[W]e are the only people to have done it. Because we are the only people who out-bred, and broke the extended family, creating universalism. The problem is that once we abandon nationalism, our out-bred high trust universalism rapidly became a weakness that has led to our conquest by older more primitive societies. Return To Aristocracy To Save Our People, and Our Uniqueness. On The Uniqueness Of The North Sea Peoples
Form: Short Note
-
On The Appropriation Of Names
WE LOST ‘LIBERAL’ TO THE SOCIALISTS. WE LOST ‘LIBERTARIAN’ TO ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO IMMORALITY. I chose Propertarianism, registered the names, and trademarked it for my own use. Ironic really. The term wasn’t used much. And only as ‘propertarian’ – a categorical pejorative on libertarians.
-
On The Appropriation Of Names
WE LOST ‘LIBERAL’ TO THE SOCIALISTS. WE LOST ‘LIBERTARIAN’ TO ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO IMMORALITY. I chose Propertarianism, registered the names, and trademarked it for my own use. Ironic really. The term wasn’t used much. And only as ‘propertarian’ – a categorical pejorative on libertarians.
-
Tarski Is Specifically Referring To Formal Languages – Only Formal Languages
[F]ormal languages are subsets of our full language. They are platonic (imaginary and symbolic) by definition and intent. Operational language is not platonic, but extant and demonstrated in real time and space, and can be used to describe actions in time and space, and if constrained to the description of actions in time and space, are open to observation, and confirmation, and falsification. This is why science requires operational language. This is why ethics MUST require operational language. Otherwise deception, self deception and error are obscured by the fungibility of language. Tarski, Alfred, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944). Tarski, Alfred. “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, 1956.
-
Tarski Is Specifically Referring To Formal Languages – Only Formal Languages
[F]ormal languages are subsets of our full language. They are platonic (imaginary and symbolic) by definition and intent. Operational language is not platonic, but extant and demonstrated in real time and space, and can be used to describe actions in time and space, and if constrained to the description of actions in time and space, are open to observation, and confirmation, and falsification. This is why science requires operational language. This is why ethics MUST require operational language. Otherwise deception, self deception and error are obscured by the fungibility of language. Tarski, Alfred, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944). Tarski, Alfred. “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, 1956.
-
Why Squander Inheritance Through Redistribution?
[W]hy should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital? My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.
-
Why Squander Inheritance Through Redistribution?
[W]hy should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my savings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution? If you claim to have rights to your earnings, to your life, and to your property, then why do you only have those rights and not the right to your other forms of capital? My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation. We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone on earth’s preference other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal. Squandering your inheritance is suicidal.
-
On My Use Of Terms
[I] don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entries every time I use some term. I’d rather defend each term in context – it’s like physical fitness. I get better at my arguments with every ‘set of reps’. In a perfect world, every time a use a term, FB would link to it in my glossary. (Even on my web site I have to do it manually). But my Glossary is 50K words of definitions. I started it in 2009. I don’t really have to add to it all that often any longer. I periodically take a given letter (A-Z) and update it. But you know, it’s turned out to be pretty stable. Some terms are marked “undone” so that I go back and finish them. Some could use some clarification. My original intention was to emphasize those terms that I have modified or which I’ve created. But many many terms have been modified to abandon enlightenment errors and introduce propertarian corrections to those terms. http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/
-
On My Use Of Terms
[I] don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entries every time I use some term. I’d rather defend each term in context – it’s like physical fitness. I get better at my arguments with every ‘set of reps’. In a perfect world, every time a use a term, FB would link to it in my glossary. (Even on my web site I have to do it manually). But my Glossary is 50K words of definitions. I started it in 2009. I don’t really have to add to it all that often any longer. I periodically take a given letter (A-Z) and update it. But you know, it’s turned out to be pretty stable. Some terms are marked “undone” so that I go back and finish them. Some could use some clarification. My original intention was to emphasize those terms that I have modified or which I’ve created. But many many terms have been modified to abandon enlightenment errors and introduce propertarian corrections to those terms. http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/
-
“All Religions Need A Book”
[A]ll religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested. If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance. The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.