Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

It’s true. It’s documented. I list the major pseudoscientists and frauds. But devoting public effort to that single purpose would be a bad idea. Making that a ‘single issue’ would harm the broader aspects of my work that do not seek to single out any group of people for the ‘criminality’ of their group strategy, given that many groups often intuit something criminal and immoral is moral and virtuous. My purpose is not to punish a people for their group strategy (beliefs, traditions, norms, institutions) but to produce laws that prevent those crimes that they facilitate no matter how virtuous people believe them to be. The same is true of women. The fact that we are experiencing the high cost of introducing women into the economy and politics without laws that limit female intuition does not necessitate the punishment of women, only that we produce laws that prevent their natural criminality which it turns out is pervasive. Men’s criminality is simply more visible and urgent so we have, like any technology, suppressed it incrementally first and less urgent and less perceptible crimes more slowly. My work creates a science of decidability to solve this problem, so that we may forever outlaw not individual crimes, but all crimes, present and future.

Reply addressees: @FarajRashi93307 @mysteriouskat