We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.
The problem is quite simple. It’s just unpleasant. But the universe is not kind. It has no mercy. And science tells us uncomfortable truths.
if you cannot find a means of survival in the market, and others can do so but at lower prices, humanity does not need you. If humanity does not need you then your only choice is to find a means to make your nation, region, tribe, kin, or family need you. The problem with any MONOPOLY order (Fascist, Libertarian, Socialist), and the problem we created in the enlightenment promise that all people could join the middle upper middle, or aristocratic classes, if we expanded either the authoritarian, market, or socialist forms of economy. Instead, we need economies for each of the major classes, because we need to organize each of those classes differently. So monopolies, even monopoly democracy (majoritarianism) turns out to be the problem rather than the solution to the differences in the productivity of the estates of the realm (martial-order, burger-managemnet, craftsman-producer).
There exist only three possible axes of coercion:
– Bribery: Markets and Insurance
– Fraud: Religion, Propaganda, and Deceit
There exist only three axes of cooperation:
There exist only three rational axes:
– Predation when possible (immorality),
– Exchange when Possible (morality);
– Avoidance when possible (amorality).
There exist only three methods of negotiation on cooperation.
– Truth(science), Truthfulness, Honesty
– Falsehood: Error, Bias, wishful thinking, suggestion/framing/loading, overloading/pseudoscience/pseudorationalism/propaganda, and deceit.
There exist only three axes of Organization
– Separation (resistance)
There exist only three possible axes of decidability for cooperative organizations:
– Deliberate Selection via Authoritarianism (Fascism)
– Pragmatic Eugenic Meritocracy (Markets)
– Dysgenic Malthusian Equalitarianism (Socialism)
The earth tells us a very clear, very obvious, very loud message: there are too many of us. Humans are not precious or special or valuable or intrinsically good. We are rational super predators organized by the application of violence and law, market and productivity, and norm and family.
You want me to say something offensive? Ok. How’s this: what’s a greater crime? The holocaust (the forcible deportation to of a gypsies, jews, and other non-conformists) or the inventions of the infantilizing lies of the Abrahamic religions and Cosmopolitan pseudoscience? (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Adorno+Co, Rothbard/Rand, Straussian Neo-Conservatism, Feminism, Postmodernism, and “Political Correctness”?)
What has caused more harm to mankind? It’s not even worth discussing. And after the west rescues the disenfranchised, what do they do? They struggle to destroy it by turning our high trust homogenous polity into another failed Levantine catastrophe.
THE UTOPIA CANNOT EXIST
We either create small prosperous redistributive high trust homogenous states, or we create a large corrupt low trust poor caste system.
There is no alternative.
WHY ARE WE NOT BETTER OFF KILLING, DISPOSSESSING OR ENSLAVING YOU?
The fact that I don’t kill you, enslave you, or dispossess you, and instead cooperate with you for mutual benefit, does not include the presumption that I will sacrifice for you. If I must sacrifice for you then I am better of killing, enslaving, or dispossessing you.
You presume too much. contribution to commons, and insurance against vicissitudes of nature, are not the same as redistribution allowing you to increase your consumption and reproduction.
The Propertarian Institute
Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not.
Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons.
So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives.
Why? Because of loss aversion. Given that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them.
The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two-dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.
The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outlast’s one’s lifetime, and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization.
( recorded here )
This is such a great question. And I can answer it from several or all points of view.
- First: any argument to principle is not argument to causality and can be generally interpreted as an attempt at deceit by the use of half truths in order to cause the individual to rely on intuition and therefore be the victim of suggestion.
- Second: the full sentence would be that man acts in his rational self interest at all times given his available information and his available means of understanding.
- Third: mises epistemology is a derivation of the kantian fallacy. Because while we can use free association to construct hypotheses, in the form of deduction, induction, and abduction (guessing), we cannot claim these to be truth propositions like we can in geometry, ( nor can we in geometry at scale either) because the information in reality is more causally dense than the ideal world of perfect imaginary mathematical categories. So for truth propositions we must ensure to perform due diligence that our discovery of a free association remains a truth candidate.
This is what the scientific method accomplished: due diligence against falsehood. That is all. And our success arises from eliminating many errors so that our free associations are increasingly superior.
What does this mean?
It means that economic observations remain empirical – beyond direct perception. But that we must be able to explain any empirical observation as a sequence of subjectively testable voluntary operations in order for it to be a truth candidate.
So Mises had it backward. All sciences require empirical observation to capture imperceptible phenomenon, but all truth claims must be warranted against error bias wishful thinking, suggestion and error, by acts of due diligence.
The test of existential possibility and objective morality is performed praxeologically: by subjectively testing the sequence of operations necessary to produce the empirically observed phenomenon.
I could go on at length here but this should be enough.
It is obvious to me that just as anglos used martial empiricism and contractualism in their enlightenment. And just as Germans used hierarchical duty and rationalism as a restatement of Germanic Christianity. The Jews used the authoritarianism of Jewish law as a reformation of their religion.
We can see mises like Freud, Marx, and Boaz as attempting to create an authoritarian pseudoscience using half truth and suggestion because Jewish law and religion is constructed by this method.
My rather uncomfortable observation is that this technique like Jewish ghetto financing, is a pattern under which suggestion can be use to use temporal language to create seductive moral hazards from which they and profit.
That mises had like Rothbard adopted this strategy metaphysically and involuntarily is obvious.
Both men, like Marx, went to their graves knowing they were wrong but not knowing yet what assumptions in their cultural heritage caused them to err.
(by Eli Harman )
Elites are naturally less racist, less ethnocentric, more cosmopolitan, than the lower classes. Elites can interact with *other* elites as peers. They don’t have to squabble over pieces of pie because they can make pie.
But the lower classes are justifiably racist, nationalistic, xenophobic, because they are in direct competition over resources they don’t create, infrastructure, services, social spending, jobs, and so on and so forth.
Additionally, the higher impulsivity of the lower classes increases the frictions that arise from differences and proximity. And they can’t afford to isolate themselves from these.
The classes can cooperate on common interests. And elites can cooperate with foreign elites. But in order for these two imperatives not to conflict, and for classes not to conflict, elites must stop claiming, defending, exercising, and sacralizing a “right” to betray and sacrifice their lower classes to others.
A people are less without their elites. But elites are nothing without their people.
Time to teach them.
H/t Curt Doolittle
I think what is abhorrent to leftists is that business and productivity are innately competitive and consist of attempting to outwit other tribes of males for market territory.
This is antithetical to the r-selection instincts of females and their effeminate offspring and the sexually inverted ((( tribes ))).
In their world they cannot compete and seek consensus and non-conflict and reciprocality.
They do not see competition as calculation by trial and error of efficiencies in the interest of all.
They sense only the short term experience rather than judge long term consequences.
Hence why we must never take the feminine or effeminate opinion seriously.
It is a temporal blindness and a moral blindness just like Color blindness.
The Propertarian Institute
HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW
(very important ideas inside)
1-Find a Lie
2-Ask if it is really true.
3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away.
4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed.
AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW
(number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.)
1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments.
3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law.
4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism.
5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law.
6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain.
8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law.
11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded.
13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time.
14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law.
20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW.
22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia.
23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying
28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language.
30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies.
33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women.
38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek.
43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER.
46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law.
50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading.
52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique).
54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth.
55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON.
58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ.
62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse.
I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.
HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST)
In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse.
But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument.
This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies.
So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud.
However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally.
Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.*
Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas.
But that argument is:
1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws.
2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies.
3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong).
4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular.
5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited.
Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law.
Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well.
Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it.
We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes.
I love you Tom, but we have two over invested generations alive today grasping at the straws of the hippie generation promise of libertarian communes.
But Liberty and sovereignty have only been constructed and only can be constructed by the organised use of violence to prohibit the alternatives.
Wishful thinking will die with the generation of over invested wishful thinkers – buried by the empirical evidence that Liberty, personal responsibility under Liberty, and the costly use of violence to obtain and hold that Liberty, is the desire of but a few.
And so called libertarians may desire Liberty, may willingly carry the individual responsibility, but when it comes to paying the high cost of using violence to obtain and hold Liberty, they run away from that cost as rapidly as socialist run away from individual responsibility.
So I see no difference between wishful thinking by socialists on the economy and personal responsibility, and wishful thinking by so called libertarians on the government and the high cost of violence needed to secure Liberty.
Both are acts of fraud using moral pretence to attempt to excuse the payment of a cost necessary to obtain their desires.
Fraud is fraud no matter what moral pretence it is wrapped in
That socialist will fight, but not compete in the market. The libertarian will compete in the market but not fight.
The conservative will both fight and compete in the market and bear the cost of norms and laws that place the inter generational family ahead of the temporal individual.
As far as I can see conservatives are the only people willing to pay the cost of Liberty: normative, economic and military.
Everyone else is a fraud.
The Propertarian Institute.
FOR SALON: A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW
As one of the principle philosophers of what liberals refer to as “reactionary fascism”….
… I’d like to add that the problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.
Liberal(socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.
The conservative(aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.
What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.
Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.
The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.
The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.
1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.
2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.
3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.
4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.
5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.
6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.
7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.
Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.
WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?
Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.
1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)
In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.
In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.
2) The Chinese / Russian (conquerors)
The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.
The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the
3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (enfranchisors)
The forest-and-rivers of the european plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.
In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.
4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)
In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.
We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.
We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.
THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE
The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to)
The Caste System (which is evolving in south america)
The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china)
The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism)
In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.
Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.
There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.
This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.
Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.
And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
(RE: http://freenortherner.com/2015/11/06/what-is-neoreaction/ )
( Hoppe is a german rationalist cum cosmopolitan, yarvin/mencius is a cosmopolitan, and I am an anglo empiricist. This is not an opinion, but a statement of the method of argument employed. And the differences in our approaches demonstrate the weaknesses of the hermeneutic cosmopolitan, and german rationalist methods compared to the anglo empirical method.
In this response I try to hint at why propertarianism is very much part of the dark enlightenment, but post-NRx in the sense that it’s an empirical rather than rational or moral formation. )
[N]ot that I mean to act as a critic, or to draw attention away from your excellent post, but you might need to add the third point in the first position.
THE FAILURE OF THE UTOPIAN CATHEDRAL’S RELIGION
First and foremost it is a criticism of the Cathedral Complex: Academy, State and Media, and the use of propaganda to perpetuate detrimental falsehoods.
I would argue that the criticism of the Cathedral Complex as a False Promise using deceit, pseudoscience, and propaganda, is the first principle of Neo-Reaction, and the most effective content in the neo-reactionary movement.
NeoCameralism I agree with. The state is a corporation acting in the interests of its management and staff at the expense of the customers long term interest, by the constant sale of territorial, physical, cultural, and normative capital in exchange for short term consumption (r-selection). The problem is, how do we construct commons: territorial, physical, cultural, and normative while at the same time, eliminating the privatization of those commons that is the means by which the Academy, State, Media complex sustains and expands itself?
Formalism attempts but fails to capture what one intuits in its use, which is why I’ve restated it in greater depth as a complete philosophical system
It is the failure of formalism (because the author is a hermeneuticist of the cosmopolitan jewish tradition) that prevents neo-reaction from institutional actionability. Unless expressible as law (the anglo analytic and empirical tradition) it must be propagated as religion using the same propaganda mechanisms that the cathedral complex relied upon, but without possessing either the assets of distribution or equalling the incentives that the cathedral promises. This is non-logical.
THE CRITICISM INFORMS US
In propertarianism and testimonialism I have created a formal system of thought that unifies biology, psychology, morality, sociology, philosophy, law, economics, and war into a formal logic (Formalism). Propertarianism inverts democracy to a market for commons between the classes, not dependent upon assent, but upon dissent: survival under universal standing under law. (prohibition on parasitic outcomes). A law which is made possible by the formal unification of the fields.
Small changes in the law – the constitution upon which laws are constructed – make a reactionary program possible. But in this case, it is not reactionary, but revolutionary – not restitution but reformation.
The Propertarian Institute
(profound)(group evolutionary strategies)(macro-sociology)
[O]nce you grasp that Cosmopolitan (Marxist-Socialist, Libertine, Neoconservative) Critique is an attempt at exclusionary authoritarianism – a modern restatement of the technique applied in Jewish argument and law – it becomes fairly obvious why the combination of (a) desire for obscurant arguments to be true, (b) emotional and intellectual investment in the truth of these obscurant arguments, and (c) hostility to refutation, are so pervasive: 1) psychological utility obtained from intuitional moral ‘righteousness’, 2)group unity in that moral conviction, and 3) ostracization of non-believers on the other, are precisely what ‘separatists’ require of a religion.
However, this modern set of religions is pseudo-scientific and pseudo-rational rather than legal, mystical and monotheistic in verbal construction. But the verbal construction is merely a technological advancement over monotheistic mythology, and jewish dual-ethics-law.
Northern europeans used truth, property and fighting as the binding commitment to one another, not belief. We used opportunity to join success in a hostile landscape, and they used threat of ostracization in among hostile tribes. We are all the product of our ancient geographies.
The strategies of the weak and small in number, versus the strong and small in number. Both Jewish and Germanic systems of thought evolved for use by small populations.
You will take notice which strategy leads to the construction of vast civilizations, technology, art, science and medicine, and what the other led to – near extermination.
The Propertarian Institute
[T]he central proposition of neo-reaction is that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state; and that as a consequence, society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism: the promise of an aristocracy of everyone. It is another “good-news” religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.
Instead of the church teaching supernatural analogy, we have academia, public intellectuals and the state all preaching the new religion of progressivism. And this new religion, is an evil religion: pseudoscientific rather than supernatural, irrational rather than logical, dishonest rather than allegorical, consumptive and destructive rather than accumulative, dysgenic rather than evolutionary, and suicidal rather than exceptional.
And so, western philosophy didn’t go wrong four years ago, or ten years ago, or eighty years ago – but it went fundamentally and terribly wrong over three centuries ago, with the enlightenment.
We had already evolved the best form of government yet devised: a market for production of private goods and services, and a house for each of the classes to produce common goods and services we cannot produce in the market alone.
And our only significant error was to fail to grasp that the church: the representative of the common people, served as one of those houses of government, and should not have been separate from the other two: the long term interests of the martial land owners, the medium term interests of entrepreneurial banking, production and trade. Instead, we handed the aristocracy and commerce to the new church: the academy and its priesthood the public intellectuals. America is ruled by a theocracy.
The central problem of any post-hunter-gatherer society, engaged in production, is to ensure that the fecundity of the unproductive does not eradicate the increases in productivity of the creative – but that those increases are accumulated as a competitive advantage against the fecundity of not only our own relations, but of those who would replace us. Otherwise all innovation is translated into population expansion rather than advancement. Northern european civilization succeeded faster than all others, in no small part because it concentrated reproduction in its upper classes, not in expanding the burden of its lower classes.
Neo-reaction then, is an articulate and accurate criticism of the enlightenment and its evidentiary failure culminating in the late 20th century – including the rejection of the ideology by the adoption of totalitarian consumer capitalism everywhere other than the west. Propertarianism, including Aristocratic Egalitarianism, Testimonial Truth and Operationalism provide the logical and institutional solution to the problem of cooperation among competing interests we call ‘politics’, that the Enlightenment, and Neo-Reaction did not.