Theme: Property

THE HIERARCHY OF PROPERTARIANISM’S GOALS AND MAPPING THOSE GOALS TO PHILOSOPHICAL DISCIPLINES

(important) (attn: nietzscheans) (aesthetics)

1) TRUTH (KNOWLEDGE, TRUST)

2) LIBERTY (EXPERIMENTATION, CREATIVITY, INVENTION)

3) COMMONS (INFRASTRUCTURE, PROSPERITY, MONUMENTS)

4) VICTORY (SECURITY, EVOLUTION, ETERNAL PERSISTENCE)

5) BEAUTY (EXCELLENCE, VIRTUE, TRANSCENDENCE)

–Learning from Competition–

Debating with the well intentioned folks who desire an inspirational program has taught me to articulate clearly the promise of aristocratic philosophy of our ancestors. This may have been their objective. And if so, they have achieved it. Although ad-hom attacks are less useful and informative they are ‘inspirational’, in that they provide motivation to counter criticisms.

–The Market for Virtues–

Like any market, men are motivated by the environment created by the portfolio of virtues, but they DIVIDE specialization in that market by preferring each of the virtues more or less than the others: some valuing everything equally other valuing one in particular. I am no different from any other man in that I value the instrument of change (Truth) with which I seek to transcend the current state of our culture (pseudoscience, propaganda, feminine dysgenics, outright lying, and the use of gossip rallying and shaming by the betas, women, media (defending advertisers customers:women), government (defending bureaucracy’s enablers:women).

So my personal bias on the use of truth to transcend the age of pseudoscience and bring about the age of truth, in which my people are at a tremendous cultural if not genetic advantage, and from which they can transform themselves and by example, mankind, as much as we transformed mankind in the ancient world and in the modern world through our superior application of truth and the total near suppression of parasitism from all walks of life.

(I might have done better at disassembling the arguments, but I have been ill the past three days and perhaps I haven’t been at my best.)

MAPPING GOALS TO PHILOSOPHICAL DISCIPLINES

1) Truth – Truth

2) Liberty – Epistemology

3) Prosperity – Ethics, Politics and Commons

4) Victory and Beauty – Aesthetics

We had a number of central problems in this debate.

(i) First, methodological, in that it is non logical to construct a science (discipline of removing error, imaginary content, bias, wishful thinking and deceit from our theories, thoughts and words) by engaging in the very act of deceitful argument that has been used to conquer us in the ancient religious world (babylonian, jewish and christian mysticism), and in the modern world (german conflationary rationalism, cosmopolitan pseudoscience and propaganda, and anglo feminism). These are inexpensive tactics, while truth is an expensive tactic which is why no other civilization uses it.

(ii) Second, organizational, in that if we cannot engage in conflationary deception, and if we wish to speak truthfully, then truth, epistemology ethics and politics are merely technological disciplines without introspective content, and aesthetics is also a ‘technological’ discipline specifically (like design in the arts) for the purpose of invoking introspective responses. Now, given that I have had time to think of it, I suppose it is possible to start with aesthetics rather than end with aesthetics, but I would not then build the sequence from necessity to preference. But what I will do is try EITHER to use the preferences (truth, liberty, prosperity, victory, beauty) as introductions to each section of the book, or I will use a chapter later in the book to map truth, liberty, prosperity, beauty, and victory, to truth, epistemology, ethics and politics, aesthetics, and war. My intuition is that I should introduce each chapter with it’s aesthetic representation, and then construct it as necessity. I think that this would be both easier to understand, and more satisfactory to critics, and more rewarding for the reader as he goes along: This allows me to ‘mix’ aesthetics and truth without conflating them.

***So in this sense, my critics have won me over, and while they argue poorly, they did not fail to educate me.***

(iii) Third, Emotional Dependence as a weakness preventing transcendence from weak man to great man: the pacification of impulse.

Or better stated, the transcendence from unarticulated intuition to rational articulated *plan*.

While it may be true that conflationary argument is deception, and it may be true that dependence upon impulse is an admission of weakness, I do not assist in training those who wish to ‘transcend’ from impulsive man to rational man, by failing to draw the contrast for him. So I admit that it is better to educate and bear the responsibility for education and transcendence than it is to simply dismiss the common man who requires sentiments for motivation rather than rational thought, as not useful.

(iiii) Fourth, obscurant self deceit, or what we call ‘rationalization’. – an expression of the feminine.

I stand by my criticism that self-satisfying justification of one’s weakness as heroic is merely an admission of and demonstration of weakness. But I accept that it is a philosopher’s duty to provide men the awareness of such, and to provide a means of obtaining strength, and ability.

(v) Fifth, the “Going One’s Own Way” as failure to organize an army to institute change – an admission of defeat, of weakness.

I stand by the criticism that self focus is mere justification of weakness, and only competition demonstrates excellence, not ones self image – which is mere justificationary delusion. If you cannot demonstrate excellence then you do not possess it. Transformation of man requires an army to suppress the parasitism that inhibits our transformation. As such failure to organize into an army or at least a band of raiders, or at least to act to force change, is admission that ones self image is counter to one’s objective status and value. I understand that the millennial generation is raised by women to feel each person is intrinsically virtuous and valuable, and therefore his self perception of his status is higher than it is, and therefore he is prohibited from organizing into a hierarchy where his self image would be refuted by demonstration and evidence, but epistemologically that is not possible to know without competition that demonstrates the truth or falsehood of it. The emphasis on one’s feelings and inspiration is just a means of preserving the falsehood of one’s self image without requiring that one demonstrate that image by successful competition – and it prevents learning and improving from such competition.

(vi) Sixth, Operationalism is a means of preventing self deception, bias confirmation, and justification.

EXISTENTIAL, OPERATIONAL, ‘ACTING’, AND COMPETING test our perceptions, experiences, judgements, memory, and values. Experiencing is not testing perception. If one acts, describes ones actions, and competes against others and survives, then one’s ideas may be true. If one does not then one’s ideas cannot be known to be true. By failing to test the existential possibility of one’s thoughts one merely cowers behind self deception, self delusion, and the nursemaiding of one’s weak character.

CLOSING

One can be forgiven for failure when one does not know the alternative means of succeeding. One can be forgiven for one’s failure to develop a means of succeeding – we vary in our talents, and some cannot reach such heights. But one cannot be forgiven for denying he failure of one’s perceptions, values, strategy, and tactics. And one cannot be forgiven for failing to discard one’s values, strategy and tactics when aware of means of succeeding.

This is the lesson of “guns germs and steel”: either adopt technologies despite the internal costs, or be conquered by those that have adopted those technologies.

If you mind is too weak for this then you are too weak for any purpose other than direction, subservience, slavery, or death.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine.