Category: Personal Reflections and Diary

(on writing style)(via pm)(with a friend)

As the guys tell me, I tend to write for a cognitive elite, and it seems that it takes about a 130 IQ to understand it.

Our strategy group for the past five years has been for me to work out all the fine details then hope the guys like you translate it for the masses.

I try but I just don’t think I can talk tot he masses. I think in very … granular(?) terms. In my mind I’m talking about identity, math, logic, programming, and operational law. And that is just … alien to the mass of humanity that was raised upon myth, literature, and history. (the narrative.)

I feel my job is to create the equivalent of the Frankfurt School, or the Jesuits, the Inquisition, and create a hundred and then a thousand people who can argue natural law.

I would rather enjoy starting a revolution and getting that job done. But I think others will do that job better than I will.

I would love it if I could reach the masses through speech.

I would love it if I could write novels and stories as the literature of natural law – even though the Iliad and the Odyssey, the greek and roman myths, the rings of the Nibelungelied, the tales of Arthur and the Carolingians, or the story of Colonialism, and now the great heroic task that is before us, are probably sufficient and tested narrative.

I’m just one guy. I’m in my 50s. I’ve been seriously ill multiple times, and had a possibly lethal amount of radiation. I have a product in development for many years which I must work on at the same time as the philosophy. Both are taxing. The purpose of the product is to fund me (and others) in taking it to its conclusion: the ‘bible’ of western civilization beyond which no man or government may tread: the cult of non-submission: the philosophy of arsitocracy: sovereignty, and its ‘scripture’: natural law.

—“Your writing style is getting better, Curt.”—Aleister Vandal

Thank you 😉

Um. FYI: (a) I have always been able to write empathically, and persuasively. It was hard to learn to argue ‘scientifically’. Just as it is hard for most libertarians and conservatives to argue ‘scientifically’ because the langauge simply didn’t exist to do so.

(b) it helps when you finally understand the subject, develop terminology, and can relate those terms for others. That’s why I work at all these lists (series/sequences) and definitions, and operational language.

(c) Long time followers know I experiment a lot in my posts. Most posts are sketches of proofs. meaning: can I construct an argument. I try to construct proofs tens or dozens of times. Most are incomplete. It is by constructing those ‘difficult to read’ proofs that I can create these more ‘readable’ and ’empathic’ statements of greater clarity. I learned a long time ago that people like ‘watching’ that process. But that it also confuses those who don’t know what process is in process so to speak.

Why am I saying this?

Because it does bother me a bit when people don’t understand what I’m doing. I have to invent a language and grammar for arguing in favor of our ancient group evolutionary strategy: the philosophy of western civilization.

-hugs man. 😉