Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

@MapleCurtain@RadioFreeNorthwest@JohnYoungE um… this is comedic ignorance if it wasn’t such a waste of time.

There is no one that uses more precise langauge than I do. But as Dr Werrell says “it takes about five years of study to be able to talk to you, and it takes six months of working with you to understand you, because while you use english vocabulary, you’re talking in something between mathematics and programming code.”

We know the requirements for the practice of this discipline, In general it requires about 130+ IQ, experince with or education in one of the hard sciences, high trait openness, low trait agreeablness, and nearly autistic system thinking bias. We know this. This is means the pool of people available is under three percent of the population.

If you were ‘smart’ you would not mention Langan, because being fooled by that nonsense is evidence you’re not. Smart people speak in math, science, physics, engineering, economics, and law, with deep knowledge of one or more threads of the evolution of thought in a discipline. For me that’s art, science, technology, economics, law, logic and mathematics. For Michael it’s physics and mathematics. For martin it’s nearly the entire canon of philosphy. For others like Eli, it’s a natural bias and having worked with me for ten nearly a decade.

Either you can think in equilibrial terms (economics) and grasp that all econmics is an extension of physics (physics with memory), and you can grasp my explanation of language and grammar, and you can grasp my explanation of truth and reciprocity – or you can’t.

Learning P-logic unless you are intellectually predisposed to highly skeptical system thinking, and have exhausted the usual developmental chain of classical liberalism > libertarianism > Anarchism(hoppe) > Moldbug > Doolittle, then you haven’t learned enough of the subject matter to understand it.

If you don’t know the founations of math and programming, have some non trivial understanding of economics and law, then you don’t have the requisite tools to undersand my work – or – to be frank – you aren’ knowledgable enough to have an opinion on solutions.

Like Doug says. P is a solution to institutional operation. It’s not a ‘plan’. Bulter’s work is a plan. I did have a strategy and a plan and the window was narrow once covid had undermined Trumps economic achievements, and he lost the margins.

At present our ‘plan’ is simply to work all the options, but those options do not include trying to mobilize the angry mob of poor lost incels. All you people do is destroy the discourse preventing victory by anyone.