CHOMSKY’S METAPHYSICAL FALLACY
(Interesting post on understanding Chomsky via anglo vs jewish metaphysical assumptions)
You know, at least Chomsky, unlike most lefties is well read. Or, rather, he’s well enough read that he at least makes partially rational arguments. But once you understand that his underlying metaphysical desire (or maybe assumption) is a cooperative world in which we are all shepherds of goats, sheep, merchandise, and information (information, myth, gossip, lies), roaming a desert, steppe, or ocean, paying no costs of landholding, and in particular no normative costs of landholding – instead of landholding farmers and capital producers that must constantly pay the high costs and normative costs of land holding – you see right through every single statement he makes as just another poor dimwitted fool indoctrinated into the nonsense metaphysics of religious ‘belief’. I mean, Jewish and Muslim cults are fascinating because they place a tragic and false conformity on their peoples: in the case of jews they are both conquered, diasporic, persecuted, because they do not grasp the central tenet of their faith: that they could not hold judea because they failed to transform from slaves, shepherds, and traders to land holders – because their ethic lacks the mandate that they pay the high cost of norms. They do not live in a world where the steppe, desert, sea, air, or even information system is ‘un owned’. So not only is their faith predicated on a lie (mysticism) but it is predicated on a suicidal falsehood: that they can parasitically exist off land holders who will eventually persecute them for their parasitism, and that they accumulate wealth merely by circumventing those real and normative costs, and indoctrinate themselves into land- holding. instead, they maintain group cohesion by threat of ostracization from internal insurance and advocacy, and the wealth effect of parasitic free riding on land-holders and land holder ethics.
Well, now lets flip it around and see what errors we Anglos engage in – because it’s not dissimilar, just from the opposite end of the spectrum of land-holding vs migratory labor: an island fortress people, defended like Crete’s Mycenaean civilization by an accomplished navy. Or america, like Rome, entirely dependent for its culture on Athens(Britain) and Sparta(german), exhausting itself with conquest in pursuit of commercial wealth. Anglos live under the illusion that the aristocracy of everyone is either possible or desirable, despite the fact that the reason that the island of Britain developed a near-aristocracy of everyone, was through thousands of years of genetic pacification of the underclasses – leaving only the martial middle and working class, and the rotating upper middle classes alive (as is true throughout most of the hanjal/hanseatic civilization we fail to distinguish from its Mediterranean cousin. But which aside from being christian differs vastly in myths and norms. And then again, that Hanjal/Hansa civilization varies less from its Celtic civilization that was destroyed by the roman conquest of Europe(“Celtica”.)
Now, look at how desperate the academy and state are to seek status by perpetuating the neo-puritan mythos…
I mean, government is a ‘bad’ because it allows twisted people the power to do twisted things, for reasons that they don’t understand, but are always reducible to status seeking self interest.
The Age of Political Empowerment (the Enlightenment era) has been every bit a catastrophe in politics, as the age of technology (the enlightenment) has been a success.
We cannot revert to the past, we can only complete the transition and remove the folly of will from the state.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-10 07:48:00 UTC