Theme: Civilization

(But the same method of analysis allows us to decompose every group evolutionary strategy) (a) Objectivism like libertarianism, is simply private property marxism – a monopoly of private property, just as marxism is common property monopoly. With Marxist disincentive to produce private property at one end, Objectivist and Libertarian disincentive to produce common property on the other. (b) Objectivism is argued using the positive and negative sophisms of pilpul and critique, just as are marxism, postmodernism, and the abrahamic religions use the same method of constructing sophisms. (c) All groups must choose between the hierarchy of decisions that allow us to hold territory(property in all forms) from competitors necessary for agrarianism and the production of fixed capital; or the hierarchy of pastoralists that rent the land and treat it as renters (badly – the majority of earth’s peoples); or the hierarchy of predators that treat the land other human groups as resources to extract from (ashkenazi, roma-gypsies, mongols, islam, and late-empire [Disraeli] British). And we can determine which groups pursue which strategy on that spectrum by nothing other than the commons they produce and the condition of those commons. These strategies are *Necessary* given the group’s ability to produce commons (or lack of ability to produce commons) and the (vast) multipliers (returns) that commons produce as a consequence. One does not knowingly pursue a strategy – that would weaken its utility in the population by exposing it to argument just as religion would be weakened by science and rationality. In general, the feminine strategy consumes the commons, the ascendant male strategy trades without paying for commons, and the established male strategy conserves. These are reproductive strategies that are *necessary* given our class, age and gender capital demands. Objectively speaking, Objectivism is, as its origin in Russian Ashkenazi Middle Class would suggest, the middle class philosophy of diasporic askehnazi who seek to preserve pastorlist poly-logical (immoral) ethics, by privatizing host commons (physical, normative, cultural, institutional) rather than contributing to them. Which is what objectivism and libertarianism are reducible to. Every philosophy can be decomposed using these same strategic criteria. And most philosophy consists of middle class appeals for greater influence(ascendant male), the way religion(feminine) is for underclass, and law is for upper class (masculine).

(But the same method of analysis allows us to decompose every group evolutionary strategy) (a) Objectivism like libertarianism, is simply private property marxism – a monopoly of private property, just as marxism is common property monopoly. With Marxist disincentive to produce private property at one end, Objectivist and Libertarian disincentive to produce common property on the other. (b) Objectivism is argued using the positive and negative sophisms of pilpul and critique, just as are marxism, postmodernism, and the abrahamic religions use the same method of constructing sophisms. (c) All groups must choose between the hierarchy of decisions that allow us to hold territory(property in all forms) from competitors necessary for agrarianism and the production of fixed capital; or the hierarchy of pastoralists that rent the land and treat it as renters (badly – the majority of earth’s peoples); or the hierarchy of predators that treat the land other human groups as resources to extract from (ashkenazi, roma-gypsies, mongols, islam, and late-empire [Disraeli] British). And we can determine which groups pursue which strategy on that spectrum by nothing other than the commons they produce and the condition of those commons. These strategies are *Necessary* given the group’s ability to produce commons (or lack of ability to produce commons) and the (vast) multipliers (returns) that commons produce as a consequence. One does not knowingly pursue a strategy – that would weaken its utility in the population by exposing it to argument just as religion would be weakened by science and rationality. In general, the feminine strategy consumes the commons, the ascendant male strategy trades without paying for commons, and the established male strategy conserves. These are reproductive strategies that are *necessary* given our class, age and gender capital demands. Objectively speaking, Objectivism is, as its origin in Russian Ashkenazi Middle Class would suggest, the middle class philosophy of diasporic askehnazi who seek to preserve pastorlist poly-logical (immoral) ethics, by privatizing host commons (physical, normative, cultural, institutional) rather than contributing to them. Which is what objectivism and libertarianism are reducible to. Every philosophy can be decomposed using these same strategic criteria. And most philosophy consists of middle class appeals for greater influence(ascendant male), the way religion(feminine) is for underclass, and law is for upper class (masculine).