Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • No the Constitution and Anglo Law Are Not Philosophical – They’re Empirical

    —“What is the significance of a philosophical approach to the constitution?”—

    1 – Contrary to popular belief, the constitution is not a philosophical document. 2 – Contrary to popular belief, the common law is not a philosophical discipline. 3 – The natural law of tort (demonstrated interests) is purely empirical (scientific). It’s not philosophical. Philosophers only sought to explain it. We discovered it by adjudicating differences in order to end conflicts and to ‘keep the peace’ meaning ‘cooperation between members of the community’ – in particular to prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). This is why the first laws do not state the law, they only standardize punishments – because the law existed, everyone knew the laws – they’re common sense. But the variation in punishments created retaliation cycles (feuds). A standard punishment demands the community enforce the punishment as ‘settlement of differences’ and ensure both parties against further feuds. 4 – This law is predicated on self-determination, individual sovereignty to achieve it, reciprocity to maintain it, jury and court to decide it, and markets in all aspects of life as a consequence of it. (This is what other civs can’t do – get past familism or tribalism) 5 – The constitution presumes the common law (not positive law), and articulates a market for the production of commons. It’s just another marketplace. 6 – The constitution contains processes for transactional modification of that marketplace. The bill of rights shouldn’t be necessary (and many of the founders didn’t think so) but their failure was to define the common law sufficiently that rights weren’t necessary. 7 – A constitution is a contract that produces a ledger for transactions under the rule of law of natural law of tort. it’s a recipe for running a legal accounting system, for the production of contracts under the natural law of tort. The ‘philosophical’ claims about the constitution are relatively recent attempts to undermine it and end rule of law. It’s the most boring empirical system known by man – which is why no other people in the world have constitutions – only ‘documents of nice words’.

  • No the Constitution and Anglo Law Are Not Philosophical – They’re Empirical

    —“What is the significance of a philosophical approach to the constitution?”—

    1 – Contrary to popular belief, the constitution is not a philosophical document. 2 – Contrary to popular belief, the common law is not a philosophical discipline. 3 – The natural law of tort (demonstrated interests) is purely empirical (scientific). It’s not philosophical. Philosophers only sought to explain it. We discovered it by adjudicating differences in order to end conflicts and to ‘keep the peace’ meaning ‘cooperation between members of the community’ – in particular to prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). This is why the first laws do not state the law, they only standardize punishments – because the law existed, everyone knew the laws – they’re common sense. But the variation in punishments created retaliation cycles (feuds). A standard punishment demands the community enforce the punishment as ‘settlement of differences’ and ensure both parties against further feuds. 4 – This law is predicated on self-determination, individual sovereignty to achieve it, reciprocity to maintain it, jury and court to decide it, and markets in all aspects of life as a consequence of it. (This is what other civs can’t do – get past familism or tribalism) 5 – The constitution presumes the common law (not positive law), and articulates a market for the production of commons. It’s just another marketplace. 6 – The constitution contains processes for transactional modification of that marketplace. The bill of rights shouldn’t be necessary (and many of the founders didn’t think so) but their failure was to define the common law sufficiently that rights weren’t necessary. 7 – A constitution is a contract that produces a ledger for transactions under the rule of law of natural law of tort. it’s a recipe for running a legal accounting system, for the production of contracts under the natural law of tort. The ‘philosophical’ claims about the constitution are relatively recent attempts to undermine it and end rule of law. It’s the most boring empirical system known by man – which is why no other people in the world have constitutions – only ‘documents of nice words’.

  • Full Answer of Why Rome Fell: Overextension of The Heroic Population

      Short Version: The western Roman empire dramatically overextended but would have recovered, even from the invasions except for the folly of slaves(immigrants) and Christianity(Judaism / Marxism / Neo-Marxism / Feminism / Postmodernism), and finally the Islamic invasion and destruction of the civilized worlds. REASONS 1 – Overextension of Colonization: Celtic holocaust created the opportunity for north germanic migration, just as defeating Germany and Europe in WW2 left a vacuum for marxism Judaism and Islam today. And leaving African colonialization incomplete left opportunity for Islam. 2 – Overextension of Range – from the Mediterranean coastal army, with naval transport and strike capability – which is cheap – to a primarily territorial military among hostile less developed people that was expensive. In other words, the cost of domesticating (settling, urbanizing, spreading literacy, commerce, and law) Europe was too high for the returns. (just like today) 3 – Overextension of Agrarian Economy – the empire needed industrialization. The greeks failed to reform their economy. The Romans improved administration and organization – second to none 4 – Overextension of Technology – the empire given the technology at the time, which led to corruption, assassinations, and use of force to obtain rents, rather than profitable service of the state, to obtain status. (just like today) Bad Strategic Response to Overextension – Splitting the empire with the trade wealth in the greek east but the aristocracy in the roman west. Just like we have all these foreign costs in Europe and in the middle east just to protect Europe from oil price catastrophes – that don’t affect us. Overextension of Elites Necessary To Govern – empire so that the ratio of elites and middle class to conquered and slaves was too high to rule, just like we have too many non-whites to rule today, and the middle east to govern thru Israel and the monarchies today. Overextension of soldiery beyond supplying demographic – so that the military was no longer ‘citizens’ – but mercenaries – (Just like Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims in the military today who are there for a jobs program not patriotism and ‘the people’) Overextension of Immigration (Slaves): slaves were the old world’s version of third world immigrants today. These people lack the values traditions and culture and if brought in sufficient numbers will always rebel against the host population until they defeat them. Overextension of TOLERANCE: Christianity undermined values like Christianity v2 (postmodernism-feminism-multiculturalism-equalitarianism) undermined our values. They shifted focus from European zest for life and achievement, for ignorance of life and fantasy after death. Christianity without warfare to dominate it, makes men weak. So Christianity prevented the restoration of the roman empire. Overextension and Vulnerability to Plague: The soldiers brought back either measles or smallpox or the plague from the middle east and decimated the population. Fragility to Shocks: The Muslim conquests destroyed the economies of the developed world, profit from conquest was exhausted by 1100, and islam’s mandatory ignorance reduced the developed civilizations to ashes. Judaism to undermine. Christianity to weaken, Islam to destroy the cancer of the abaramic religions – the war on civilization, evolution, and life itself. The answer for Rome and for America (europe) is the same: ethno-nationalization of the organs of state and organs of the state, and finance, at all levels, and specialization in running the state – not just here but anywhere we can function as a military, administrative, judicial elite (without outbreeding). Gibbon gave a classic formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline as well as to attacks from outside the Empire. —“The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians. … (AND) … As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire… the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity… If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors.”— -Curt Doolittle

  • Full Answer of Why Rome Fell: Overextension of The Heroic Population

      Short Version: The western Roman empire dramatically overextended but would have recovered, even from the invasions except for the folly of slaves(immigrants) and Christianity(Judaism / Marxism / Neo-Marxism / Feminism / Postmodernism), and finally the Islamic invasion and destruction of the civilized worlds. REASONS 1 – Overextension of Colonization: Celtic holocaust created the opportunity for north germanic migration, just as defeating Germany and Europe in WW2 left a vacuum for marxism Judaism and Islam today. And leaving African colonialization incomplete left opportunity for Islam. 2 – Overextension of Range – from the Mediterranean coastal army, with naval transport and strike capability – which is cheap – to a primarily territorial military among hostile less developed people that was expensive. In other words, the cost of domesticating (settling, urbanizing, spreading literacy, commerce, and law) Europe was too high for the returns. (just like today) 3 – Overextension of Agrarian Economy – the empire needed industrialization. The greeks failed to reform their economy. The Romans improved administration and organization – second to none 4 – Overextension of Technology – the empire given the technology at the time, which led to corruption, assassinations, and use of force to obtain rents, rather than profitable service of the state, to obtain status. (just like today) Bad Strategic Response to Overextension – Splitting the empire with the trade wealth in the greek east but the aristocracy in the roman west. Just like we have all these foreign costs in Europe and in the middle east just to protect Europe from oil price catastrophes – that don’t affect us. Overextension of Elites Necessary To Govern – empire so that the ratio of elites and middle class to conquered and slaves was too high to rule, just like we have too many non-whites to rule today, and the middle east to govern thru Israel and the monarchies today. Overextension of soldiery beyond supplying demographic – so that the military was no longer ‘citizens’ – but mercenaries – (Just like Hispanics, Blacks, and Muslims in the military today who are there for a jobs program not patriotism and ‘the people’) Overextension of Immigration (Slaves): slaves were the old world’s version of third world immigrants today. These people lack the values traditions and culture and if brought in sufficient numbers will always rebel against the host population until they defeat them. Overextension of TOLERANCE: Christianity undermined values like Christianity v2 (postmodernism-feminism-multiculturalism-equalitarianism) undermined our values. They shifted focus from European zest for life and achievement, for ignorance of life and fantasy after death. Christianity without warfare to dominate it, makes men weak. So Christianity prevented the restoration of the roman empire. Overextension and Vulnerability to Plague: The soldiers brought back either measles or smallpox or the plague from the middle east and decimated the population. Fragility to Shocks: The Muslim conquests destroyed the economies of the developed world, profit from conquest was exhausted by 1100, and islam’s mandatory ignorance reduced the developed civilizations to ashes. Judaism to undermine. Christianity to weaken, Islam to destroy the cancer of the abaramic religions – the war on civilization, evolution, and life itself. The answer for Rome and for America (europe) is the same: ethno-nationalization of the organs of state and organs of the state, and finance, at all levels, and specialization in running the state – not just here but anywhere we can function as a military, administrative, judicial elite (without outbreeding). Gibbon gave a classic formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline as well as to attacks from outside the Empire. —“The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians. … (AND) … As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire… the soldiers’ pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity… If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors.”— -Curt Doolittle

  • Proposed Roads to Freedom: Strategic Thinking

    by Giego Caleiro

    Facebook is the second worst place to post about this, after Twitter but here’s the issue: A lot posting related to politics is reactive only. We see something in the news and publically react to it. Yet the battles in politics are being won by smart French guys in the 60s and smart German/Austriac guys in the 30s and 40s who engineered the language changes that we currently see, leading to thing like the current attempt to change the meaning of the word racist to include people who think there are differences between the average member of different races, while keeping the negative connotation of the old and still true meaning “mistreating or willing to mistreat others on a racial basis, in particular favoring one’s own race over some other” On the RightWing, I see basically Curt having a project that is proactive, Propertarianism, and which could, in theory, become part of the discourse and progressively get some power to the point of actually guiding the discussion in a non reactive way in the next few decades. I see Pat Ryan who does seem to have a more hidden but still strategic process with actual flowcharts, aims etc… who is at least trying to implement it. I see also Thiel who doesn’t really think we can change politics too much, but only one or another opportunistic change. Bannon seems to truly have a plan and is helping many countries do it. Most people on Facebook though are just reacting. Showing how silly the squad or some liberal or some corporatist or some SJW is. That strategy won’t win. And judging by the changes in language, the other team is currently winning. So what are some more proactive ways to plan ahead how to actually make the world be this or that way a couple decades from now? It’s easy to know what not to do. Don’t say femicide, perpetuate, opressed, systemic, equity. Don’t concede anything on language. But having a specific well determined view of the future. What philosophers call a kind, is often helpful in bringing people into it. Thiel jokes that there’s three visual kind specific futures: 1) Islam: and women wear burkas 2) Environmentalism: electric scooters and Greta 3) Totalitarian surveillance: China style And between those he picks Greta. Fair enough. But it would be ideal if there were 2 things missing from conversation 4) Some other alternative that is more evolutionarily sustainable but still increases our odds of eventually seizing the astronomical value of the cosmic commons. and *) A strategy to disburse to people to cause us to get there, just like the left of 50 years ago took over academia, menial administrative positions, education, hollywood, and now uses that to control the youth and shift the language slowly and steady, until the Bildeberg Circle, trilateral commision, Davos etc… win and they can all farm everyone else to death. For those of us who think that’s a bad outcome, we need a strategy of our own. And the ones we have are somewhat incomplete stories that don’t encompass technology (like Christianity) and this reactive stance. We’re falling for the bait. We react to “the worst of the left” but we don’t create “the best of the non-left in an evolutionarily sustainable way that can slowly take over in the next few decades” But the future lies ahead, and a plan is needed. If possible one that can be decomposed into small parts like the SJW borg. There’s a huge army of rightwing people who just react. It would be nice if there was a plan besides imitating Tucker Carlson and making sarcastic remarks when the far left goes crazy.

  • Proposed Roads to Freedom: Strategic Thinking

    by Giego Caleiro

    Facebook is the second worst place to post about this, after Twitter but here’s the issue: A lot posting related to politics is reactive only. We see something in the news and publically react to it. Yet the battles in politics are being won by smart French guys in the 60s and smart German/Austriac guys in the 30s and 40s who engineered the language changes that we currently see, leading to thing like the current attempt to change the meaning of the word racist to include people who think there are differences between the average member of different races, while keeping the negative connotation of the old and still true meaning “mistreating or willing to mistreat others on a racial basis, in particular favoring one’s own race over some other” On the RightWing, I see basically Curt having a project that is proactive, Propertarianism, and which could, in theory, become part of the discourse and progressively get some power to the point of actually guiding the discussion in a non reactive way in the next few decades. I see Pat Ryan who does seem to have a more hidden but still strategic process with actual flowcharts, aims etc… who is at least trying to implement it. I see also Thiel who doesn’t really think we can change politics too much, but only one or another opportunistic change. Bannon seems to truly have a plan and is helping many countries do it. Most people on Facebook though are just reacting. Showing how silly the squad or some liberal or some corporatist or some SJW is. That strategy won’t win. And judging by the changes in language, the other team is currently winning. So what are some more proactive ways to plan ahead how to actually make the world be this or that way a couple decades from now? It’s easy to know what not to do. Don’t say femicide, perpetuate, opressed, systemic, equity. Don’t concede anything on language. But having a specific well determined view of the future. What philosophers call a kind, is often helpful in bringing people into it. Thiel jokes that there’s three visual kind specific futures: 1) Islam: and women wear burkas 2) Environmentalism: electric scooters and Greta 3) Totalitarian surveillance: China style And between those he picks Greta. Fair enough. But it would be ideal if there were 2 things missing from conversation 4) Some other alternative that is more evolutionarily sustainable but still increases our odds of eventually seizing the astronomical value of the cosmic commons. and *) A strategy to disburse to people to cause us to get there, just like the left of 50 years ago took over academia, menial administrative positions, education, hollywood, and now uses that to control the youth and shift the language slowly and steady, until the Bildeberg Circle, trilateral commision, Davos etc… win and they can all farm everyone else to death. For those of us who think that’s a bad outcome, we need a strategy of our own. And the ones we have are somewhat incomplete stories that don’t encompass technology (like Christianity) and this reactive stance. We’re falling for the bait. We react to “the worst of the left” but we don’t create “the best of the non-left in an evolutionarily sustainable way that can slowly take over in the next few decades” But the future lies ahead, and a plan is needed. If possible one that can be decomposed into small parts like the SJW borg. There’s a huge army of rightwing people who just react. It would be nice if there was a plan besides imitating Tucker Carlson and making sarcastic remarks when the far left goes crazy.

  • I Am and P Is Not Anti-Christian – but Anti-Abrahamic.

    1. I am not antichristian, I’m a Jeffersonian Christian. Meaning Jesus was a philosopher speaking in the language of parables that his people could understand. So Jesus spoke in their wisdom literature: Abrahamism (false promise to obtain obedience). It may have been all he knew. But his lesson can be disentangled from the Abrahamic Deceit he preached with, just like it can be translated from Aramaic into Greek, Roman, Latins, Germanic, and English.

    As for God, I may intuit deism, but in my job as a judge I cannot testify to it, and all evidence continues the trend of a universe lacking any agent. As for My god, it’s definitely the god of my people: tiwaz, tyr, odin/thor, zeus, jupiter, an I ‘worship’ a lot of ‘gods’. Why? Because our civilization has always been trifunctional: War, Law, and Faith. And My priority is War, Law, Faith. Because that is the hierarchy of dependency. Others don’t have this priority – because THEY CAN”T DO IT. I understand. But all of us have this set of priorities. We just don’t sit down and educate ourselves on our priorities and the moral intuitions that result from them.

    1. Nor is P anti-Christian. In P, Jesus extended natural law into a via-positiva. That’s SCIENCE. This means Jesus is in the pantheon of European heroes – as a Philosopher. And philosophers are worthy of worship (respect). Because all gods of all sorts that we worship consist of information and they produce behaviors in us just as if they were still among us.
    2. I am and P is, anti-Abrahamic, which to a Christian means anti-theological, anti-supernatural. To supernatural Christians, this is a contradiction. To those of us who seek only wisdom, it’s not the supernaturalists who practice contradictions. This is the conflict between Law and Faith. When faith claims theology, reason, and argument, and intrudes on truth and the law rather than faith.

    3. I have contempt for Christians but my contempt isn’t for Jesus. It’s for cowards hiding behind his skirts while claiming virtue. Jesus didn’t hide. Jesus showed up. And he took the hit. I don’t see (many) xians showing up. I see them undermining – like leftists.

    4. I have contempt for cowardice and most of Christianity that is visible to me is cowardly. Now I don’t care if you believe in magic if it doesn’t affect business, economics, politics, or war. I don’t really care of you abandon reality and live in a primitive fictional drama world – if you still show up for work and get the job done. And I don’t care what reason you choose to show up and fight for your people.

    5. But so far, all I see from Christians is “I wanna play by magic rules or I’m gonna go home and help Rome Fall Again.” So instead I challenge Christians to prove historians wrong: prove that Christians weren’t responsible for the fall and failure to restore Rome. Weren’t responsible for the dark ages of ignorance and superstition. And instead man up, shut up, and show up.

    6. I’m contemptuous of those who seek refuge on the right among men who put action in reality and joy of life before doing nothing, and worship of death. You hide behind Christian skirts, hide behind better men’s bravery, hide behind better men’s achievements, and do nothing except demand coddling like women.

    7. I’m contemptuous of deniers, liars and sophists that were responsible for undermining the ancient world, and responsible aiding our enemies in our current condition. Christians have been communists for all of history. The only reason they bend Right is Marxism-Postmodernism a more influential cult. They shifted from supernatural false promise after death, to pseudoscientific false promise after revolution in the present world.

    8. I’m contemptuous of pretense that the Christian alliance with the right hasn’t been a disaster – Christians aren’t Right – they oppose the right. They always have. Church-Christianity (Churchanity) is the counter-revolution against the martial aristocracy. They’re historically and presently leftists. They use the female means of disapproval. They use the female means of argument. They put approval before truth. they put conformity before adaptability. They put safety and security before achievement. They don’t show for defense of the polity, don’t show for counter-protests.

    9. Islamism is a better historical supernatural religion of undermining host peoples, and Marxism is a better present pseudoscientific version of Judaism. Postmodernism and political correctness are just a better present version of Christianity. But fundamentally, whether you practice Islam or Islamism, Judaism or marxism, Christianity or postmodernism, you are still practicing the female method of undermining, and the Abrahamic method of deceit to do it.

    10. The weak will turn on us no matter what we do. and as we have seen the majority of those that turn on us are Christians, because Christianity uses the same values and techniques as the left.

    11. There is nothing that will bring Christians other than the cover of men who don’t put religion first but people and results first. If the dominance of faith must be greater than the dominance of people first, the dominance of law second, and faith third, then these people are merely walking hand mental grenades (I was just in a revolution. You know who fights? Men who like fighting. You know who those men hide among for cover? Christians chanting.)

    12. I must break the concept that I am P. I am not, any more than darwin was evolution, einstein relativity. I just discovered it. I am not someone the grunts will follow. worse, I can be destroyed like every other ‘leader’. P cannot be a heroic leader cult no matter how badly people want it. It has to be an idea. That idea is pretty simple and concrete now.

    13. We must attract men who will act for the policies, and let the others fill in if we have the numbers. A popular movement is impossible. A ‘loyalty’ (elite) movement is possible, and the grunts will follow the elites if there are numbers.

    14. We need to recruit ‘a few good men’ and say what that means. That few good men needs to be ‘enough’.

    Truth is enough. And I cannot compromise on the truth.

  • I Am and P Is Not Anti-Christian – but Anti-Abrahamic.

    1. I am not antichristian, I’m a Jeffersonian Christian. Meaning Jesus was a philosopher speaking in the language of parables that his people could understand. So Jesus spoke in their wisdom literature: Abrahamism (false promise to obtain obedience). It may have been all he knew. But his lesson can be disentangled from the Abrahamic Deceit he preached with, just like it can be translated from Aramaic into Greek, Roman, Latins, Germanic, and English.

    As for God, I may intuit deism, but in my job as a judge I cannot testify to it, and all evidence continues the trend of a universe lacking any agent. As for My god, it’s definitely the god of my people: tiwaz, tyr, odin/thor, zeus, jupiter, an I ‘worship’ a lot of ‘gods’. Why? Because our civilization has always been trifunctional: War, Law, and Faith. And My priority is War, Law, Faith. Because that is the hierarchy of dependency. Others don’t have this priority – because THEY CAN”T DO IT. I understand. But all of us have this set of priorities. We just don’t sit down and educate ourselves on our priorities and the moral intuitions that result from them.

    1. Nor is P anti-Christian. In P, Jesus extended natural law into a via-positiva. That’s SCIENCE. This means Jesus is in the pantheon of European heroes – as a Philosopher. And philosophers are worthy of worship (respect). Because all gods of all sorts that we worship consist of information and they produce behaviors in us just as if they were still among us.
    2. I am and P is, anti-Abrahamic, which to a Christian means anti-theological, anti-supernatural. To supernatural Christians, this is a contradiction. To those of us who seek only wisdom, it’s not the supernaturalists who practice contradictions. This is the conflict between Law and Faith. When faith claims theology, reason, and argument, and intrudes on truth and the law rather than faith.

    3. I have contempt for Christians but my contempt isn’t for Jesus. It’s for cowards hiding behind his skirts while claiming virtue. Jesus didn’t hide. Jesus showed up. And he took the hit. I don’t see (many) xians showing up. I see them undermining – like leftists.

    4. I have contempt for cowardice and most of Christianity that is visible to me is cowardly. Now I don’t care if you believe in magic if it doesn’t affect business, economics, politics, or war. I don’t really care of you abandon reality and live in a primitive fictional drama world – if you still show up for work and get the job done. And I don’t care what reason you choose to show up and fight for your people.

    5. But so far, all I see from Christians is “I wanna play by magic rules or I’m gonna go home and help Rome Fall Again.” So instead I challenge Christians to prove historians wrong: prove that Christians weren’t responsible for the fall and failure to restore Rome. Weren’t responsible for the dark ages of ignorance and superstition. And instead man up, shut up, and show up.

    6. I’m contemptuous of those who seek refuge on the right among men who put action in reality and joy of life before doing nothing, and worship of death. You hide behind Christian skirts, hide behind better men’s bravery, hide behind better men’s achievements, and do nothing except demand coddling like women.

    7. I’m contemptuous of deniers, liars and sophists that were responsible for undermining the ancient world, and responsible aiding our enemies in our current condition. Christians have been communists for all of history. The only reason they bend Right is Marxism-Postmodernism a more influential cult. They shifted from supernatural false promise after death, to pseudoscientific false promise after revolution in the present world.

    8. I’m contemptuous of pretense that the Christian alliance with the right hasn’t been a disaster – Christians aren’t Right – they oppose the right. They always have. Church-Christianity (Churchanity) is the counter-revolution against the martial aristocracy. They’re historically and presently leftists. They use the female means of disapproval. They use the female means of argument. They put approval before truth. they put conformity before adaptability. They put safety and security before achievement. They don’t show for defense of the polity, don’t show for counter-protests.

    9. Islamism is a better historical supernatural religion of undermining host peoples, and Marxism is a better present pseudoscientific version of Judaism. Postmodernism and political correctness are just a better present version of Christianity. But fundamentally, whether you practice Islam or Islamism, Judaism or marxism, Christianity or postmodernism, you are still practicing the female method of undermining, and the Abrahamic method of deceit to do it.

    10. The weak will turn on us no matter what we do. and as we have seen the majority of those that turn on us are Christians, because Christianity uses the same values and techniques as the left.

    11. There is nothing that will bring Christians other than the cover of men who don’t put religion first but people and results first. If the dominance of faith must be greater than the dominance of people first, the dominance of law second, and faith third, then these people are merely walking hand mental grenades (I was just in a revolution. You know who fights? Men who like fighting. You know who those men hide among for cover? Christians chanting.)

    12. I must break the concept that I am P. I am not, any more than darwin was evolution, einstein relativity. I just discovered it. I am not someone the grunts will follow. worse, I can be destroyed like every other ‘leader’. P cannot be a heroic leader cult no matter how badly people want it. It has to be an idea. That idea is pretty simple and concrete now.

    13. We must attract men who will act for the policies, and let the others fill in if we have the numbers. A popular movement is impossible. A ‘loyalty’ (elite) movement is possible, and the grunts will follow the elites if there are numbers.

    14. We need to recruit ‘a few good men’ and say what that means. That few good men needs to be ‘enough’.

    Truth is enough. And I cannot compromise on the truth.

  • Producing Measurements by Triangulation

    Producing Measurements by Triangulation

    Triangulation. It’s the same process as disambiguation by Serialization and operationalization. Use of adversarial competition to rank by one or more dimensions. Art is the best example of something we presume can’t be objectively measured. But we can judge almost anything by the accumulated excellence of human actions: caloric content (more dependencies is better). Take an art movement. Take the examples of that movement. analyze and rank by craftsmanship(construction, technique, materials), design(aesthetics, composition, light, color, texture, ), meaning (content, simple content to high content). Compare the ultimate achievements of that movement with those that were less so. Order them – this is triangulation. “Where does this fit between what other two?” You will notice that the progression is not linear but logarithmic, with many adequate pieces and few superior. You now have an ordinal if logarithmically scaling measure if not a cardinal and linear measure. Keep adding artworks until because of marginal indifference, you must categorize groups instead of stacking individual pieces. Now those categories produce a cardinal measure. Repeat for all art movements. Then stack those movements. You now have a metric for judging pieces (three dimensions), categories (one or three dimensions), and movements (one or three dimensions). Art is the hardest thing I know of, but the triangulation is how the brain works internally, so … well, there you go.  

    116345964_337645997633560_6430409338022713108_n.jpg
  • Producing Measurements by Triangulation

    Producing Measurements by Triangulation

    Triangulation. It’s the same process as disambiguation by Serialization and operationalization. Use of adversarial competition to rank by one or more dimensions. Art is the best example of something we presume can’t be objectively measured. But we can judge almost anything by the accumulated excellence of human actions: caloric content (more dependencies is better). Take an art movement. Take the examples of that movement. analyze and rank by craftsmanship(construction, technique, materials), design(aesthetics, composition, light, color, texture, ), meaning (content, simple content to high content). Compare the ultimate achievements of that movement with those that were less so. Order them – this is triangulation. “Where does this fit between what other two?” You will notice that the progression is not linear but logarithmic, with many adequate pieces and few superior. You now have an ordinal if logarithmically scaling measure if not a cardinal and linear measure. Keep adding artworks until because of marginal indifference, you must categorize groups instead of stacking individual pieces. Now those categories produce a cardinal measure. Repeat for all art movements. Then stack those movements. You now have a metric for judging pieces (three dimensions), categories (one or three dimensions), and movements (one or three dimensions). Art is the hardest thing I know of, but the triangulation is how the brain works internally, so … well, there you go.  

    116345964_337645997633560_6430409338022713108_n.jpg