The enlightenment mythos was almost as damaging was christianity. The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the christianization of Europe. The empirical side of the enlightenment was desperately needed to escape jewish mysticism that held us in ignorance for a millennia. Equality under the law, was important for the spread of commerce. But, just as moving people from christianity’s mysticism via Darwin was, let’s say … incomplete, it is very hard to move people from equality of property rights, equality under the law, and the equality of family interests, to what the socialists accomplished, which was equality of opportunity, material equality, inequality under the law, eradication of the common law by legislative law, and the destruction of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family in pursuit of ‘individualism’. We have a very hard time overturning this mythos. This mythos is even rampant in libertarianism. Libertarians are just as enamored of the fallacy of equality as are socialists. Libertarians want to retain meritocracy, sure. But most of us assume the same naive belief that if others ‘only understood’ they would adopt our system of values. But that’s just demonstrably false, both logically, praxeologically, and empirically. The majority of the world detests property rights and individualism.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Aristocracy Of Everybody, Is A Failure
It isn’t’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity. Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of the world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die. Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.
-
The Aristocracy Of Everybody, Is A Failure
It isn’t’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity. Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of the world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die. Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.
-
On The Distribution Of Platonism In The Stem Fields
I have been struggling with this idea for a while: that, for some reason, of the empirical fields, including math, physics, engineering, computer science, and economics (into which I include the social sciences), it appears that platonism seems to originate in philosophical spiritualism, gain legitimacy in mathematics and roll downhill until it is cleansed by computer scientists and engineers. What’s interesting to me, is that it just seems, in all the fields, that platonism is the definition of most philosophy, so pervasive in math, to the point of being endemic and inescapable and impervious to correction, even if it doesn’t need to be. …Human Beings As They Dream… …………..Philosophy……………………. ………………Logic………………………… ……………–Math–…………………….. ……..Physical…….Behavioral…………. ..(constant vs inconstant relations)… …….Physics………Economics…………. ………….(observation)………………….. Engineering—Computer Science….. ………….(interaction)……………………. …Human Beings As They Really Act.. It’s just strange that the only empirical people you seem to be able to trust are people who work with machines. ‘Cause they can tell the difference between an abstract name for something and the operational process for bringing it into being. Computer scientists never make this mistake. Mathematicians do all the time, and actually defend what they do not themselves understand. I have heard a lot of criticism of engineers and computer scientists over the past few decades and I’ve just found that sure, in any discipline there are idiots. There are ‘scientistic’ physicists too, and ‘financial economists’. But the difference between fields is the use of operational language, and operational language isn’t platonic. That’s what makes ‘science’ into ‘science’. – OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE = HUMAN ACTION. Human action that is open to sympathetic testing – experience. Praxeology was backwards. You can sympathetically test something. You cant deduce much from that tho.
-
On The Distribution Of Platonism In The Stem Fields
I have been struggling with this idea for a while: that, for some reason, of the empirical fields, including math, physics, engineering, computer science, and economics (into which I include the social sciences), it appears that platonism seems to originate in philosophical spiritualism, gain legitimacy in mathematics and roll downhill until it is cleansed by computer scientists and engineers. What’s interesting to me, is that it just seems, in all the fields, that platonism is the definition of most philosophy, so pervasive in math, to the point of being endemic and inescapable and impervious to correction, even if it doesn’t need to be. …Human Beings As They Dream… …………..Philosophy……………………. ………………Logic………………………… ……………–Math–…………………….. ……..Physical…….Behavioral…………. ..(constant vs inconstant relations)… …….Physics………Economics…………. ………….(observation)………………….. Engineering—Computer Science….. ………….(interaction)……………………. …Human Beings As They Really Act.. It’s just strange that the only empirical people you seem to be able to trust are people who work with machines. ‘Cause they can tell the difference between an abstract name for something and the operational process for bringing it into being. Computer scientists never make this mistake. Mathematicians do all the time, and actually defend what they do not themselves understand. I have heard a lot of criticism of engineers and computer scientists over the past few decades and I’ve just found that sure, in any discipline there are idiots. There are ‘scientistic’ physicists too, and ‘financial economists’. But the difference between fields is the use of operational language, and operational language isn’t platonic. That’s what makes ‘science’ into ‘science’. – OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE = HUMAN ACTION. Human action that is open to sympathetic testing – experience. Praxeology was backwards. You can sympathetically test something. You cant deduce much from that tho.
-
(CORE) The Moral Basis of Red and Blue States?
One’s moral priorities are not a choice, but a justification that has been reduced to an intuition. They must be – reason would be too expensive and too unpredictable for the formation of norms. And those intuitions, which we are in the process of confirming, are both genetically and familially determined. And the structure of the family is determined by the structure of economic production on one hand, and the spectrum of cousin marriage from taboo to expectation, on the other. ->Genetics, Family structure, Production Outbreeding, Norms, Mythology, and Pedagogy. In fact, the only reason we see migration in moral biases is so that individuals can demonstrate wealth, opportunity, and freedom from mercantile and manorial ethics as a form of conspicuous consumption and therefore as a status and mating signal. The origins of our universalism are a side effect of the success of the church in prohibiting cousin marriage and granting property rights to women as a means of breaking up the large landholding families so that the church could more easily and cheaply buy land. America was homogenous in indoctrinating everyone into the Absolute Nuclear Family because immigration displaced extended family networks and the economy in the states prohibited prior loyalties because of available growth. Black americans had an even higher rate of marriage than whites. But the postmodern and feminist programs have undermined the absolute nuclear family using both academia, public intellectuals, policy, and law; because of the introduction of female voters into the work place, and voting pools gave each group new constituent – customers. And it has consistently been the voting pattern of women to expand the welfare state, remove the need for marriage before reproduction, and remove the punitive economic and social norms for single motherhood. At this point voting is determined by single women. And we will soon reach the point where 40% or more of children are born to single mothers, who must singularly support a household, and as such will be poorer than married people with two incomes who support a household. And that is what we see in voting patterns. White married women vote right to keep their family and income. Unmarried and single women and minorities (non-whites, since minority status is rapidly approaching in younger demographics), vote to seek rents and free-riding. I work on the other side of the spectrum from the status-seeking, conspicuously consumptive, moral justification of redistribution as a replacement for marriage. My objective is the preservation of the high trust society. But the high trust society is a product of the absolute nuclear family as the dominant moral influence in American culture. And what we are seeing, is, in 50 years, it’s rapid decline, and the economic polarization, and moral polarization, of the country along those moral lines. We cannot keep the high trust society, and the positive benefits that come from it, without the ANF and the moral code that accompanies it. Or, there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. But, it appears, that at least for a rapidly increasing number of women, this circumstance is superior to the corporation by which we concentrate capital: marriage. Monogamy and paternalism, as Engels reminded us, were innovations that were the result of the development of property during agrarianism and pastoralism. But if women can marry the state, rather than a man, they can restore the tribal order, and bear children while placing the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (state). And that appears to be both normal and preferential. So I think this is a more likely cause of today’s circumstance than leftover anger at the ‘war of northern aggression’, the purpose of which was to prevent the agrarian, export-oriented south from using slavery in the new territory to form a political block, that could encircle the import-oriented north. Reproduction and status are an economy. Norms are an economy. Production is an economy. And moral discourse is verbal warfare over which sector will win which benefits. Cheers
-
(CORE) The Moral Basis of Red and Blue States?
One’s moral priorities are not a choice, but a justification that has been reduced to an intuition. They must be – reason would be too expensive and too unpredictable for the formation of norms. And those intuitions, which we are in the process of confirming, are both genetically and familially determined. And the structure of the family is determined by the structure of economic production on one hand, and the spectrum of cousin marriage from taboo to expectation, on the other. ->Genetics, Family structure, Production Outbreeding, Norms, Mythology, and Pedagogy. In fact, the only reason we see migration in moral biases is so that individuals can demonstrate wealth, opportunity, and freedom from mercantile and manorial ethics as a form of conspicuous consumption and therefore as a status and mating signal. The origins of our universalism are a side effect of the success of the church in prohibiting cousin marriage and granting property rights to women as a means of breaking up the large landholding families so that the church could more easily and cheaply buy land. America was homogenous in indoctrinating everyone into the Absolute Nuclear Family because immigration displaced extended family networks and the economy in the states prohibited prior loyalties because of available growth. Black americans had an even higher rate of marriage than whites. But the postmodern and feminist programs have undermined the absolute nuclear family using both academia, public intellectuals, policy, and law; because of the introduction of female voters into the work place, and voting pools gave each group new constituent – customers. And it has consistently been the voting pattern of women to expand the welfare state, remove the need for marriage before reproduction, and remove the punitive economic and social norms for single motherhood. At this point voting is determined by single women. And we will soon reach the point where 40% or more of children are born to single mothers, who must singularly support a household, and as such will be poorer than married people with two incomes who support a household. And that is what we see in voting patterns. White married women vote right to keep their family and income. Unmarried and single women and minorities (non-whites, since minority status is rapidly approaching in younger demographics), vote to seek rents and free-riding. I work on the other side of the spectrum from the status-seeking, conspicuously consumptive, moral justification of redistribution as a replacement for marriage. My objective is the preservation of the high trust society. But the high trust society is a product of the absolute nuclear family as the dominant moral influence in American culture. And what we are seeing, is, in 50 years, it’s rapid decline, and the economic polarization, and moral polarization, of the country along those moral lines. We cannot keep the high trust society, and the positive benefits that come from it, without the ANF and the moral code that accompanies it. Or, there is no evidence that such a thing is possible. But, it appears, that at least for a rapidly increasing number of women, this circumstance is superior to the corporation by which we concentrate capital: marriage. Monogamy and paternalism, as Engels reminded us, were innovations that were the result of the development of property during agrarianism and pastoralism. But if women can marry the state, rather than a man, they can restore the tribal order, and bear children while placing the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (state). And that appears to be both normal and preferential. So I think this is a more likely cause of today’s circumstance than leftover anger at the ‘war of northern aggression’, the purpose of which was to prevent the agrarian, export-oriented south from using slavery in the new territory to form a political block, that could encircle the import-oriented north. Reproduction and status are an economy. Norms are an economy. Production is an economy. And moral discourse is verbal warfare over which sector will win which benefits. Cheers
-
Aristocracy Is Just Self Defense
We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t adapt to the change in membership in the cult of property rights fast enough. If you can’t convince the anti-aristocrats to go along and create an ‘aristocracy of everybody’ promised by the enlightenment, then the alternative is natural Aristocracy: Self Defense. Pay people to get married, cohabitate, and breed. Pay the poor and unable, not to have children. Tax, impoverish, and punish those that are dependent. Care for the physically disabled. Just how it is. Otherwise. No families. No morality. No high trust. Married class vs unmarried class warfare.
-
Aristocracy Is Just Self Defense
We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t adapt to the change in membership in the cult of property rights fast enough. If you can’t convince the anti-aristocrats to go along and create an ‘aristocracy of everybody’ promised by the enlightenment, then the alternative is natural Aristocracy: Self Defense. Pay people to get married, cohabitate, and breed. Pay the poor and unable, not to have children. Tax, impoverish, and punish those that are dependent. Care for the physically disabled. Just how it is. Otherwise. No families. No morality. No high trust. Married class vs unmarried class warfare.
-
Only One….
1. THERE IS ONLY ONE LAW AND THAT IS PROPERTY. All else is a command given by man. 2. THE ONLY NUMBERS ARE NATURAL NUMBERS. All else is ratio and relation. 3. THERE IS ONLY ONE MEANS OF REASON, AND THAT IS NATURALISM. All else is deception or self deception.
