Sep 06, 2016 11:43am ( I am not Alexander. I am only Aristotle. I understand my role. To create the strategy and let loose the moral license which can be used by the generals, captains, sergeants, and soldiers to change the world to that which they desire. But we have given license to the bourgeoisie in the anglo enlightenment, and the peasantry in the Jewish enlightenment, and we must succeed where the German’s failed in returning license to the aristocracy. Warriors need a strategy because violence is an instrument of change, but not an instrument of administration and preservation. My job is to give permission to the martial class to restore aristocracy for the necessity of our people, the leadership of our civilization, and the transcendence of man. ) ( Josh Jeppson )
Form: Short Note
-
I Know My Job: To Create A Plan And Make Room For Alexanders
Sep 06, 2016 11:43am ( I am not Alexander. I am only Aristotle. I understand my role. To create the strategy and let loose the moral license which can be used by the generals, captains, sergeants, and soldiers to change the world to that which they desire. But we have given license to the bourgeoisie in the anglo enlightenment, and the peasantry in the Jewish enlightenment, and we must succeed where the German’s failed in returning license to the aristocracy. Warriors need a strategy because violence is an instrument of change, but not an instrument of administration and preservation. My job is to give permission to the martial class to restore aristocracy for the necessity of our people, the leadership of our civilization, and the transcendence of man. ) ( Josh Jeppson )
-
Ok. So yes. There are a few philosophers I’d recommend.
OK. SO PHILOSOPHERS? THERE ARE SOME. Aristotle (almost-science)(structure of philosophy) Bacon (empiricism) Locke (property as unit of commensurability) Smith(econimics) Hume (epistemology) Jefferson(constitutional construction), Darwin(evolutionary processes), Durkheim(sociology), Haidt (social psychology) Pareto(economic sociology), Spencer (operationalism), Hayek(law is our social science) and Nietzsche(aesthetics) These men create a pretty good corpus. But they didn’t solve the problem of truth, and didn’t unite science philosophy law morality and politics (social science). And except for Hayek did not grasp that empirical, discovered, non-conflated, common law was the origin of our civilization’s achievements.
-
Ok. So yes. There are a few philosophers I’d recommend.
OK. SO PHILOSOPHERS? THERE ARE SOME. Aristotle (almost-science)(structure of philosophy) Bacon (empiricism) Locke (property as unit of commensurability) Smith(econimics) Hume (epistemology) Jefferson(constitutional construction), Darwin(evolutionary processes), Durkheim(sociology), Haidt (social psychology) Pareto(economic sociology), Spencer (operationalism), Hayek(law is our social science) and Nietzsche(aesthetics) These men create a pretty good corpus. But they didn’t solve the problem of truth, and didn’t unite science philosophy law morality and politics (social science). And except for Hayek did not grasp that empirical, discovered, non-conflated, common law was the origin of our civilization’s achievements.
-
Asking A Different Question: How Do We Scale Our Ability To Reason?
Sep 17, 2016 1:43pm So here is the central issue:
++Voluntary exchange++ vs –Decidability by law– ++Positive epistemology++ vs –negative epistemology– So rather than reason how we might do something as individual thinkers I ask HOW CAN WE CALCULATE SOMETHING by voluntary exchanges within the constraints of natural law. In other words, how do we scale the ability to reason?
-
Asking A Different Question: How Do We Scale Our Ability To Reason?
Sep 17, 2016 1:43pm So here is the central issue:
++Voluntary exchange++ vs –Decidability by law– ++Positive epistemology++ vs –negative epistemology– So rather than reason how we might do something as individual thinkers I ask HOW CAN WE CALCULATE SOMETHING by voluntary exchanges within the constraints of natural law. In other words, how do we scale the ability to reason?
-
THIS ROCKS. lo
https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=bbYGTmZRw5Q&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DsgRf-urBkhw%26feature%3DshareDAMN, THIS ROCKS. lo
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 03:26:00 UTC
-
to circumvent a public normative contract is not a hangable offense, but it is c
https://propertarianism.wordpress.com/2016/09/18/is-bigamy-a-hangable-offense/Conspiracy to circumvent a public normative contract is not a hangable offense, but it is certainly cause to invoke voluntary disassociation and your removal from the polity.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 02:04:00 UTC
-
Untitled
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-17 23:27:00 UTC
-
Soros v Hayek and Why.
Aug 22, 2016 2:48pm SOROS V HAYEK, AND WHY When where Soros disagrees with Hayek he relies on the criticism of the rational actor hypothesis, saying that people do not in fact act this way. But here again we have Hayek as a social scientist seeking rule of law, versus Soros as a financier seeking discretionary rule. The difference in the western heroic tradition and the Jewish tradition is illustrated once again: we peers may not interfere with the sovereignty of other peers with actions that interfere with their plans. Ergo: rule of law. Soros, as a cosmopolitan, seeks only to increase transactions regardless of the impact on the peerage, and the consequences to intertemporal capital. So yet again we see the metaphysics of the Aryans’ no harm to the commons, vs the Cosmopolitans’ maximum consumption. Hayek’s advocates do not know how to criticize Soros.