Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • The Alt Right Enemy Within

    What we imagine is:

    “If I can not persuade you, then I’ll bargain with you. If I cannot bargain with you I have to separate myself from you. If I cannot separate myself from you I have to destroy you.”–CD

    What we get is:

    Cowardly, Conflict-Avoiding, Permission-Seeking, Authority-Needing, Right-Wingers. They’re Perfect Christians. Great peasants. Great soldiers. And hyper-moral. The world’s best lower, working, and middle class and secret to western success.

    But the worst possible revolutionaries.

    —“Things unwilling and unable to be reciprocated by the non-European inferior; and such elegancies irrelevant to the common man and the ultimate inconcealable fact that: You remain a threat to me until I destroy you. So why are you wasting your and our time on this
    @curtdoolittle”— @CarsonMcCuller5

    1) RE “Inferiority”: True. And Inactionable. If you can’t operationalize a solution then it’s just a fantasy for children.
    2) RE “Common man”: the common docile conservative sheep is inferior also – at least the left isn’t cowardly. being the cheapest and most valuable laboring, working, and middle class is one thing. Being courageous enough to bear the costs of self-determination is quite different.
    3) RE “Waste our time”: So why are you threatened by the criticism? (you are)
    4)  Erroneous Presumptions: the purpose of my post is an exposition of the logic of the law – not populism.
    5)  Goal? To expose the fact that only a tiny aristocracy was “white”: and “you” aren’t.

    No More Lies.

    —“No more lies: The Anglocucks have no more understanding of your words than hobbits of the Shire, and the Enemy no more care for them than the Captain of the Black Gate, so why are you wasting our time with this? It’s not a vicaro-posthumous vanity is it?”— @CarsonMcCuller5

    1) There are plenty of people who understand – but numbers no longer matter.

    2) Erroneous Presumption of the relevance of the common man and the potential of the right – who are cowardly, Christan, Peasant, magical thinkers – confused that righteous responsibility does not mean bravery.

    —“I say ‘Truth is enough’ is magic thinking, You / We / Anyone haven’t even conveyed the truth to anyone much, let alone they acknowledging it. I say that you have the buffer of intellectual construction and the expectation of death by ill-health between you and reality.”—@curtdoolittle

    The dissident right used the internet to imitate the propaganda of the communists using the method of the bolsheviks: undermine. The difference is that the communists had a strategy and policy behind it that would empower top&bottom against middle.

    You don’t and “you” are middle

    —“What are you suggesting now?”—@CarsonMcCuller5

    I’m not suggesting anything. Winning was possible. I’m blaming you for your fate.

    The truth: “You” have been the cause of the failure of both the first and second attempts to unite the right. The first symbolically, second by policy. When only unity under moral license could make a political victory possible. But no. You chest thump like apes. You’re children.

    There will be no aristocratic revolution, though there may well be a clumsy multi-class revolution against the gifted Covid nonsense, so stop your ridiculous petulant hypocritical ‘anti-Nazi’ squirting, it makes you weaker and less credible for no benefit. End of story.

    Again erroneous presumption. I’m not looking for credibility with “you” because you are equally the enemy of our people. I’m seeking credibility with the majority who also consider you the enemy of our people, and whose influence cannot be permitted because you’re just apes no better than the enemy.

    So I justly measure you morons: chest-thumping boys plying symbolic schoolyard posturing to win a conflict driven by vast forces of genetic, economic, and political self-interest. The left has an intellectual base that drives their soldiers. Right soldiers think they’re smart – and it’s obviously false.

    SOLUTION

    All you ever have to do is show up, follow orders, and not take the bait. But you take the left’s bait every single time. You’re suckers and morons. And you ape-sucker-morons had the gall to poison the well for us because we wouldn’t take the bait as you ape-sucker-morons.

    So it doesn’t matter if we want the same things if you’re ape-boy-sucker-morons taking the left’s bait, falling into every ape-trap they set, and giving them the optics-over-arguments that they want.

    You’re imbeciles. The left is right. You’re undesirable, disagreeable idiots.

    All you had to do is show up, shut up, show support, and let the policy message, showing up, shutting up, showing support create a positive message around POLICY that would let us control the discourse.

    You poisoned both movements. And now we’re out of time.

    You’re a disease.

    You’re the enemy within.

     

  • False equivalencies: yes, we can govern with the humans we have, if we don’t expect behavior from them without institutions to enforce it.

    —” That is exactly the problem I see in every political, ethical or moral claims. They never blame the system they create. It always guy XYZ fault. My program for human works perfectly but when I put the value “human” in it. It crashed. Dawm you… humans!!!”—

    Are you sure that makes sense? (No it doesn’t’)

    Does that mean that we should satisfy the demand for criminality? That’s what you’re saying. (Yes you are).

    There is a difference between trying to get humans to do something unequally good and prohibiting them from doing things that are equally bad (crime). 

    So yes, we can govern with the humans we have as long as we limit the reproduction of the undesirables, where undesirable is a demonstrated behavior (failure). Yes, we can govern with the humans we have, if we don’t expect behavior from them without institutions to enforce it. And if those institutions are possible. Via negativa defense of ourselves from predation is a universal demand.

    Humans are just like any other semi-domesticated animal. They require training. And some of them are beneficial and some are hazardous to others, the order that makes their quality of life possible, and the gene pool itself.

    I have no problem with the truth. Why do you? 😉

  • False equivalencies: yes, we can govern with the humans we have, if we don’t expect behavior from them without institutions to enforce it.

    —” That is exactly the problem I see in every political, ethical or moral claims. They never blame the system they create. It always guy XYZ fault. My program for human works perfectly but when I put the value “human” in it. It crashed. Dawm you… humans!!!”—

    Are you sure that makes sense? (No it doesn’t’)

    Does that mean that we should satisfy the demand for criminality? That’s what you’re saying. (Yes you are).

    There is a difference between trying to get humans to do something unequally good and prohibiting them from doing things that are equally bad (crime). 

    So yes, we can govern with the humans we have as long as we limit the reproduction of the undesirables, where undesirable is a demonstrated behavior (failure). Yes, we can govern with the humans we have, if we don’t expect behavior from them without institutions to enforce it. And if those institutions are possible. Via negativa defense of ourselves from predation is a universal demand.

    Humans are just like any other semi-domesticated animal. They require training. And some of them are beneficial and some are hazardous to others, the order that makes their quality of life possible, and the gene pool itself.

    I have no problem with the truth. Why do you? 😉

  • Meaningful compliments matter, Especially When Accompanied But Deep Insights

     

    —“Their success and subjective sense of fulfillment is not measured by relative status – it’s measured by the degree of identity that they can achieve with their social group.”—


    By Tim Beckley

    Regarding this exchange:

    NPC-ism:”DOESN’T LOOK LIKE MUCH OF ANYTHING TO ME”
    Brilliant Framing by Western Renaissance

    “The only ethnic Europeans who “oppress” anyone are anti-ethnic european, ethnic Europeans.”— @ReactionaryIan

    “Yep. Involuntary Status Redistribution by False Virtue Signaling.”– Curt

    God damn, I love how precise the explanation is through the lens of the economics of status.–WR

    “But, it’s more irritating tho somehow, isn’t it? lol”– Curt

    “Absolutely, because cuts through people’s after the fact justifications and makes it clear that they are simply self-interested consumers of everything lol And also because I think during my search for answers, part of my brain has subconsciously assumed that people would care or that it would be easier to convince them if you had good explanations and answers. But no… the sad truth seems to be that you can explain things with as much detail and elegance as you want, but when faced with the option of becoming aware of their strategy and self-interest, people just give the Westworld response..’ doesn’t look like much of anything to me’”–WR

    “Yep. When faced with the truth the NPC says “It doesn’t look like much of anything to me”. — CD

    I can’t think of anyone who’s articulated the masculine psychology of the European West with greater precision, comprehensiveness, or infectious enthusiasm than you. In my opinion, you’re the most valuable thinker the Right has today, not only because of your prolific output, but also your generosity and accessibility which are qualities of an exceptional teacher. The Right needs men like you and if the ingratitude and idiocy of the rank and file exhausts your patience, they’ll suffer for it.

    That said, I can’t help but notice the irony of this exchange. The other half of Western European psychology is not concerned *primarily* with status. Status seeking is the motive force of hypermasculine/ascendant/libertarian psychology, as status retention motivates the established or conservative male. Western feminine psychology is much less distinct from the psychology characterizing women throughout the world, and for evolutionary reasons, this is necessarily so.

    The primary concern of feminine psychology is connection. The vast majority of women and cognitively feminine men would accept a sense of connectedness with other people at the cost of status. Unlike ascendant men, their success and subjective sense of fulfillment is not measured by relative status, i.e., by distinction. Quite the opposite.

    It’s measured by the degree of identity that they can achieve with their social group. Identity, equivalence, conformity, homogeneity- all feminine social behavior tends toward these. Status is gained passively, largely unconsciously, as women develop the ability to achieve them. The highest ranking members of female social groups are the ones best able to reflect the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the other members, which is to say, the most empathic women lead, or better, are followed.

    There’s a common mischaracterization of empathy on the Right as uncontrollable sympathy or pathological altruism. Empathy is merely the ability to vicariously experience the subjective experiences of another. For many this ability is entirely controllable, and when also highly developed, it’s empowering, as the feminine cognitive type will yield to those capable of demonstrating identity with them, whether genetic or cultural.

    Ethnic European women feel oppressed by the ethnic European business class that’s ascended, dismantling the cultural institutions that they once conformed to and insisting their women behave as men, or worse yet, as machines. The ethnic European ascendant male has atomized and deracinated the European masses and his hubris has led to the defection of his women, the disengagement of his men, and the collapse of his civilization which was longer maintained by the more moderate and conservative establishment he dethroned.
    But none of this looks like much to him.

    CD: I would argue that I know that but I just categorize both male and female ‘seeking’ as status. (it is). I don’t know another term to use. The operational term would be something like ‘the opportunity discounts one earns from signals and reputations’.

  • Meaningful compliments matter, Especially When Accompanied But Deep Insights

     

    —“Their success and subjective sense of fulfillment is not measured by relative status – it’s measured by the degree of identity that they can achieve with their social group.”—


    By Tim Beckley

    Regarding this exchange:

    NPC-ism:”DOESN’T LOOK LIKE MUCH OF ANYTHING TO ME”
    Brilliant Framing by Western Renaissance

    “The only ethnic Europeans who “oppress” anyone are anti-ethnic european, ethnic Europeans.”— @ReactionaryIan

    “Yep. Involuntary Status Redistribution by False Virtue Signaling.”– Curt

    God damn, I love how precise the explanation is through the lens of the economics of status.–WR

    “But, it’s more irritating tho somehow, isn’t it? lol”– Curt

    “Absolutely, because cuts through people’s after the fact justifications and makes it clear that they are simply self-interested consumers of everything lol And also because I think during my search for answers, part of my brain has subconsciously assumed that people would care or that it would be easier to convince them if you had good explanations and answers. But no… the sad truth seems to be that you can explain things with as much detail and elegance as you want, but when faced with the option of becoming aware of their strategy and self-interest, people just give the Westworld response..’ doesn’t look like much of anything to me’”–WR

    “Yep. When faced with the truth the NPC says “It doesn’t look like much of anything to me”. — CD

    I can’t think of anyone who’s articulated the masculine psychology of the European West with greater precision, comprehensiveness, or infectious enthusiasm than you. In my opinion, you’re the most valuable thinker the Right has today, not only because of your prolific output, but also your generosity and accessibility which are qualities of an exceptional teacher. The Right needs men like you and if the ingratitude and idiocy of the rank and file exhausts your patience, they’ll suffer for it.

    That said, I can’t help but notice the irony of this exchange. The other half of Western European psychology is not concerned *primarily* with status. Status seeking is the motive force of hypermasculine/ascendant/libertarian psychology, as status retention motivates the established or conservative male. Western feminine psychology is much less distinct from the psychology characterizing women throughout the world, and for evolutionary reasons, this is necessarily so.

    The primary concern of feminine psychology is connection. The vast majority of women and cognitively feminine men would accept a sense of connectedness with other people at the cost of status. Unlike ascendant men, their success and subjective sense of fulfillment is not measured by relative status, i.e., by distinction. Quite the opposite.

    It’s measured by the degree of identity that they can achieve with their social group. Identity, equivalence, conformity, homogeneity- all feminine social behavior tends toward these. Status is gained passively, largely unconsciously, as women develop the ability to achieve them. The highest ranking members of female social groups are the ones best able to reflect the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of the other members, which is to say, the most empathic women lead, or better, are followed.

    There’s a common mischaracterization of empathy on the Right as uncontrollable sympathy or pathological altruism. Empathy is merely the ability to vicariously experience the subjective experiences of another. For many this ability is entirely controllable, and when also highly developed, it’s empowering, as the feminine cognitive type will yield to those capable of demonstrating identity with them, whether genetic or cultural.

    Ethnic European women feel oppressed by the ethnic European business class that’s ascended, dismantling the cultural institutions that they once conformed to and insisting their women behave as men, or worse yet, as machines. The ethnic European ascendant male has atomized and deracinated the European masses and his hubris has led to the defection of his women, the disengagement of his men, and the collapse of his civilization which was longer maintained by the more moderate and conservative establishment he dethroned.
    But none of this looks like much to him.

    CD: I would argue that I know that but I just categorize both male and female ‘seeking’ as status. (it is). I don’t know another term to use. The operational term would be something like ‘the opportunity discounts one earns from signals and reputations’.

  • A Heathen (Nature and Ancestors), a Pagan(Archetypes and Kin), an Aryan (Excellence, Primacy of Man, Transcendence of Man), an Aristotelian (empiricism) – and Philosophical Christian.

    Religion? Pretty consistent:

    “A Heathen, a Pagan, an Aryan, an Aristotelian, A European, a Man Transcendent.”

    But Christian? I am a Christian in the empirical sense of the incremental romanization and then Germanization of that Jewish sect we call Christianity, did contain the answer to the prisoner’s dilemma and a means of escaping the high cost of enslaving everyone below the property-owning, self-maintaining classes, and taking responsibility for their actions, productivity, and prevention of harm. It traded the high cost of responsibility for a vast serf and slave majority, for a specialized priesthood that administered them by superstition and ignorance -which was far cheaper. Thus freeing the aristocracy and the middle class from those costs.

    • The elimination of hatred from the human heart.
    • The extension of familial love to kin and kith.
    • The exhaustion of forgiveness before abandonment, punishment or war.
    • The requirement for personal acts of charity to assist those less able.
    • The abandonment of responsibility for all else in exchange.
    • The production of peasant “mindfulness” for having done so.

    And …

    • The suppression of the violence of the aristocracy in exchange for the income from church administration of the peasantry
    • The splitting of aristocratic families under primogeniture into private-inherited estates, and church-corporate continuous landholdings around the estates, leased out to the peasantry.
    • The encouragement of reproduction of inexpensive farm labor (be fruitful and multiply) to feed the needs of church and estate.
    • At the cost of maintaining the system of illiteracy, ignorance, superstition, false promise, and lies.
    • Anti-Trifunctionalism
    • Anti-Aryanism.
    • Anti-Agency
    • Anti-Evolutionary

    Jesus was most likely the son of a Roman soldier and a Jewish prostitute who probably served himself, who, when he found john the baptist, imitated him, trying to make a living as a faith healer (a scam artist) himself. But while in practice, learning the art of the scam, he was angered by the condition of the people who were victims of scamming by their own, and in doing so discovered the solution to middle eastern impossibility of inter-family, inter-tribal cooperation: the counter-intuitive solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: reciprocal exhaustion of forgiveness and abandonment of responsibility for the punishment of slights, thus ending family clan tribe and cult continuous feuding. And in doing so Jesus became an accidental philosopher. An anti-Achilles, Anti-Hero, as the symbolic leader of an Anti-Roman, Anti-Persian revolution. A revolution that would provide self-image, self-worth, and peer-status to those who lacked it under Indo European aristocratic civilizations that treated them as semi-domesticated animals. Because Indo European Civilization was performative. It required substantive achievements. And the peasantry was neither cognitively culturally, economically, or politically capable of substantive achievement. This is why the indo european civilizations consider them atheists: they denied the gods in favor of man, and a man pretending to be a god, and a god that was alien and unworthy of worship, for a people incapable of achievement.

    This is a religion of man. Of the primacy of man. Of primacy of man via truth. And truth as incremental transcendence into omniscience and omnipotence: the transformation of man into gods.

  • A Heathen (Nature and Ancestors), a Pagan(Archetypes and Kin), an Aryan (Excellence, Primacy of Man, Transcendence of Man), an Aristotelian (empiricism) – and Philosophical Christian.

    Religion? Pretty consistent:

    “A Heathen, a Pagan, an Aryan, an Aristotelian, A European, a Man Transcendent.”

    But Christian? I am a Christian in the empirical sense of the incremental romanization and then Germanization of that Jewish sect we call Christianity, did contain the answer to the prisoner’s dilemma and a means of escaping the high cost of enslaving everyone below the property-owning, self-maintaining classes, and taking responsibility for their actions, productivity, and prevention of harm. It traded the high cost of responsibility for a vast serf and slave majority, for a specialized priesthood that administered them by superstition and ignorance -which was far cheaper. Thus freeing the aristocracy and the middle class from those costs.

    • The elimination of hatred from the human heart.
    • The extension of familial love to kin and kith.
    • The exhaustion of forgiveness before abandonment, punishment or war.
    • The requirement for personal acts of charity to assist those less able.
    • The abandonment of responsibility for all else in exchange.
    • The production of peasant “mindfulness” for having done so.

    And …

    • The suppression of the violence of the aristocracy in exchange for the income from church administration of the peasantry
    • The splitting of aristocratic families under primogeniture into private-inherited estates, and church-corporate continuous landholdings around the estates, leased out to the peasantry.
    • The encouragement of reproduction of inexpensive farm labor (be fruitful and multiply) to feed the needs of church and estate.
    • At the cost of maintaining the system of illiteracy, ignorance, superstition, false promise, and lies.
    • Anti-Trifunctionalism
    • Anti-Aryanism.
    • Anti-Agency
    • Anti-Evolutionary

    Jesus was most likely the son of a Roman soldier and a Jewish prostitute who probably served himself, who, when he found john the baptist, imitated him, trying to make a living as a faith healer (a scam artist) himself. But while in practice, learning the art of the scam, he was angered by the condition of the people who were victims of scamming by their own, and in doing so discovered the solution to middle eastern impossibility of inter-family, inter-tribal cooperation: the counter-intuitive solution to the prisoner’s dilemma: reciprocal exhaustion of forgiveness and abandonment of responsibility for the punishment of slights, thus ending family clan tribe and cult continuous feuding. And in doing so Jesus became an accidental philosopher. An anti-Achilles, Anti-Hero, as the symbolic leader of an Anti-Roman, Anti-Persian revolution. A revolution that would provide self-image, self-worth, and peer-status to those who lacked it under Indo European aristocratic civilizations that treated them as semi-domesticated animals. Because Indo European Civilization was performative. It required substantive achievements. And the peasantry was neither cognitively culturally, economically, or politically capable of substantive achievement. This is why the indo european civilizations consider them atheists: they denied the gods in favor of man, and a man pretending to be a god, and a god that was alien and unworthy of worship, for a people incapable of achievement.

    This is a religion of man. Of the primacy of man. Of primacy of man via truth. And truth as incremental transcendence into omniscience and omnipotence: the transformation of man into gods.

  • Let’s point out that the moment a public intellectual engages the dirty unwashed

    Let’s point out that the moment a public intellectual engages the dirty unwashed masses (the public) there are certain defensive techniques you adopt because of the tendency of some (ignorant, opinionated males) to engage in ad-homs, psychologizing, and moralizing.

    So you have choices to stop them poisoning the well. Door number 1, 2, or 3.

    … 1) Use them: return the insult and restate the central argument using the idiot as a relay station, and use KOTH games to make others force them out of the discourse.
    … 2) Insult, dismiss and block them
    … 3) Ignore them altogether

    Source date (UTC): 2020-10-20 22:05:07 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105069380063002116

  • The Easy Method of Professionalizing Journalism (and Law, Politics, and the Academy)

    P-Law would professionalize Journalism, Law, Politics, and the Academy , and restore their positions as a public good rather than a public harm.

    Because of the high cost of restitution under P-law, journalists and publishers would require insurance, and insurance costs would drive:

    (a) education and degree programs (b) licensing programs (c) legal case records (d) professional ethics limited by those material constraints.  The consequence is that these roles would pay well and be a public value rather than public harm.

    All public speech, to the public, in matters public, is treated as

    Testimony, and subject to 1) defamation, 2) perjury, and if for profit 3) crime (fraud, conspiracy, treason).

    Testimony in turn, requires:

    1) Warranty of, and 2) liability for, 3) exhaustive due diligence against:

    1) ignorance and error, 2) bias and wishful thinking, 3) loading and framing, 4) suggestion, obscurantism, 5) fictionalisms of the physical: magic-pseudosccience, of the verbal: sophism to idealism, and imaginary (occult to supernatural), 6) pilpul and critique (undermining and reputation destruction), 7) baiting into hazard and social construction, and of course, 8) denial, fraud, and deceit.

    That due diligence requires survival of the tests of:

    1) Realism and Naturalism, 2) identity (non-conflation) and internal consistency (non-conflation), 3) operational possibility and external correspondence (evidence), 4) rational choice and reciprocal rational choice (morality), 5) Stated limits and completeness (full accounting), 6) Parsimony, and 7) warrantability and restitutability.

    Which encompasses:

    1) Means, 2) Motive, and 3) Opportunity

    And as Tort: 

    1) Does not require intent, only 2) failure of due diligence

    And:

    1) Restitution (for victims),  2) Punishment(for the actor), and 3) Prevention – Insurance against repetition, immtation (for others)

    This method can be taught if we restore the Trivium and complete it with:

    0) Mindfulness, Fitness, Sport, Fighting and
    1) Protocol(Political), Norms(Social), Manners(interpersonal), Dress and Heygene(personal)
    2) The Physics (all of them)
    3) Grammar and “The Grammars”,
    4) Logic (math, set, operational),
    5) Reciprocity (Natural Law)
    6) Testimony (Truth)
    7) Rhetoric(Speech, Argument)
    8) Economics(Cooperation: behavioral, micro),
    9) Politics (law, legislation, regulation),
    10) Group Strategy (Organized Crime against Nature)
    11) Aesthetics (delivery of group strategy)
    12) War (Offense and defense of Natural Law)

    And we must likewise reform and re-professionalize law into the British method of separating advocacy and argument before the court, so that the purpose of the court is to determine the truth of the facts, and the distribution of resonsibility for consequences  – and not the best means of decieving the jury.

    And we must likewise reprofessionalize the academy and politics, so that the people no longer bear the continuous burden of an environments aturated by falsehoods and deceits.

    The left is dysgenic, and incentivized and motivated by selling dysgenics, so witout lying they cannot spread leftism and dysgenia.

     

  • The Easy Method of Professionalizing Journalism (and Law, Politics, and the Academy)

    P-Law would professionalize Journalism, Law, Politics, and the Academy , and restore their positions as a public good rather than a public harm.

    Because of the high cost of restitution under P-law, journalists and publishers would require insurance, and insurance costs would drive:

    (a) education and degree programs (b) licensing programs (c) legal case records (d) professional ethics limited by those material constraints.  The consequence is that these roles would pay well and be a public value rather than public harm.

    All public speech, to the public, in matters public, is treated as

    Testimony, and subject to 1) defamation, 2) perjury, and if for profit 3) crime (fraud, conspiracy, treason).

    Testimony in turn, requires:

    1) Warranty of, and 2) liability for, 3) exhaustive due diligence against:

    1) ignorance and error, 2) bias and wishful thinking, 3) loading and framing, 4) suggestion, obscurantism, 5) fictionalisms of the physical: magic-pseudosccience, of the verbal: sophism to idealism, and imaginary (occult to supernatural), 6) pilpul and critique (undermining and reputation destruction), 7) baiting into hazard and social construction, and of course, 8) denial, fraud, and deceit.

    That due diligence requires survival of the tests of:

    1) Realism and Naturalism, 2) identity (non-conflation) and internal consistency (non-conflation), 3) operational possibility and external correspondence (evidence), 4) rational choice and reciprocal rational choice (morality), 5) Stated limits and completeness (full accounting), 6) Parsimony, and 7) warrantability and restitutability.

    Which encompasses:

    1) Means, 2) Motive, and 3) Opportunity

    And as Tort: 

    1) Does not require intent, only 2) failure of due diligence

    And:

    1) Restitution (for victims),  2) Punishment(for the actor), and 3) Prevention – Insurance against repetition, immtation (for others)

    This method can be taught if we restore the Trivium and complete it with:

    0) Mindfulness, Fitness, Sport, Fighting and
    1) Protocol(Political), Norms(Social), Manners(interpersonal), Dress and Heygene(personal)
    2) The Physics (all of them)
    3) Grammar and “The Grammars”,
    4) Logic (math, set, operational),
    5) Reciprocity (Natural Law)
    6) Testimony (Truth)
    7) Rhetoric(Speech, Argument)
    8) Economics(Cooperation: behavioral, micro),
    9) Politics (law, legislation, regulation),
    10) Group Strategy (Organized Crime against Nature)
    11) Aesthetics (delivery of group strategy)
    12) War (Offense and defense of Natural Law)

    And we must likewise reform and re-professionalize law into the British method of separating advocacy and argument before the court, so that the purpose of the court is to determine the truth of the facts, and the distribution of resonsibility for consequences  – and not the best means of decieving the jury.

    And we must likewise reprofessionalize the academy and politics, so that the people no longer bear the continuous burden of an environments aturated by falsehoods and deceits.

    The left is dysgenic, and incentivized and motivated by selling dysgenics, so witout lying they cannot spread leftism and dysgenia.