Hurry! Today, you can cleanse yourself of Anglo enlightenment universalism, German Rationalism, Jewish Pseudoscience, Christian Superstition, and whatever other other intellectual disease the ails you. (Members of the Cathedral, Islamism and Buddhism may require higher doses and longer treatment periods.) Save humanity from all variants of the Levantine Plague.
Sorry. No discounts. It’s against our principles.
—When asked what form of instruction was most in vogue in Sparta, he said, “Knowledge of how to rule and to be ruled.”—
Reform the academy with violence, not words: Testimonial Truth, Ethics, Law, Politics, Economics, Engineering and War.
One does not rule those who are immoral with their permission – but expressly without it.
Otherwise they would not need to be ruled.
Moral judgement is not open to question any more than mathematical formulae are open to question. Either equations balance, and proofs can be constructed or they cannot. Either fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality was performed, or it was not. And in both cases, either information exists sufficient for decidability, or it does not. But no questions are undecidable if the information is present.
Men are the walls of Europa, and the points of our swords its boundaries.
Words and laws do not freedom make.
“Gods exist as numbers exist and formulae exist and narratives exist.”
Just to clarify: I think the original post is making the claim that ontologically, God falls into Popper’s category of “Thirdness” or the “Third World”. Religion is extremely adaptive; even the greatest critics of religion can see that and have said it in many ways. I even think that fictional literature falls into the same category, although it is nowhere near as adaptive as religion. I’m also critical of the “meme virus” theory of religion for reasons I won’t go into here, but even in this theory, religion fall into the same category of beings. The objects of faith are on my view not viruses, but they and numbers are memes. It would require a long detour through the philosophy of science and metaphysics to justify and clarify the ancient reverence for the exact sciences and to demarcate them from theology and mythology. I won’t do it here due to constrains on my time, but it’s not that hard for a philosophically literate person to see how this can all be true.
You could make a case that religion and money are the “cause” of much evil, and this case would also be seen by the reader of the late Heidegger to cast a negative light on mathematical science. While this perspective is a interesting one to ponder, it’s not sufficient to justify practical Luddism or radical mislogy.
This sort of issue is where a little Aristotle goes a long way.
**It’s very hard to produce commons if you’re producing offspring who have no alternative but to parasite upon those commons.**
How we construct classical liberalism from Anarcho-Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism from Nomocracy, and Nomocracy from Capitalism. You can’t do it any other way you know.
1. Capitalism (property rights) = Voluntary Organization of Production
2. Nomocracy (Rule of Law) = Organic Evolution of Law
3. Anarcho-… (anarchy) A Covenential Prohibition on Government.
…….. Removal of All Political Liberty.
4. Voluntary Contractual Covenants (Formation of a polity )
…….. Removal of Some Liberty on use of Property
5. Mandatory Contractual Covenants (Perpetuation of a Polity)
…….. Example: Removal of Liberty of Association and Disassociation
6. Mandatory Contractual Covenants for the Production of Commons (Government).
…….. Removal of Anarchic Prohibition in exchange for the construction of commons.
THIS DESCRIBES CLASSICAL LIBERALISM, NOT ANARCHO-CAPITALISM.
(Reminder: A Covenant is a Constitution without provision for government.)
I always advocate aristocratic egalitarianism and aristocratic tribalism: the responsibility of aristocracy of every tribe to work with the aristocracy of every tribe to construct a moral world. My ambition is the organized suppression of the immoral, and the organized spread of aristocratic egalitarianism wherever moral man is to be found.
I do not tolerate either racism, or the multiculturalism of the corporate state – but instead, the re-nationalization of liberty and prosperity and the advancement of all moral families, tribes and peoples. Bring truth, trust, rule of law and capital to people, not people to capital and law.
Failure to compete is a problem of the inadequacy of the self to be corrected, not one of the other to be constrained.
Punish the wicked.
I love you for this post. Really.
The greeks lost writing for 600 years after the sea peoples.
Europe fell into ignorance after the fall of rome, and the despotic, forced introduction of submissive Christianity.
The world fell into verbal-mysticism, pseudo-science, and pseudo-rationalism starting with Marx, justified by the great war, and continuing until about 1995 – when again, science attempted to rescue us from pseudo-science, verbal-mysticism, and pseudo-rationalism.
The list of civilizations – social orders of institutions, property rights, languages, rituals, traditions, myths, and norms – that have disappeared is somewhere around fifty depending upon whom you refer to – and most all of them are gone and without western efforts at uncovering them – forgotten.
I think though, that whig history is still the best theory of history, because it is the most scientific explanation of history: we evolve, we adapt, or we perish – if we do not perish then we are virtuous.
Now, my response to your argument though, is quite different: why is it that civilizations fail to persist? What do they do wrong? What have we done wrong since the enlightenment that has allowed us material wealth, while committing suicide – while culturally regressing from high arts to mere vulgarity and consumption? Why are we vulnerable to whatever it is we are vulnerable?
Why did the greeks, the Romans, the Habsburgs, the Germans, and now the Anglos fall? Why was Europa easy to conquer with mysticism under rome? Why are we so comfortable with science – when no other culture appears to be? Why were we so easy to fall victim to cosmopolitan pseudo-sicence, and pseudo-philosophy, german psuedo-rationalitiy, and the anglo fallacy that all men wish to join the aristocracy?
The whig theory of history is true under the conditions that we followed throughout our history. The question is, and I think you’re posing it well, why then, at certain periods in our history, do we regress rather than continue the whig theory of history?
The answer is I think fairly simple.
(BTW: In deference to John Kersey: my position is that there is nothing good in the bible whatsoever, that is not better in the western canon than in the levantine tradition. The church formed a weak federal state selling a mystical snake oil, but it was the weak federal state and the church’s incentives as a weak federal state as opposition to the monarchy that allowed it to create value. The church could burn every reference to the levant and all its consequences, draw entirely from western people as statesmen, scholars, care-givers, generals, artists, and scientists, and beginning with natural law achieve the same ends without appealing to tyrannical authority. History well written, would be one of natural law, and misguided well intentioned fools in the church. Our god is constructed of demonstrated character of men who bring about whig history through virtuous acts. We need no other. And there is no better.)
POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosophers.
Dragging Germans and Cosmopolitans out of the well of authoritarianism.
For my purposes, Popper and Hayek are just the best thinkers to build upon, because they’re the least wrong. Hoppe isn’t important so much for what he has said but how he has taught us to say anything we wish to say at all. And whether he likes it or not (I don’t much care are this point) my work is a continuation of his – dragging it out of the absurd primitivism of cosmopolitan and german rationalism, kicking and screaming all the way. I think that, as of yesterday, I was able to drag Popper out of the cosmopolitan tradition as well. Laundering him of his cultural habits.
If you haven’t solved morality you need authority. But if you have solved morality you don’t need authority. I solved morality and therefore I don’t need authority: there is no difference in morality and property other than the scope of morality that the community is willing and able to enforce. Conversely, the less morality that people are wiling and able to enforce, the more people will demand for an authoritarian government to either impose an arbitrary moral standard, or impose sufficient order that retaliation for immoral and unethical actions is prohibited.
As such the primary determinant of whether a polity can obtain liberty under rule of law is determined by the difference between the rate of adaptation of the legal code and the rate of change in the accumulated forms of property demonstrated by the populace for use in their reproduction and therefore production.
The reason the west was able to evolve then, faster than all other civilizations, both times that it managed to escape eastern mysticism, is because the rule of law, judges and the jury can produce adaptation faster than other cultural methods of adaptation.
(pretty cool really)
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
de.aristocratia at gmail.com