–Q: “Please convince Rudyard (@whatifalthist) to do this debate.”–
Rudyard is his own man with his own strategy that is informed by a deep understanding of social media markets and his market within it, and his staff’s leadership is equally so.
In the case of the feminine-abrahamic method of suggestion, deception, and coercion as a means of warfare we must remember that Rudyard’s empathy and compassion for the mind and spirit of ordinary people in the face of life’s uncertainty and stress is the source of his ability to correctly interpret history through the lens of all populations across the world in all eras of recorded history.
Additionally Rudyard’s core interest is the middle ages which were not the age of the origin of religions but the age of their greatest impact on newly emergent social, economic, and political scales.
For this reason his interpretation of religious and philosophical prose, scripture, thought, and ideation favors the minds of the citizenry even if it imposes a long term cost upon them. He favors that trade off. And as such he is forgiving of religious differences and group differences resulting from their religions.
Also, as an intellectuals, and not populists, his job, my job, and any honest intellectual’s job, must not (as I’m sure most people do) ignore the opposite side of the coin, the ignorance of people of their own strategy and means of persuasion argument competition and warfare, and in our case our failure to defend ourselves agains the feminine, jewish, abrahamic-sequence, and marxist-sequence means of warfare by seduction into false promise by suggestion, deception, and coercion.
So whereas in my work prohibiting that warfare is a central proposition, directly stated, with legal enforcement, Rudyard less directly educates but with empathy for all parties – which is his trademark skill in historical analysis. He’s not ideological. He’s empirical and empathic. So whereas I explain controversial topics with judicial and scientific neutrality and more abstractly than the ‘outrage class’ can grasp – which is why I can survive on social media, Rudyard explains controversial topics with reciprocal empathy for all parties, and communicates controversial ideas by suggestion – leaving conclusions to the audience. Again, which is why he can survive on social media. With the difference being he can find a large audience and my technical work will generally appeal to a very analytic minority, even if I suspect our organizations constitutional, legal, economic, social, and education reforms will eventually be accessible to more of the population than my technical work.
One of the reasons I find such close intellectual kinship with Rudyard, is that he functions as an intellectual and positive priesthood covering one point of the political triangle, and I work largely in the negative of law and politics, covering the other two points of the triangle. I can’t do what he does. And if he did what I did we’d lose the insight he brings.
Which is precious. And it’s why I consider him our most emerging and important synthetic anthropologist, historian and budding philosopher.
Affections
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
Reply addressees: @SankohaProjekt @OGRolandRat @AutistocratMS
