Menu
To be updated as new books are mentioned on the showHere I will be keeping a list of the books mentioned in episodes of Strike and Mike. The goal being a repository of titles for anyone interested in understanding the current political system from a dissident-rightist of third-positionist perspective. That is not to say that one or indeed any of the authors listed are subscribers to such an ideology, only that the critiques offered by them are compatible with the point of view being developed by the thinkers over at The Right Stuff. These opinions can be anything from foreign policy, economics, domestic policy, or some other school of philosophy more broadly. Likewise, I have taken the liberty to interject with books referred within some of the books listed which I believe also reinforce particular viewpoints. These will be shown separate from books officially mentioned in the podcast by an indentation. That is, they were referred to within a book discussed in an episode which I also recommend. I will denote an asterisk, *, for books which I regard as being quite important to get the new ideas Strike and Mike have been building. That is to say, for the books which will most likely fundamentally alter your perception of the system from more orthodox, dare I say "kosher", right wing schools of thought to the revolutionary perspective of Strike and Mike. I will include a plus, +, for books which I have read personally. Finally a tilde, ~, will denote a book not mentioned in an episode, but still related. Thus an important note, books lacking a plus will not necessarily be unimportant, rather I will update the list when I finish reading them. So if a book has neither a plus nor an asterisk, do not think it is not important, it just means I have not yet read it. The point of this is a sort of "fast track" to understand where Striker and Enoch are coming from.
The path to becoming a galaxy brain.
Have fun, - AF
0 Comments
It has been awhile, and I do not want to kill my blog. I do like doing this stuff, I just do not always think I have good content, or the discipline to follow through all of the time. And I do not want to make things boring or trivial, I want to write posts which have some kind of merit. Lately, I have been trying to read more, among other things. I also got behind the TRS paywall probably about a year or so ago, and have been religiously listening to Strike and Mike. Those guys also got me to read more, since I really liked a lot of their takes. So I had an idea for a couple new posts: A Strike and Mike reading list, along with perhaps the occasional book review. Also, I listened to the First episode of Borzoi's Hyperpodcastism when it for came out, and read Capitalist Realism per that. That will about do it for the introduction to the new set of posts which might keep me occupied for the next little while. Thank you for your continued reading of the blogf, - AF Or Stefan's ParadoxThis problem has really been gnawing at me, and of course Stefan did not respond to the email I sent him, so I cannot work out the issue with the actual originator of the argument. The issue is that it makes logical sense, of the same form as one of my favorite arguments demonstrating the existence of an objective truth: "If the statement, 'no truths exist' is true, then truth exists." You elegantly demonstrate that there is a set called "objective truths" and it always has to be occupied, therefore proving it exists. But Stef's still feels right, but it does not add up on paper. So let us recap: "If the statement 'UPB is wrong' is true, then UPB exists because the statement demonstrates a preference for UPB." Maybe it is a fallacy of four terms:
U <=> UPB A <=> Arguments against UPB D <=> Things which demonstrate UPB V <=> Valid things If this is the case, I can contrast it to the argument I am so partial to: If S, then T S, therefore T. Where: S = Statement of no truths existing T = Set of true things In any case, you can demonstrate that there is a set of truths called objective with an argument of sets:
That is what confuses me. Because, even if I shifted the goal posts to say Stefan's argument contains the fallacy of four terms, we can break it down into agreed upon syllogisms and get the same result from yesterday:
The issue here is that you arrive at a contradiction when you suppose U is V. But you do not get a contradiction assuming the opposite, and the proposition that for some A, V:
I do not have an answer. Because, by implication, it seems that Stefan is relying on the second premise being true to prove the first premise. But the second premise being true would imply that the first premise is untrue. What do you think?
"Oi mate, I figured out how bloomin' morality works, yeah? So you know this problem what wifs been stumping the greatest moinds for millenia, yeah? I solved it, an' all it is is jus a fouckin' 2x2 square an' all. Good fing I'm brilliant enough to figur dis fing out, you're welcome."
If you think you have solved one of mankind's greatest problems, you probably have not. Think of all the crazy technical problems in mathematics. Men spend their entire lives on one field of math, probably never solving that one problem they struggle over. Think about how specific mathematics are, and then compare it to the monumental task of something as ethereal and soft as morality. Let us not, then, assume that our two years of arguing on the internet allows us to make any serious judgement on big problems like this. Or, How we Know that Molyneux's UPB is Certainly Incorrect:Look, I did not want this blog to turn into a Molyneux hate blog, but I am now making my second serious critique on here, and it is again about Molyneux. Also forgive my writing if it is all over the place, I am actually buzzed off coffee and nicotine at the moment. Part I: The Groundwork: **You can skip this section if you want, it is meant to be referenced rather than read through.** Stefan has several rules about his definitions for morality in the beginning of UPB. I will put the link to his book at the bottom if you want to see it for yourself. These groundworks can be found on page 9 if you want to follow along at home. Rule 1: I fully accept the Humean distinction between “is” and “ought.” Valid moral rules cannot be directly derived from the existence of anything in reality. The fact that human beings in general prefer to live, and must successfully interact with reality in order to do so, cannot be the basis for any valid theory of ethics. Some people clearly do not prefer to live, and steadfastly reject reality, so this definition of ethics remains subjective and conditional. Rule 2: Ethics cannot be objectively defined as “that which is good for man’s survival.” Certain individuals can survive very well by preying on others, so this definition of ethics does not overcome the problem of subjectivism. In biological terms, this would be analogous to describing evolutionary tendencies as “that which is good for life’s survival” – this would make no sense. Human society is an ecosystem of competing interests, just as the rainforest is, and what is “good” for one man so often comes at the expense of another. So my reasoning behind trying to debunk UPB is that video above. The title of it is basically clickbait ("Le UPB debunked epic stlye, lolz1!"), and Stefan is kind of a rude to this kid who is trying to argue from the internet philosopher's favorite arsenal: that chart of informal logical fallacies. There is the lack of self reflection from Stefan when he talks down to this guy as being someone having a big ego at a young age while comparing himself to Socrates at the same time. This just made me want to look at his book and see what this impossibly perfect rational proof of secular ethics was really all about. Part II: The Internet Philosophers' Rebuttals: The next logical step to trying to critique Stefan's UPB was for me to look at what other people had done with it beforehand. I read some rebuttal on the Von Mises Institute, and it was pretty boring. Really I did not even read the whole thing. It just seems to be all about critiquing the minutia and all that. Moving on to something more accessible to me, I found this video: The important thing here was that his supposed disproof of Molyneux's first proof of UPB was not actually correct based on Molyneux's ground work. I left a comment on RR's video which was this: "I have started to read through UPB today after he made a video where he was a douche over some guy who tried to critique it, and I wanted to really go hard on it and maybe attack it on his call in show. And I was wondering if I could get a response from you for some help. I think breaking everything down into informal fallacies is not always the best way to attack these things, which seems to be the formula of your videos. Don't get me wrong, of course many people make mistakes on informal grounds. I just don't think Molyneux falls into this in this specific case, and I want to explain why, and maybe get a response from you: You say you would take falsehood over truth because you value well-being over truth. But in his "ground rules" section, Molyneux says that he accepts a Humean is/ought distinction for moral rules. That is to say, he does not think that you can derive rules from anything existing in reality. (That's his ground rule #1.) In ground rule #2, he says that he rejects subjectivism again by rejecting the definition of moral truths as things existing for man's well-being. To put it more clearly, simply looking at how truth affects you and therefore rejecting or accepting it is not, in his opinion, a moral judgement. Maybe you see the problem here. By saying you would reject truth for falsehood because of a consequentialist argument concerning your well being would therefore be immoral by Molyneux's pre-established framework. This is the same for, say, a utilitarian type of moral thinking. Thus, I think Molyneux could safely make the case that you are not engaging in UPB by making such an appeal. I don't know, tell me what you think of my critique of your critique if you want, and then if you're interested I can ask for your opinion on a different refutation of UPB as I have understood it so far." Part III: The Actual Proof UPB is False: So, in my opinion, that was not a valid attack of Molyneux's first proof of UPB. But it did give me a place to start looking for errors. And it showed that Molyneux put his argument into a way I could understand: a syllogism. If you want to track my argument with the book's, this is on page 40: Here is Stef's proof #1:
We also know that preference of moral theories, from his ground rules, including elements of something like consequentialism would fall under a category to the effect of "anything other than moral" to Stefan. Not "amoral" because he provided an example which was immoral on ground rule #2, but also that would not necessarily imply that the set would be only immoral things. Hence, I will call that set "anything other than moral". So it is not a valid criticism and Stefan's argument would actually fend of this attack quite well. Now here is where I would really like to get Stefan's input. This is his argument broken into categorical statements. The equivalence between this and Stef's proof is what would make or break the argument. I also start with the assumption that UPB is true. This is, for all intents and purposes, totally equal to the major premise of Stef's first proof. I could omit the "suppose" qualifier and still get the same results. This can, though, be thought of as a mathematical proof by contradiction. Here we assume the contrary of my theorem (UPB is invalid), and get a contradiction, therefore proving my theorem correct. Here it is:
Where: U <=> UPB A <=> Arguments against UPB. V <=> Valid things
This conforms to the ground rules, and is a totally rational, deductive proof that Stefan Molyneux's UPB is wrong, accepting that he agrees our two syllogisms are equal. Link to UPB book: bit.ly/1OR9gOt
In my last response to Molyneux's video, I made a quasi-empirical argument for the fascist metaphysics applied to the German mind, and how that allowed for scientific, philosophical, and engineering innovations. Now, however, I wanted to make a defense on the hardest argument made by Cultured Thug in the debate. This being the fascist System supporting protectionism. Looking back at the original video, Cultured Thug brings up the example of local farmers growing corn, and how they would lose against Mexican farmers who will work for scant wages. Indeed, the fascist would believe that all contributing members of a society should be able to earn a living wage in the System. But in Stefan's mind, it is totally okay to screw over your own kinsman if it means getting a better deal for yourself. This really strikes at the core of what I perceived to be the difference between Molyneux and Cultured Thug: a sense of collectivism and improvement in oneself and the community versus individual self-interest. Now, just to move aside for a quick second, since this is a kind of stream of consciousness writing, I wanted to touch on the point of there being no ethical concern in the unbridled free market. I believe this is true, and I think Cultured Thug did a good job on providing tangible examples of this (processed food, pornography, etc.) Aside from this, the assertion by Molyneux that, because Cultured Thug had no experience running a business he could not make any judgments on capitalism, is such a classic informal fallacy. So Stefan, why can you make judgments on government when you have never held any kind of public office? Anyway, back to the matter at hand. In the present case, that is to say the case of the local corn farmer, Stefan said you should just do something else if you are that small business owner since you cannot compete with a multinational conglomerate's slave labor. Really, you can see this with a lot of the capitalist System. Cultured Thug brought up Walmart, for instance. Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. do the same things with hardware manufacturing. Now, how does this relate to the video above? Well, Greg Johnson makes the case that it is a sense of nationalism which is truly competitive. Here's why: The current state of this capitalist System we have right now, Johnson says, is simply one of taking advantage of cost cutting. This can be made in regard to Stefan saying there was no incentive for slave owners to ever invent labor saving devices because they were invested in slavery. Yes, and similarly, capitalists have zero incentive to do things like automate because they can cut costs by working people in poor countries to an inhumane extent. Nationalism, as Johnson correctly points out, will be the system that takes us to the stars. Imagining AnCapistan again, sure you would not have slavery, as it goes against NAP. But since there is scarce work (a limited number of jobs) and a surplus of people, the wages which would be offered in AnCapistan would be cruel. You don't like working for a dollar a week? Well, fuck off, nobody's forcing you to be here. This reinforces Cultured Thug's point of there being no ethical incentives in capitalism. Similarly, there is an economic argument to be made using a production possibilities curve (PPC): Now Stefan, asking for alternatives, said you could do any of the three following things to compete in a capitalist System:
Now I will show you why these are untenable within or without Stefan's capitalist System: For point one, this was essentially covered above. Dropping wages just means enslaving your fellow citizens. No fascist would allow a hard working kinsman to suffer. Regarding point two, actually it is a somewhat fair point. But with the idea of helping your fellow citizens in mind, why would you screw them over for a better deal? For point three, this is where Johnson's ideas really come into play with the PPC. Because no nationalist regulation of markets will just allow these corporations to keep kicking the can of wage slavery down the road, to keep with the old habit of cutting costs by hiring people for terrible wages and keeping as many of the profits as they can. Why, Stefan, if automation is so great in capitalism, is it not being done? Because of the PPC. Because a company would need to reorient their business towards an automated process. That means having to produce under your current PPC frontier while you expand it, or at least equalize it through automation. And this would require a huge upfront investment from the owners of the corporations as well as having to somehow keep their profit margins high producing less product for a certain period of time. Now, why would they do that when they can keep these high profit margins with the status quo? Clearly, this cannot happen organically in an unregulated market. Further, asking a local farmer to "just automate lol" is really quite rich. How is a local farmer who cannot compete in this uneven playing field supposed to take even more drastic pay cuts to reestablish their respective PPC under a new automated system? Now, I am not against automation, and I think Cultured Thug is somewhat, though I am not trying to put words in his mouth. I think you can have automation in a fascist system (Henry Ford, for instance), but that is an argument for another time. Anyway that is my long winded defense of Cultured Thug's arguments. I think he did a great job, better than I could have done on the spot. I just thought I could maybe add some insight. In the last response to Molyneux, I argued that AnCap leads to something very similar to the fascist State and that, looking from a Hoppean point of view, fascism can be seen as fitting well in the mold of a libertarian State. What I wanted to expand on now were some of the arguments once the fundamentals were squared away. The first was a proof of the benefits of the fascist metaphysics, education, and propaganda. The idea of becoming the over-man, meritocracy, and access to education in spite of class upbringing, as Cultured Thug said, led to National Socialist Germany leading the world in many fields. Even ones he did not mention: Medicine, physics, sheet metal stamping, military tactics, aeronautical and aerospace engineering, and electrical engineering. Really, the list goes on and on. Stefan, to not admit there was an impressive amount of innovation coming from a fascist State, says something to the effect of: "well Germans have a very high spatial IQ." Yes, I agree with that. Germans are a great race of brilliant minds. But, in the wrong system, even intelligent people can have their potential retarded. Cases in point: East Germany. The United States and Russia having to take these brilliant thinkers after the war. And guess who, besides Germans has the highest population of German descendants? This allows us to look at this hypothesis more scientifically. Since America, although not being AnCapistan, is more similar to Stefan's ideal System and has a large number of the same population, then you should see, accepting his hypothesis, similar innovations. But you did not, since we had to take these Germans after the war. So clearly a System can affect the culture and therefore the spirit of discovery and innovation. Not to say that America has not made any really important discoveries, just that the fascist System for some reason was able to nurture whatever makes genius better than the greed of raw capitalism. Not to mention the false dichotomy Stefan set up: If a fascist State does well, it is solely because of genetics. But if a capitalist State does well it is because capitalism is the best system there is. Part 3 to come. Molyneux can be kind of a dick sometimes when it comes to hearing new ideas. To prove this, I can already tell you exactly how he would respond to that first sentence: "Calling someone a dick is not an argument." Right, because telling someone, in other words, that your arguments are in bad faith is not an argument, I guess. Here he goes up against someone who I admire a lot and who is clearly more well versed in the justifications for his beliefs than Stefan is, Cultured Thug. The first thing I want to argue is the shortsightedness of the Anarcho-Capitalist position (AnCap). All of the derivations of beliefs are based upon the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP for the sake of space). Thus, if any conclusion regarding social interaction is derived from the NAP as the major premise, then it is moral in the AnCap mind. The State, the AnCap would say, is wrong because it is a violation of the NAP. Putting it syllogistically:
This is an AAA-1 syllogism, and is therefore formally valid supposing the major and minor premises are true. Indeed, most AnCap arguments can really be condensed back into such a form as I said before. The major premise being anything violating the NAP is immoral. Which is why the AnCap position has such an allure at first glance. But I will explain why this position fundamentally leads to contradiction with itself: Suppose that there existed a society of AnCaps. There was no State, because it is immoral. We respect private property rights here, because anything else would be a immoral. First, how would land be dived up? Is it through birthright? Conquest? What? Whatever it is, eventually someone will own large amounts of property. Because there is no State and because there will inevitably be violations of the NAP and because the average person desires security, there will be private police. Maybe you can see where I am getting with this. What is the natural conclusion of AnCapistan? It is this:
Wow, it sounds like the natural conclusion of AnCap is just a State by another name. Weird, it is almost as if Hans Hermann Hoppe said just that. AnCap is basically just feudalism really. And if taxation in AnCapistan is not immoral because it is just a contractual agreement, and because I must live somewhere, and because anywhere I would live I would most probably be subject to paying such fees, and because my not paying into something while also reaping the benefits of the community would violate NAP, then taxation is not a violation of the NAP. Part 2 to come. A bit about me: I used to be very politically active and I liked the alt-right. After some of the violence and doxxing that went on, though, I had to really reexamine if it was worth being honest about my opinions if it meant having my life and the lives of others around me destroyed. But to just extend an olive branch to people who might hate me for my opinions, know this:
I did not wake up one day and say "I think I'll adopt ideas that will make my life a living hell." It just kind of happened. I kept quiet about it, in fact I still am in my daily life quiet on matters of politics. I do not want to hurt anyone, I do not want to silence anyone, I just want to explain why I believe what I believe. I wish, really, I could just be cool with whatever I am told by the world to think. I wish I could like John Oliver and all of that. And I have tried to be the good leftist that would not appear to be a threat to the establishment. But I just cannot. So rather than starting from the presupposition that I am a bad person with bad intentions which justifies ruining my life, understand that I am open to other ideas. Just present them in a calm and reasonable way. |
AuthorI'm just trying to learn about everything I can. Archives
June 2020
Categories
All
|