Form: Critique

YARVIN VERSION TWO PART TWO

—“Eric Danelaw lmao I just realised the disconnect

You’re a Propertarian which is why you operate in such a nonsensical Gestalt Reminder that Propertarianism is just Liberalism with some testosterone.”— Arrus Kacchi (and all quotes that follow)

Propertarianism is ‘just’ rule of law by reciprocity, testimony, and government under both, and the explanation for western successes in the ancient and modern world. You can construct any government under propertarianism. I recommend a series of three choices that flex under war, regularity, and windfalls.

—“Moreover that argument pertaining to Moldbug is weak as fuck considering that he uses the De Jouvenelian and Carlylean analysis throughout UR and increasingly the former in his newest piece”—

I don’t make mistakes. It’s constructed via conflationary continental reasoning as are De Jouvenel and Carlyle, I just use the science. Not the storytelling. (Propaganda).

—“Other than that there are definitely nuggets of truth in what you’ve just said about subcultures but you’re also missing a key piece which is linguistic forms”—

I’m not missing linguistic forms I’m specifically naming and comparing them. And note how precise each of the series I use is.

—“It’s not all reducible to biology like that because Power and Language play massive roles in tandem with biology which often inform sexual selection”—

This is true. One can appeal to ignorance superstition, error and intuition or one can educate people out of ignorance, superstition, error, and intuition. Propaganda and ideology make use of appeal, science, logic, and law do the opposite.

—“Thus in many situations biological expressions are posterior to power”–

This is true. It also presumes that ideology is not a development of democracy, and philosophy a propaganda in the form of advice to pre-democratic regimes, and theology a coutner-revolution against pre democratic regimes.

In other words you’re advocating and chris is practicing the postmodern (jewish) program, not the anglo ratio-empirical-legal that made modernity possible.

—“How? To understand the language, words/phrases/ideas we use to think and speak with, and as language is a mode of intentional discipline we must posit an intentional agent who is fundamentally directing or has directed the forms of language we are using.”—

I agree that the postmodern strategy of derrida foucault et al whose advocacy of social construction as a means of undermining western civilization just as they used abrahamic theology and the false promise of power in the ancient world.

—“But language itself is acquired through socialisation. The ideas, words and phrases you use to think and speak with aren’t your own but in so far as they are truly original, you can only really explain what they are and mean by appealing to the meaning of its related words, concepts and phrases of which you inherited, perhaps from family, some tradition of thought or otherwise has imparted upon you external from yourself.”–

Yes, people are victims of ignorance, superstition, error, bias, wishful thinking, the fictionalisms of idealism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism, and are willing victims of baiting into hazard by appeal to all of the above, rather than paying the high cost of educating them. I understand.

—“Someone must have been the first to use these words, thoughts, phrases etc because it would be impossible for them to just cause-lessly manifest in our minds and if they did they would be meaningless because they lack necessary anterior intention which makes them intelligible.”—

Every culture developed a strategy about the same time in history and is anchored in it – usually around the time they adopted landholding – or failed to (inuit, gypsies, semites). That anchoring was the group’s competitive (evolutionary) strategy. Grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation) is limited in variation across peoples varying by transmission speed, informational content speed, and precision (high context low precision vs low context high precision). Paradigms that enforce group strategies establish the values within, and the hierarchy of dependent paradigms. The reason being that while we can pay direct costs (taxes etc), or indirect costs ( not doing things, forgoing opportunities), the vast majority of thoughts words and deeds are undecidable with the information at hand, and so group strategies ask us to chose in favor of them whenever other incentives are not in conflict. By this method, and by language informing us of it, we achieve group ends by millions of tiny decisions our group considers right or moral or wrong or immoral like grains of sand, and it’s these invisible low cost differences that maintain our group strategy just as much as expensive education and training and indoctrination, or governments or wars.

( Hopefully you see the difference between sophism and science. I do science. Sophisms of Idealism (Philosophy), pseudoscience(marx,freud,boas, adorno, derrida, foucault) and supernaturalism(abrahamic religion) are successful means of persuasion by deceit. And only the weak use it, which is why most philosophy was written by the desperate middle class. Those with power simply rule. And in the west, particularly greco-roman, and germanic west, that law was the traditional law of sovereignty and reciprocity. Although they do not use specific terms, rather they habituated the intuitions.

—“Let us consider that à la Ontological Liberalism, “The President/Prime Minister (government institutions etc) derive their authority from the people through the democratic process.”—

Well, liberalism is an operational strategy in which the parliaments – previously limited to service as jury to the king in matters of money or war – usurped power from the monarchy and the landed aristocracy under the rise of trade possible under atlantic trade, colony, and canon, as well as accounting, law, and literacy. Economic power shifted and therefore demand for political power shifted. The english civil wars and the american revolution were expressions of middle class autonomy just as much as the french was an expression of underclass autonomy, and the russian revolution jewish autonomy.

You mean that it is possible to produce a vocabulary and paradigm (ontology) in defense of that set of institutions and processes in pursuit of that social order’s distribution of power.

—“This is the bedrock of Democracy – the idea from which it derives its legitimacy.”—

Democracy is a good way of fooling people into supporting the existing power structure, or manipulating the population through propaganda to change the power structure. And yes, propaganda is an exceptional means of manipulating people under democracy, which is why the 20th and mass media were so successful at spreading leftists propaganda, first in the marxist under class revolt, then in the identity revolt (postmodernism and feminism).

Democracy in athens and in europe was used exclusively to justify the seizure of power from the aristocracy as production and trade incrementally replaced the land. It was additionally used to free up the dead capital – 50% of europe’s – and put it to work as something other than rent seeking by the church.

—“Unfortunately our linguistic ontology renders this Will of the People idea absolutely null.”—

There is no such thing as a will of the people. There are networks of common interest organized int sustainable networks of specialization and trade. There is zero evidence that democracy is a good, or that democracies make good decisions, what they do is open up the political system to the extraction of and maximization of rents, to the point at which they are consuming accumulated genetic, institutional, cultural, normative, physical and environmental capital.

In other words, you only need to lie to people and pander to people and use propaganda to people if your means of obtaining power is to replace one set of arbitrary rules with another, and to persist the pursuit of rents in the economy, rather than the western tradition of forcing people into the market economy where they are prohibited from seeking rents of any kind.

So you are not arguing a ‘truth’ you are arguing a deception – a form of utility. I’m not. I’m simply trying to educate enough people that compromise is no longer possible because we are wealthy enough to return to speciation (social orders by moral bias, masculine meritocratic vs feminine equalitaria bias) now that the agrarian era and its various institutional and normative compromises are no longer necessary and at this point inhibitive.

So you are advocating just persisting the suicidal empire, and the failed experiment in democracy. Chris was (I don’t know now what he’s doing), simply trying to organize another oligarchy. I’m trying to restore rule of law, with a monarchy as judge of last resort (Veto), and limit people to the assent or dissent of propositions (legislation), OR, complete the program of inclusion by ending majoritarianism, and returning the houses of government to a market for the production of commons by trades between the classes, where those trades do not require majority approval, only legal falsification. Which of these is useful is largely dependent upon scale of the poplity and it’s homogeneity.

—“Why?

>No one votes in an intentional vacuum

>Voters understand who to vote for, how to make their choices through ways about thinking about politics that they did not create (consider the emancipatory ideologies).

>Voters receive information concerning, candidates, parties, ideologies and relevant events etc from media they did not themselves create (ie. Academia which produces ideologies, NGOs which perpetuate Political Ideologies and Media Companies who distribute political information, current events and propaganda).

When we trace back the flow of intention and discipline we will find only a specific few who are responsible for who should be elected President.

The democratic process itself is run by unelected, highly influential, intentional agents who are anterior to elections themselves and are thus more powerful than democratically elected leaders.

But considering that this ontology pertains to language and ideas in and of themselves for all time, we subsequently have to throw out the idea of there being a “pre-societal” individual.

We are not born free and all the way back to our proto-human ancestors we have lived, we do live and probably will forever live in a society. Within some mode of social organisation – thus we must also throw out any ideas of spontaneous order (which is an Ex Nihilo fallacy after all) and so the idea of contracting into society from pre-society is also void.

This idea as we can see from history is ahistorical anyway – there has never been a point at which randomly spawned humans existed in isolation and then entered into society.

Life isn’t Minecraft, we don’t spawn in individually, free and then contract into anti-griefing rules, this is an absolute absurdity.

Another point to consider; “In any group there’ll always be a person who’s the most “influential”. Out of all groups there’ll be a group who’s the most “influential”. And within that group there’ll be a person who’s the most “influential”, who’s the de facto Leader. Leadership is always demonstrated and thus can’t be elected, but there will always be a leader, whether as a formal position or not.” In all of human organisation, we would find an aristocracy, perhaps even a monarch, who are responsible for disciplining the intentional fields within which political practice is undertaken, regardless of the chosen mode of political organisation.”—

Now, Compare your method to mine. You realize that your using sophisms (excuses) right? How does your method of argument (or Chris’) differs from mine? You know what it is?

Truth I do truth vs You’re using the language of deceit.

—“But you already knew that last but because you’ve read your Moldbug, right?”—

I was working for quite a while before I became aware of his work, and aside from the Cathedral argument which I saw as a good framing, I thought the rest was rather obvious, because frankly we all read the same ideas by the same people, but I read science, economics, and law in order to produce institutions, and chris read literary philosophy and literature in order to produce propaganda.

Which is why I’m an anti-philosophy philosopher. The problem is the term philosopher is now tainted, but people understand it abstractly. As far as I know I’m a theorist of human sciences, but stuck with the label philosopher because it’s all we have (hans hoppe does the same: theorist).

I’m not trying to lie to the majority to fool them into some nonsense, I’m telling the truth to a minority that will use force of arms to restore rule of law so that fooling people with lying and propaganda isn’t any longer necessary under this folly of democracy.