly selective. The nations that preached free trade most fervently have watched their manufacturing bases erode, their working classes immiserated, their trade deficits balloon. The nations that practiced strategic protectionism have prospered at the expense of those who didn’t. The correlation between free trade ideology and the flourishing of a nation runs precisely opposite to what the theory predicts.

No one who has watched the hollowing-out of the American industrial heartland, the stagnation of Western wages, the rise of the Chinese export machine, can believe that free trade has delivered on its promises. The economists who assured the public that the gains would be shared, that the dislocations would be temporary, that retraining would absorb the displaced, these economists were not necessarily all lying. But they were reasoning from simplified models that did not describe reality and mistook the coherent elegance of their mathematics for the truth.

And finally, for three hundred years, we have been assured by the economists that debt did not matter. They even omitted it from their most complicated equations and declared that it did not matter if Peter owed Paul or Paul owed Peter, that debt was just a variable on both sides of the equation that cancelled itself out. Now the entire Western world awash in debts it cannot pay and institutional investors now own 20 million private homes, 15 percent of the total housing stock in the United States.

This, too, is a consequence of the Enlightenment’s successful war on the laws that once prevented people from falling into debt servitude. Now debts are increasingly noncancelable even by bankruptcy, the total U.S. debt is $106 trillion, and each and every native-born U.S. citizen’s share of that debt is $365,500. Instead of making everyone wealthy as was promised, the economics of the Enlightenment have turned a once-free people into a collection of debt slaves.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 003

IV. The Inversion of Rights

No concept is more central to the Enlightenment’s self-understanding than the idea of natural right, the inherent entitlements that belong to every human being by virtue of reason and nature, prior to and independent of any government. Life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness: these were to be the inviolable foundations upon which a just, rational, and enlightened society would be built.

The subsequent history of human rights demonstrates something the Enlightenment philosophers clearly did not anticipate and never discussed: a right without a sound basis is a right that can be redefined, expanded, contracted, and ultimately inverted by a government deemed capable of granting and defining them.

Consider the fate of intellectual freedom, that most cherished of Enlightenment values. J.B. Bury, in his 1913 History of the Freedom of Thought, offered a confident chronicle of humanity’s liberation from the shackles of religious and political censorship. The trajectory seemed clear: from the persecution of Socrates, through the medieval suppression of heresy, to the hard-won victories of the modern age, mankind was progressing toward ever-greater liberty of mind. A great scholar and the editor of The Cambridge Medieval History series, Bury wrote as a true believer in Enlightenment ideals, and his beliefs were representative of educated opinion in his time.

The subsequent century has not vindicated his optimism.

The progression—or rather, regression—is traceable through the very language of the freedom Bury celebrated. The original concept was freedom of thought. But this, upon examination, is a tautology. No external power has ever been able to reach into a man’s mind and compel his thoughts. The Inquisition could burn a heretic; it could not make him believe. Thought is already free by its very nature—it is private, inaccessible, beyond the reach of any tyrant. To proclaim “freedom of thought” as a right is to proclaim a right to what no one can take away.

The tautology was resolved by externalizing the freedom. Freedom of thought became freedom of speech: the liberty not merely to think but to express, to articulate, to attempt persuasion. The fact that freedom of speech was always fundamentally flawed and utilized primarily to defuse the blasphemy laws in Christian societies never seemed to trouble its champions, even as people were punished for perjury, slander, and other speech-related crime.

But the expansion of the right did not stop there. Freedom of speech was soon expanded into freedom of expression: not merely words but conduct, symbols, art, gesture—the full range of human communicative action. This expansion seemed natural, even inevitable. If speech is protected, why not the t-shirt with a slogan, the armband, the flag, the dance, the photograph, or the pornographic video. Expression is simply speech by other means, after all.

Even as the scope of the freedom was expanded, the Enlightenment tradition also expanded the domain of regulating speech. Once expression is the category, expression can be parsed, distinguished, and classified. Some expressions are protected; others are not. And who determines the boundaries? Those with the power to enforce them.

The terminus of this progression is now visible. In the nations most committed to Enlightenment values, the ones that pride themselves on their liberal traditions and constitutional protections, speech is criminalized today to a degree that would have astonished Bury. In Britain, in Germany, in France, in Canada, and increasingly in the United States, one may not express, and in some cases may not be permitted to hold, certain prohibited thoughts. “Hate speech” codes, “anti-discrimination” requirements, “anti-extremism” measures: the vocabulary varies, but the effect is consistent. The freedom of thought that Bury celebrated has become the regulation of expression that his heirs enforce.

The right, unmoored from any transcendent ground and no longer endowed by Man’s creator, transmogrified into anything those in power declared it to be or not to be. The freedom to think became the freedom to speak, became the freedom to express, and became the freedom to express only what is permitted, which is to say, no freedom at all. The Enlightenment’s signature achievement consumed itself through its own warped logic, and those who enforced the final inversion did so in the name of the very values they were negating.

Nor was this the only right that was modified over time. The right of free association transformed into the crime of racism. The right to worship the Christian God was reduced to the right to pray in silence so long as no one noticed. The right of self-defense was inverted into an obligation to retreat. Even the marital rights of a man to his wife and children, honored throughout the centuries, were reduced to nothing more than financial obligations.

The is not a corruption of Enlightenment principles by its enemies. To the contrary, it is the application and extension of those principles by their truest believers.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 002

III. The Political Failures

The Enlightenment promised to place politics on a rational foundation. In place of the divine right of kings, the accidents of inheritance, and the weight of tradition, the people would be ruled more justly by a government grounded in reason and consent. The results of this centuries-long experiment are now in, and they do not vindicate those who advocated for it.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract, published in 1762, proposed that legitimate political authority rests upon an agreement among free individuals to submit to the general will. The concept was elegant and has proven remarkably durable as a legitimating fiction. But it was never anything more than a fiction. No actual contract was ever signed. No one has ever been consulted about its terms nor has anyone ever been permitted to negotiate them. The consent of the governed is presumed from the mere fact of residence and geographic location, which is to say, it is not consent at all but submission enforced by the impracticality of any alternative. The man who may freely leave a country provided he abandons his home, his family, his language, his livelihood, and everything he knows, is not free in any meaningful sense. He is merely presented with a choice between submission and exile, and given the universal jurisdiction claimed by some countries, he may not even have that.

This abstraction at the heart of social contract theory, the idea that rational individuals in some imaginary past are assumed to have agreed to certain specific terms, does precisely the work that rational argument can never do: it manufactures consent that was never given by anyone. And this manufactured consent has proven useful for its ability to justify anything. Just thirty years after the publication of the Social Contract, Robespierre was sending men to their deaths on the guillotine in the name of the general will. The Jacobins were not betraying Rousseau’s principles, to the contrary; they were applying them. If the general will is supreme, and if some enlightened vanguard is able to discern that will more clearly than the confused masses, then terror in the service of the general will is not tyranny, but liberation. The Revolution did not reject the social contract. It followed exactly where its logical premises led.

Representative democracy was meant to solve the problem of scale: direct democracy being impractical for large nations in the Eighteenth Century. Therefore, the people would elect representatives to deliberate on their behalf. The representatives would be constrained by accountability to their constituents, and the result would approximate the will of the people as closely as circumstances allowed.

Three centuries of practice have demonstrated the gap between theory and reality. The representatives are accountable not to the people but to the interests that fund their campaigns and the parties that control their advancement. The people are consulted every few years, presented with choices they did not make, between candidates selected by processes they do not control, on platforms that will be abandoned the moment they become inconvenient. Between elections, the permanent bureaucracy—elected by no one, accountable to no one—governs according to its own institutional logic. The people’s will, to the extent it can be determined, is an obstacle to be managed through media, education, and when necessary, simple disregard.

And direct democracy, which is now tenable due to technological advancement, is opposed everywhere by the representatives who claim to speak for the people. Referendums that consult the people directly are opposed by politicians and overturned by judges. The genuine will of the people is systematically thwarted by the Enlightenment’s parody of itself.

This anti-popular representative democracy is not a deviation from the democratic ideal; it is its mature expression. The Enlightenment theorists imagined that rational voters would deliberate on the common good and select wise representatives to enact sound policy. They refused to contemplate the way in which the structures of representative democracy would inevitably be captured by those with the strongest motivations to do so and the sufficient resources to control them. The will of the people is not expressed by modern democracy; it is manufactured by the elite, distributed by the media, channeled through one or another of the ruling party’s factions, and then imposed by the government.

The separation of powers was designed to prevent tyranny by dividing authority among competing branches. The executive, legislative, and judicial were supposed to check each other’s oversteps, ensuring that no single faction could dominate. This mechanism has proven altogether inadequate to its stated purpose. The branches have not remained in productive tension; they have merged into a single ruling apparatus with superficial divisions. The legislature delegates its authority to executive agencies and abdicates its responsibility to make difficult decisions. The judiciary legislates from the bench, discovering in ancient documents various rights, requirements, and limitations that none of its authors could ever have imagined. The executive acts unilaterally whenever the legislature proves inconvenient. The separation of powers has not contained government overreach, it has instead provided a complex machinery for diffusing responsibility and eliminating accountability while concentrating effective control.

What the Enlightenment theorists failed to take into consideration is that political structures do not operate upon rational principles, but upon incentives, interests, and the will to power. Parchment barriers, however cleverly designed, constrain only those who choose to be constrained. The Constitution of the United States has not prevented the emergence of a surveillance state, a long series of undeclared wars, the demographic adulteration of the nation, or the periodic disenfranchisement of half the citizenry through the two-party system. It has merely required that all of the developments that materially harm the very Posterity whose rights the Constitution was written to safeguard be dressed in constitutional language.

DISCUSS ON SG