(It’s so obvious how much better english would be in Anglish, and moreover how Anglish and German would be as mutually intelligible as the other germanic languages. I wish I had the balls to write propertarianism in anglish. lol)–CD PROPERTARIANISM IN ANGLISH (brilliant!) by Ely Harman Ownerken: the thoughtlore of western Lordcraft. A quick guide in Anglish (English with no outlandish words, but only theedish words.) Ownerken is a branch of worldken that has to do with the beholding and understanding of fellowship, trust, law, and all the dealings of lords, free men, thralls, and even women. Ownerken is not only thoughtlore, but worldken, because like all worldken it begins by guessing at beholdings and then working through them to see if they are untrue. You cannot show a beholding true with a workthrough because some other workthrough (yet undone) may show it untrue. But if a workthrough shows it untrue then that is settled and the beholding must be thrown out. In this way, our beholdings get better with time and become knowledge (true belief) and understanding even though we can never be sure that our beholdings are best or that our knowledge or understanding are flawless. Some basic workthroughs from ownerken are: Oneness: is each thing one thing, or many? If many, then someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Likelihood: will it work? If not, someone means to fool you and you may kill them. Reckoning: are all the gains being reckoned, as well as the losses? If not, someone means to fool you, and you may kill them. Give and take: Is someone seeking to take without giving? If so, that’s why they mean to fool you, and you may kill them. And others… The ownerkenish beholding of ownership is that “what you own” is what you are willing and able to keep, hold and guard. Some freeloaders think ownership is made by doing work and so workers own everything. Other freeriders think ownership is made by blending work with land and then traded, meaning workers do not own most things but a few of the best traders do. But all these foolish knaves are wrong because warriors can take their stuff and all they can do about it is whine, which they do, a lot. The first thing to ask is why not just kill you and take your stuff? Well. I might lose something by doing that. There will be struggle and threat. But also, we would not be dealing. And so the boons of dealing would be lost. It may be better to deal than to fight, but only if you will deal fair, only if you can fight well, and only if you have something worth dealing for. Men can deal, not deal, or fight. So if you want to deal, you must have something worth dealing for, or else we will not deal. And you must have something to threaten in a fight, or else it may be better for many to just fight you and take your stuff for their own. To win fights with other men, men must fight together, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, shield to shield. That means men must trade trust and fellowship because the only thing worth giving trust for is getting it back, the only thing worth giving fellowship for is getting it back. To be true fellows, men must have one mind, not on all things, but at least on the weighty ones. Where men are not of one mind they must have a leader to choose for them. Even free men, even lords, will follow a leader if he chooses no less well than them, and/or if the gains from onemindedness outwiegh the losses. And that is why even leaders choose leaders until there is only one high leader between them. There is much more to say about ownerken and Lordcraft. But this is the beginning of it… Apr 22, 2018 6:17pm
Source: Original Site Post
-
Teaching by Discourse
Teaching: Some Read, Some Narrate, Some Speak, Some Preach, Some Interrogate, and Some Discourse. I teach by discourse, which is very suitable for Seminars. And honestly it is the only way I know how to teach – by guided storytelling. (I learned how to teach and manage by playing dungeons and dragons – really.) However, it is extremely difficult for me to read and speak at the wall, and interrogation is counter-productive. So the principle problem I have been having, now that I am ready to produce courses, is that I can’t actually present well without the ‘class’ (Audience). And the reason is I tailor my storytelling to the audience and their feedback. I can even work well in interview conditions. But without ‘responsiveness’ of an audience I find it almost impossible. Had I moved to London (or ny, or atlanta) instead of taking care of an ill family member I could easily put together a seminar and use that as the basis for videos. And I find it difficult to write without having first taught it. So (thinking out loud) I’m going to see if I an put together some sort of substitute. All in all I’m ‘done’ except for editing. But editing this density of text on this range of topics without practice ‘storytelling’ is actually very hard for me for reasons familiar to most authors – ‘to whom am I speaking’ will devolve into ‘myself’ and that is very hard for everyone other than me to understand. This problem has been dogging me since I left ukraine and the (wonderful) studio we had there.
-
Teaching by Discourse
Teaching: Some Read, Some Narrate, Some Speak, Some Preach, Some Interrogate, and Some Discourse. I teach by discourse, which is very suitable for Seminars. And honestly it is the only way I know how to teach – by guided storytelling. (I learned how to teach and manage by playing dungeons and dragons – really.) However, it is extremely difficult for me to read and speak at the wall, and interrogation is counter-productive. So the principle problem I have been having, now that I am ready to produce courses, is that I can’t actually present well without the ‘class’ (Audience). And the reason is I tailor my storytelling to the audience and their feedback. I can even work well in interview conditions. But without ‘responsiveness’ of an audience I find it almost impossible. Had I moved to London (or ny, or atlanta) instead of taking care of an ill family member I could easily put together a seminar and use that as the basis for videos. And I find it difficult to write without having first taught it. So (thinking out loud) I’m going to see if I an put together some sort of substitute. All in all I’m ‘done’ except for editing. But editing this density of text on this range of topics without practice ‘storytelling’ is actually very hard for me for reasons familiar to most authors – ‘to whom am I speaking’ will devolve into ‘myself’ and that is very hard for everyone other than me to understand. This problem has been dogging me since I left ukraine and the (wonderful) studio we had there.
-
Abrahamic Marxism = Abrahamic Islamism
by Aaron Kahland (important) Briefly, 1) Muslims ~ Proletariat 2) Kuffar ~ Enemy of the proletariat 3) Dictatorship of Proletariat ~ Caliphate 4) Koran ~ das Kapital The dialectic is remarkably similar. Islam is more successful than socialism because despite the two being politically inspired, Islam promises paradise in the afterlife, which can never be disproven, whilst Marx promised paradise on Earth – an evident falsehood.
-
Abrahamic Marxism = Abrahamic Islamism
by Aaron Kahland (important) Briefly, 1) Muslims ~ Proletariat 2) Kuffar ~ Enemy of the proletariat 3) Dictatorship of Proletariat ~ Caliphate 4) Koran ~ das Kapital The dialectic is remarkably similar. Islam is more successful than socialism because despite the two being politically inspired, Islam promises paradise in the afterlife, which can never be disproven, whilst Marx promised paradise on Earth – an evident falsehood.
-
Baiting Into Harm
I mean, the promise of life after death is a moral hazard, just as a woman ‘suggesting’ opportunities if you serve her. This technique (baiting into harm) is the feminine strategy, and it is why women were considered insidious if not hopeless through most of history. So Abrahamism is just the institutionalization of feminine moral hazard, as much as Rule of Law is the institutionalization of masculine contractualism. The universe consists of very simple rules, and human behavior is just an extension of that universe. The only difference being that once one has the capacity of memory one can choose both the first available opportunity AND NOT to, such that we preserve capital(energy) for later, higher returns. In other words, the universe must act truthfully but we can make use of cunning. There is no difference between female opposition (opportunity) to male reproductive strategy (constraint), and Semitic(feminine) vs Greco/Roman | Egyptian | Persian (masculine) strategies.
-
Baiting Into Harm
I mean, the promise of life after death is a moral hazard, just as a woman ‘suggesting’ opportunities if you serve her. This technique (baiting into harm) is the feminine strategy, and it is why women were considered insidious if not hopeless through most of history. So Abrahamism is just the institutionalization of feminine moral hazard, as much as Rule of Law is the institutionalization of masculine contractualism. The universe consists of very simple rules, and human behavior is just an extension of that universe. The only difference being that once one has the capacity of memory one can choose both the first available opportunity AND NOT to, such that we preserve capital(energy) for later, higher returns. In other words, the universe must act truthfully but we can make use of cunning. There is no difference between female opposition (opportunity) to male reproductive strategy (constraint), and Semitic(feminine) vs Greco/Roman | Egyptian | Persian (masculine) strategies.
-
Future of Employment
We have entered an age where all increases in productivity are offset by increases in inflation, the purpose of which is to preserve employment, of people who are increasingly unemployable, and wage suppression of the working (meaning non-calculating, professional, non-entrepreneurial) classes will continue indefinitely as the world increasingly adds competing labor to the world labor pool. Every person in the middle is only 20% more productive than consumptive, and then only so for certain period of his or her life. so every person at the bottom quartile requires five people to pay for his existence throughout his life. Ergo, we must choose between decreasing the standard of living for all but the upper quintile, and constantly increasing inequality, or suppressing the rates of reproduction of the bottom and producing increasingly consistent equality. There is no alternative. Economics is just an extension of physics.
-
Future of Employment
We have entered an age where all increases in productivity are offset by increases in inflation, the purpose of which is to preserve employment, of people who are increasingly unemployable, and wage suppression of the working (meaning non-calculating, professional, non-entrepreneurial) classes will continue indefinitely as the world increasingly adds competing labor to the world labor pool. Every person in the middle is only 20% more productive than consumptive, and then only so for certain period of his or her life. so every person at the bottom quartile requires five people to pay for his existence throughout his life. Ergo, we must choose between decreasing the standard of living for all but the upper quintile, and constantly increasing inequality, or suppressing the rates of reproduction of the bottom and producing increasingly consistent equality. There is no alternative. Economics is just an extension of physics.
-
Math as a Language
Math can be pursued as a language (pure mathematics) or as measurements (mathematical physics). And while we can write fantasy novels in a language, we cannot do so in measurements. Language like mathematical platonism is bounded only by imagination, while measurements must always describe the existential because all measurement requires correspondence, while language only requires meaning.