Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544541068 Timestamp) ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON THE COURSES —“Hey Curt, I saw your post about “young men searching for answers” and I’m interested in the courses. 1) —“Do you think these courses will be accessible to someone like me, or should I wait a while and try to learn a bit more first?”— I have worked very hard to make them accessible, by handing out the ideas one at a time, in incremental fashion. I don’t think you will need to know anything much prior. And the discussions (as you can see from participating in my feed) will often compensate for differences. 2) —“How much will these courses cost?”— It depends upon the number of people who register for a course. We are not trying to make money at this, just cover costs. (a) When courses roll out they will be at a discount. (b) After that they will increase. They will increase further when (if) we obtain Accreditation (USA).
    (c) We will probably use Purchasing Power Parity to price the courses since not everyone lives in western economies, and we want worldwide students. (d) The courses will be either 3 or 6 credits. We don’t have the same issues as physical universities, so instead of breaking first year courses in two, we will teach them as one six credit course. A 3 credit course must consist of 45-48 hours of class time, and a six credit, (two semester) course double that. (e) Accredited University courses of this nature are usually in the $500+ Range for three credits at a community college and $3000 in a proper liberal arts college. Which is obvious something we cannot do, do not need to do, and is not in our long term interest to do. We are targeting 100-200 for these courses. And we will reduce the price if more people take them. It’s a matter of paying for time, equipment, and servers. (f) there is some behavioral tendency we need to deal with, which is that it if isn’t expensive enough we won’t filter for the right people – those who are truly interested in working thru it. One way or another we will find a way for everyone who wants to, to study together. 3) —“How much time/week do you think would be needed to take them?”— Believe it or not there are recommended time allotments for different courses. So there are some general rules. And they are roughly about the same as the credit hours. ie: 3 hrs per week per class. That includes ‘think time’. Most classes require you read a few wiki or SEP articles, and then answer a few questions. Then critique others in the forums. Mostly so that I can judge whether you’re onboard or not. So far we are aiming at classes consisting of one weekly one three hour ‘class’ that may or may not be broken into two or three sections. These courses do not have to be completed all at once. And I don’t use due dates so to speak. So if you need to take longer it’s fine. You either complete the course, and do so successfully or you don’t. I am not, and the university is not, testing whether you will make a good employee. We are teaching you to be a contemplative judge of the Truth and the Law. —“4) Do you have any idea when the economics course will be available?”— Economics course consists of defining economics as a discipline divided into a spectrum of levers, and then stating the problems with economics as it sits today, and how to repair it. Then teaching it through that ‘corrected lens’. Which involves Austrian (legal), Micro (standard micro), Chicago (insurance), Beckerian (human capital), and Macro (Levers of policy) with less emphasis on keynesian/Post-keynesian macro equilibria, and more on specific attempts to manage the spectrum of capital in the polity. From what I understand at this moment this will be 12 credits, or two 6 credit courses over two years. It is not meant to teach mathematical economic analysis, but political economy – understanding sufficient for rendering legal judgements on disputes over economic conflicts and proposals. —“Good to see the progress you’re making with this kind of thing, glad my patreon shekels aren’t going to waste.”— Your shekels are much appreciated. We do have costs. And it’s very helpful when you help us cover them. And it makes a big difference (especially in my stress level). And I’m forever grateful that you’re making Propertarianism and the White Law possible.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544541068 Timestamp) ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON THE COURSES —“Hey Curt, I saw your post about “young men searching for answers” and I’m interested in the courses. 1) —“Do you think these courses will be accessible to someone like me, or should I wait a while and try to learn a bit more first?”— I have worked very hard to make them accessible, by handing out the ideas one at a time, in incremental fashion. I don’t think you will need to know anything much prior. And the discussions (as you can see from participating in my feed) will often compensate for differences. 2) —“How much will these courses cost?”— It depends upon the number of people who register for a course. We are not trying to make money at this, just cover costs. (a) When courses roll out they will be at a discount. (b) After that they will increase. They will increase further when (if) we obtain Accreditation (USA).
    (c) We will probably use Purchasing Power Parity to price the courses since not everyone lives in western economies, and we want worldwide students. (d) The courses will be either 3 or 6 credits. We don’t have the same issues as physical universities, so instead of breaking first year courses in two, we will teach them as one six credit course. A 3 credit course must consist of 45-48 hours of class time, and a six credit, (two semester) course double that. (e) Accredited University courses of this nature are usually in the $500+ Range for three credits at a community college and $3000 in a proper liberal arts college. Which is obvious something we cannot do, do not need to do, and is not in our long term interest to do. We are targeting 100-200 for these courses. And we will reduce the price if more people take them. It’s a matter of paying for time, equipment, and servers. (f) there is some behavioral tendency we need to deal with, which is that it if isn’t expensive enough we won’t filter for the right people – those who are truly interested in working thru it. One way or another we will find a way for everyone who wants to, to study together. 3) —“How much time/week do you think would be needed to take them?”— Believe it or not there are recommended time allotments for different courses. So there are some general rules. And they are roughly about the same as the credit hours. ie: 3 hrs per week per class. That includes ‘think time’. Most classes require you read a few wiki or SEP articles, and then answer a few questions. Then critique others in the forums. Mostly so that I can judge whether you’re onboard or not. So far we are aiming at classes consisting of one weekly one three hour ‘class’ that may or may not be broken into two or three sections. These courses do not have to be completed all at once. And I don’t use due dates so to speak. So if you need to take longer it’s fine. You either complete the course, and do so successfully or you don’t. I am not, and the university is not, testing whether you will make a good employee. We are teaching you to be a contemplative judge of the Truth and the Law. —“4) Do you have any idea when the economics course will be available?”— Economics course consists of defining economics as a discipline divided into a spectrum of levers, and then stating the problems with economics as it sits today, and how to repair it. Then teaching it through that ‘corrected lens’. Which involves Austrian (legal), Micro (standard micro), Chicago (insurance), Beckerian (human capital), and Macro (Levers of policy) with less emphasis on keynesian/Post-keynesian macro equilibria, and more on specific attempts to manage the spectrum of capital in the polity. From what I understand at this moment this will be 12 credits, or two 6 credit courses over two years. It is not meant to teach mathematical economic analysis, but political economy – understanding sufficient for rendering legal judgements on disputes over economic conflicts and proposals. —“Good to see the progress you’re making with this kind of thing, glad my patreon shekels aren’t going to waste.”— Your shekels are much appreciated. We do have costs. And it’s very helpful when you help us cover them. And it makes a big difference (especially in my stress level). And I’m forever grateful that you’re making Propertarianism and the White Law possible.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544459604 Timestamp) —“I knew you’d come around to being stoked about these chimp-outs in France.”—Michael Darr Like I said to you before – I don’t open my mouth if I don’t know what the fuck is going on… lol. I can tell you that they’re doing it the right way, which is to pick a simple issue to collect enough bodies, and then let the mob’s sense of togetherness and mission expand the scope of the revolt. I can tell that they are using digital media to coordinate – although I don’t understand why the govt hasn’t shut it down yet. They are organized well enough NOT to chimp out, but to selectively target the right kind of properties and people. It’s clear that a leadership is forming. It’s clear that they have learned to use young people as human shields (priceless). it’s clear that the police aren’t exactly against them. It’s clear that while heavily white it’s not exclusively so. It’s clear as of today that they’re increasing the radius to make it more difficult to concentrate forces against them. And it’s starting to turn into the bigger issue of cultural direction. And it’s starting to spread. There is propaganda coming out of RT and other russian outlets that is nonsense. Otherwise it’s good.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544459604 Timestamp) —“I knew you’d come around to being stoked about these chimp-outs in France.”—Michael Darr Like I said to you before – I don’t open my mouth if I don’t know what the fuck is going on… lol. I can tell you that they’re doing it the right way, which is to pick a simple issue to collect enough bodies, and then let the mob’s sense of togetherness and mission expand the scope of the revolt. I can tell that they are using digital media to coordinate – although I don’t understand why the govt hasn’t shut it down yet. They are organized well enough NOT to chimp out, but to selectively target the right kind of properties and people. It’s clear that a leadership is forming. It’s clear that they have learned to use young people as human shields (priceless). it’s clear that the police aren’t exactly against them. It’s clear that while heavily white it’s not exclusively so. It’s clear as of today that they’re increasing the radius to make it more difficult to concentrate forces against them. And it’s starting to turn into the bigger issue of cultural direction. And it’s starting to spread. There is propaganda coming out of RT and other russian outlets that is nonsense. Otherwise it’s good.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544455375 Timestamp) —“Curt, it is a very popular opinion among many people of all kind of political ideologies, including classical liberals and conservatives, to say Israel and Judaism are part of the West. I have even heard people say they are even inseparable. I very strongly disagree that Judaism/Israel belong to the West and I’m guessing you would agree with me. What do you think about this and what are the strongest arguments to prove this desert people with a totally different cosmovision are NOT part of the West? PS: I can consider them as much part of the West as Japan: just part of the same trade/economic bubble (and a few cultural bonds, but totally different cultural, ethnic and religious origins).”— Tomás Rodriguez Villegas Well, I get these questions from all over the world, and I’m not really sure why they are difficult, because they are fairly easy to answer based upon the economic occupations, marriage patterns, nepotistic hiring practices, voting records, political action groups, publication records, media and press records, of different groups. So it’s not a matter of opinion. It’s simply an artifact of the data. That said, to put your question in the three major contexts: 1) Israel was created to (a) export jews out of eurasia given that the ‘problem’ of jewish culture was well understood, (b) provide the west with a new colonial power to oppose the rise of the islamists again without having to occupy territory in the levant, and (c) prevent the spread of communism into muslim lands, and the alliance with Russia and China against the west. So this alliance is largely social, political, military and strategic. If it had not been for the way the germans were tried postwar it is more than likely jews would have been relocated en mass to israel, and that the problem of jewish rule over the levant would have been solved, and jews would have had the population and institutional means of creating a triangular balance of power between Jews, Iranians, and Saudis, with the possibility of Egyptian north africa providing yet another counter-balance. 2) Europeans, upon the growth of the empires, and then the industrial revolution, increasingly gave the jews more rights and partly converted them to Aristotelianism. In the States there was very little difference between the jews and the upper class protestants of new england until after the first world war. In the south Jews were almost fully integrated, even had christmas trees with six sided stars on top and were being admitted to upper class institutions. It was the eastern european and especially russian jews that had had freedom to excessively parasitize the populations of poland, ukraine, and Russia in particular that came in waves and maintained their behaviors. And it was the combination of postwar guilt by the west (virtue signaling) and the aggressive use of jewish immigrant propaganda in concert with the marxist, communist, socialist, feminist, and counter-western movements that – in very organized fashion still present – prohibited our indoctrination of jews into western traditions and aristotelianism. 3) Genetically, Ethnically, Culturally, Strategically, Politically, Economically they are, everywhere, and always, (a) separatists,(b) underminers, and (b) a harm to, preying upon, their hosts – primarily through undermining, usury, and allying with the state against the people. And it is in harming their hosts that they are united, just as europeans are more united when expansionary, and less united when not expanding or ‘engaged in some great venture’. The jews now have three foundation myths: the roman, the persecution, and the holocaust. (My work is partly to counter their foundation myths by posing an eternal struggle between their female destructive strategy and our male evolutionary and constructive strategy.) The jewish strategy, like the muslim, is to export males, find weak or marginal females, and to inbreed with them, forming a local kin group in opposition to the host. Then engage in moral, ethical, political conversion (Jewish), religious (muslim), through evangelism(muslim) and propagandism (jews). So in this sense the female branch is actually european, persian, syrian, egyptian, or whatever other group they infiltrate a host. This is why (famously) the jews have been evicted from 109 countries so far. It hasn’t been because they are ‘different’ it’s because they are harmful. CLOSING So no. It is an easy question to answer: in any matter of conflict do you choose the european, christian, aristotelian duty-hierarchy, or do you choose the semitic, jewish-muslim, abrahamic divisive-equality? The jewish identity remains the issue primarily because it comes with the jewish group evolutionary strategy of undermining the kin group conformity of the west. Jews remain, for thousands of years, levantines, not europeans. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make it drink so to speak. Cheers Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544455375 Timestamp) —“Curt, it is a very popular opinion among many people of all kind of political ideologies, including classical liberals and conservatives, to say Israel and Judaism are part of the West. I have even heard people say they are even inseparable. I very strongly disagree that Judaism/Israel belong to the West and I’m guessing you would agree with me. What do you think about this and what are the strongest arguments to prove this desert people with a totally different cosmovision are NOT part of the West? PS: I can consider them as much part of the West as Japan: just part of the same trade/economic bubble (and a few cultural bonds, but totally different cultural, ethnic and religious origins).”— Tomás Rodriguez Villegas Well, I get these questions from all over the world, and I’m not really sure why they are difficult, because they are fairly easy to answer based upon the economic occupations, marriage patterns, nepotistic hiring practices, voting records, political action groups, publication records, media and press records, of different groups. So it’s not a matter of opinion. It’s simply an artifact of the data. That said, to put your question in the three major contexts: 1) Israel was created to (a) export jews out of eurasia given that the ‘problem’ of jewish culture was well understood, (b) provide the west with a new colonial power to oppose the rise of the islamists again without having to occupy territory in the levant, and (c) prevent the spread of communism into muslim lands, and the alliance with Russia and China against the west. So this alliance is largely social, political, military and strategic. If it had not been for the way the germans were tried postwar it is more than likely jews would have been relocated en mass to israel, and that the problem of jewish rule over the levant would have been solved, and jews would have had the population and institutional means of creating a triangular balance of power between Jews, Iranians, and Saudis, with the possibility of Egyptian north africa providing yet another counter-balance. 2) Europeans, upon the growth of the empires, and then the industrial revolution, increasingly gave the jews more rights and partly converted them to Aristotelianism. In the States there was very little difference between the jews and the upper class protestants of new england until after the first world war. In the south Jews were almost fully integrated, even had christmas trees with six sided stars on top and were being admitted to upper class institutions. It was the eastern european and especially russian jews that had had freedom to excessively parasitize the populations of poland, ukraine, and Russia in particular that came in waves and maintained their behaviors. And it was the combination of postwar guilt by the west (virtue signaling) and the aggressive use of jewish immigrant propaganda in concert with the marxist, communist, socialist, feminist, and counter-western movements that – in very organized fashion still present – prohibited our indoctrination of jews into western traditions and aristotelianism. 3) Genetically, Ethnically, Culturally, Strategically, Politically, Economically they are, everywhere, and always, (a) separatists,(b) underminers, and (b) a harm to, preying upon, their hosts – primarily through undermining, usury, and allying with the state against the people. And it is in harming their hosts that they are united, just as europeans are more united when expansionary, and less united when not expanding or ‘engaged in some great venture’. The jews now have three foundation myths: the roman, the persecution, and the holocaust. (My work is partly to counter their foundation myths by posing an eternal struggle between their female destructive strategy and our male evolutionary and constructive strategy.) The jewish strategy, like the muslim, is to export males, find weak or marginal females, and to inbreed with them, forming a local kin group in opposition to the host. Then engage in moral, ethical, political conversion (Jewish), religious (muslim), through evangelism(muslim) and propagandism (jews). So in this sense the female branch is actually european, persian, syrian, egyptian, or whatever other group they infiltrate a host. This is why (famously) the jews have been evicted from 109 countries so far. It hasn’t been because they are ‘different’ it’s because they are harmful. CLOSING So no. It is an easy question to answer: in any matter of conflict do you choose the european, christian, aristotelian duty-hierarchy, or do you choose the semitic, jewish-muslim, abrahamic divisive-equality? The jewish identity remains the issue primarily because it comes with the jewish group evolutionary strategy of undermining the kin group conformity of the west. Jews remain, for thousands of years, levantines, not europeans. You can bring a horse to water but you can’t make it drink so to speak. Cheers Curt

  • (FB 1544711889 Timestamp) (No idea who authored it. but got it Via James)

    (FB 1544711889 Timestamp) (No idea who authored it. but got it Via James)

  • (FB 1544711889 Timestamp) (No idea who authored it. but got it Via James)

    (FB 1544711889 Timestamp) (No idea who authored it. but got it Via James)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544623589 Timestamp) PARSIMONY IS MORE WORK THAN IT SOUNDS: I DO THE BEST I CAN BUT THERE ARE LIMITS…. —Paraphrased: “I think Curt is more obscure than he needs to be, and we need to make his work accessible.”— Let me see if I can answer this objection because there is truth in it, but explanation to be had. I am working in public like a street smith. I do not claim to have an answer until I have an answer so to speak. I just work through the problems one at a time in a painfully organized fashion. I do this because I don’t have a classroom at a university to test my ideas on students in organized form. Nor is there a method of running tests on people better than working through problems together. As most know I understand that thing we call religion today, and I know how to repair the institution, but I am still working on the content of it. But I have followed this process across the intellectual spectrum. So I am WORKING with the online group. In the classes I will TEACH them. There is a difference between research and development (my online work) and teaching (book and courses). Now to answer the question: First, yes, I add a certain degree of inferential or deductive demand in those cases where direct statement would remove me from the platform. If I stated some things directly deplatforming would follow. Second is the Great Change i’m trying to force, and the vast difference in the shift from the ideal (meaning) to the real (testimony). And I am working on this Great Change as a means of creating the Law that would end the means by which my (our) people have been deceived by false promises, straw manning, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism. For example, this is a short version of the dependency chain I work with: |SPIKE| Demand for Acquisition > Evolutionary(Adaptive) Velocity > Agency > Operational Definitions > Series/Tables of Operational Definitions > Divisions of Labor > Equilibrations(Competitions, Markets) > Arguments > Aphorisms. I KNOW that chain of reasoning from physics through cognition. And so I defend that chain of reasoning from error. And I defend my words from others’ ‘cheats’ (descent in to ideal types and normative usage’) that is the reason for fuzzy deduction from fuzzy definitions: fuzzy (justificationary) thinking. There is no way to explain that to people in all its depth when everyone we know, solves for their current investment in the current frame. I write in sentences that are closer to software statements and mathematics than ordinary language, and because of that closer to latin grammar. In fact I have considered writing in a formal language like software, and tried it a few times, but this is what makes formal logic and symbolic mathematics inaccessible. I DO create a degree of inferential demand yes. I do this to prohibit MISINTERPRETATION. This is part of the ‘trick’. In other words, you will not undrestand incorrectly only correctly. In other words, you will either not understand or you will correctly intuit and eventually correctly understand. I create partial arguments, and work with themes right out in public. I run dozens or hundreds of tests with these arguments. Until I can distill their causal relations into operational definitions in series. (Produce a supply demand graph of multiple dimensions over time). And thien weave them into an historical explanation. And then reference them with aphorisms. Then I weave all these ideas together in different patterns to educate on the relations between phenomenon that appear unrelated, or which are artificially unrelated by the differences in nonsense language between the disciplines. I search for aphoristic form as the ‘index’, ‘end point’, or ‘entry point’ of an idea.. I think the combination of ‘memorable’ aphoristic form, use of series and equilibria, and the operational (software) form produce an incremental hierarchy that makes misinterpretation difficult. And I do so by a great deal of repetition so that the newbies who come along can learn, as the others have, by ‘drip-feeding’. The Web is a One Room School House (that frequently descends into a locker room). The hard part is the series of terms. Once you have that, you can largely understand it. I publish those series often. I have a glossary. Although once you have a series the glossary seems largely superfluous. So you find that (a) people with the requisite knowledge of multiple fields recognize it but struggle to use it – although you can see from the groups that spun off, that they could learn within a few months – but pursued more elitist (absolutist) objectives because of it; (b) people who intuit ‘something is right there’ work to obtain that knowledge, (c) as more people obtain that knowledge the community rate of understanding expands, and (d) people begin to develop interest simply because they see that others do – and this reduces my cost of educating others. Others are better suited to bring it to the masses than I am. And I have invested so heavily in training others (all of you) for this reason: both to reduce the burden on me, and to compensate for my inadequacy – and frankly, disinterest. I am extremely confident (frighteningly so) that can defeat any intellectual at my level that’s living. And I am keenly aware that it is those people I must defend against attacks from over time. And while I care deeply for, and enjoy the company of, I cannot however sufficiently empathize with the cognitive framework of those much further down the curve than I am, unless in a one-on-one conversation. I do not have their frame to work with. Nor the time and energy to retrain minds working entirely by habituation with limited understanding of what they do vs the possible alternatives that we all CAN do. Others gain their status and experience training those minds. And together we train a people. So it is quite possible that it can be done better. But this is the best I can do while trying to produce a formal law closed to interpretation and therefore abuse, while at the same time explaining the historical narrative of our people, restoring our people’s confidence in our civilization, providing a constitution that restores our civilization, a strategy and tactics for forcing its imposition, and creating a ‘college’ to institutionalize teaching it at some scale, prior to its gradual transformation into a religion. It is that ‘religion’ that will transform our people.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1544623589 Timestamp) PARSIMONY IS MORE WORK THAN IT SOUNDS: I DO THE BEST I CAN BUT THERE ARE LIMITS…. —Paraphrased: “I think Curt is more obscure than he needs to be, and we need to make his work accessible.”— Let me see if I can answer this objection because there is truth in it, but explanation to be had. I am working in public like a street smith. I do not claim to have an answer until I have an answer so to speak. I just work through the problems one at a time in a painfully organized fashion. I do this because I don’t have a classroom at a university to test my ideas on students in organized form. Nor is there a method of running tests on people better than working through problems together. As most know I understand that thing we call religion today, and I know how to repair the institution, but I am still working on the content of it. But I have followed this process across the intellectual spectrum. So I am WORKING with the online group. In the classes I will TEACH them. There is a difference between research and development (my online work) and teaching (book and courses). Now to answer the question: First, yes, I add a certain degree of inferential or deductive demand in those cases where direct statement would remove me from the platform. If I stated some things directly deplatforming would follow. Second is the Great Change i’m trying to force, and the vast difference in the shift from the ideal (meaning) to the real (testimony). And I am working on this Great Change as a means of creating the Law that would end the means by which my (our) people have been deceived by false promises, straw manning, sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism. For example, this is a short version of the dependency chain I work with: |SPIKE| Demand for Acquisition > Evolutionary(Adaptive) Velocity > Agency > Operational Definitions > Series/Tables of Operational Definitions > Divisions of Labor > Equilibrations(Competitions, Markets) > Arguments > Aphorisms. I KNOW that chain of reasoning from physics through cognition. And so I defend that chain of reasoning from error. And I defend my words from others’ ‘cheats’ (descent in to ideal types and normative usage’) that is the reason for fuzzy deduction from fuzzy definitions: fuzzy (justificationary) thinking. There is no way to explain that to people in all its depth when everyone we know, solves for their current investment in the current frame. I write in sentences that are closer to software statements and mathematics than ordinary language, and because of that closer to latin grammar. In fact I have considered writing in a formal language like software, and tried it a few times, but this is what makes formal logic and symbolic mathematics inaccessible. I DO create a degree of inferential demand yes. I do this to prohibit MISINTERPRETATION. This is part of the ‘trick’. In other words, you will not undrestand incorrectly only correctly. In other words, you will either not understand or you will correctly intuit and eventually correctly understand. I create partial arguments, and work with themes right out in public. I run dozens or hundreds of tests with these arguments. Until I can distill their causal relations into operational definitions in series. (Produce a supply demand graph of multiple dimensions over time). And thien weave them into an historical explanation. And then reference them with aphorisms. Then I weave all these ideas together in different patterns to educate on the relations between phenomenon that appear unrelated, or which are artificially unrelated by the differences in nonsense language between the disciplines. I search for aphoristic form as the ‘index’, ‘end point’, or ‘entry point’ of an idea.. I think the combination of ‘memorable’ aphoristic form, use of series and equilibria, and the operational (software) form produce an incremental hierarchy that makes misinterpretation difficult. And I do so by a great deal of repetition so that the newbies who come along can learn, as the others have, by ‘drip-feeding’. The Web is a One Room School House (that frequently descends into a locker room). The hard part is the series of terms. Once you have that, you can largely understand it. I publish those series often. I have a glossary. Although once you have a series the glossary seems largely superfluous. So you find that (a) people with the requisite knowledge of multiple fields recognize it but struggle to use it – although you can see from the groups that spun off, that they could learn within a few months – but pursued more elitist (absolutist) objectives because of it; (b) people who intuit ‘something is right there’ work to obtain that knowledge, (c) as more people obtain that knowledge the community rate of understanding expands, and (d) people begin to develop interest simply because they see that others do – and this reduces my cost of educating others. Others are better suited to bring it to the masses than I am. And I have invested so heavily in training others (all of you) for this reason: both to reduce the burden on me, and to compensate for my inadequacy – and frankly, disinterest. I am extremely confident (frighteningly so) that can defeat any intellectual at my level that’s living. And I am keenly aware that it is those people I must defend against attacks from over time. And while I care deeply for, and enjoy the company of, I cannot however sufficiently empathize with the cognitive framework of those much further down the curve than I am, unless in a one-on-one conversation. I do not have their frame to work with. Nor the time and energy to retrain minds working entirely by habituation with limited understanding of what they do vs the possible alternatives that we all CAN do. Others gain their status and experience training those minds. And together we train a people. So it is quite possible that it can be done better. But this is the best I can do while trying to produce a formal law closed to interpretation and therefore abuse, while at the same time explaining the historical narrative of our people, restoring our people’s confidence in our civilization, providing a constitution that restores our civilization, a strategy and tactics for forcing its imposition, and creating a ‘college’ to institutionalize teaching it at some scale, prior to its gradual transformation into a religion. It is that ‘religion’ that will transform our people.