Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Romantic Love has has little to do with the survival of a marriage such that off

    Romantic Love has has little to do with the survival of a marriage such that offspring are produced with sufficient ability not to be a burden on the rest of the polity. It’s a modern luxury. And at present economic necessity has rapidly dissipated, and will continue to do so.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 20:17:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188550304297635843

    Reply addressees: @OfSalamis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188549993210306560

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @OfSalamis Throughout history love evolved from mutual care, because of economic utility – it was only the 1300’s during the plague love entered literature, and only in the 1970’s, marriage became a matter exclusively of attraction and friendship. Romantic love is a luxury good.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188549993210306560

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @OfSalamis Throughout history love evolved from mutual care, because of economic utility – it was only the 1300’s during the plague love entered literature, and only in the 1970’s, marriage became a matter exclusively of attraction and friendship. Romantic love is a luxury good.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188549993210306560

  • PREDICTION: WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE COMMERCIAL DRONE REVOLUTION? They are extrem

    PREDICTION: WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE COMMERCIAL DRONE REVOLUTION?

    They are extremely vulnerable, and the culmination of “Cargo Cult” opportunism.

    It will take a while for their density to be such that it’s worth making a living off investment with capturing their cargo, but you know, I sure as heck know how to make a living at it, and a gang that gets organized enough will make a great living at it.

    I mean, you know that video from south africa where the locals cut up a beached whale while it’s still living, and run off with hunks of meat?

    A distribution channel of drones carrying ‘Cargo’ is simply a an opportunity for many generations of the division of labor more evolved than whale meat.

    Drones fly at 120 meters (130 yards) according to FAA regulations.

    Now if you’ve shot skeet, you can shoot down a done with 3 1/2” 12 gauge OOO Buckshot, with a drop of 18″. If you lead, and fire three shots in sequence assuming 18″ drop it’s shooting fish in a barrel. (and yes the gang bangers will develop ‘talent’ that will do it, and vehicles to do it from, and spend all f’king day doing it. You can use a rifled shotgun and slug pretty easily at 130 yards. Even with a .22 semi auto – because it’s so quiet and can put a lot of rounds up there. Or with another drone you can just tie nails to a bit of fishing net and drop it on the drone, or just smack into it with your landing gear.

    Now that’s before we get to the fact that they are even more vulnerable during delivery of the goods. And that even if their reasonably autonomous they aren’t endlessly autonomous. And that capturing, modifying, and using them for ‘other purposes’ is profitable in and of itself.

    So now, you get your own and deliver drugs anonymously and don’t need runners.

    I mean, the disintermediation from the human being is awesome. And you know, load it up with explosives and now people won’t interfere with it. I mean.. it’s a whole new criminal industry just waiting to happen! 😉

    Sorry. Just had to rain on the parade.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 16:58:00 UTC

  • THE UTILITY AND DISUTILITY OF POLYGAMY by Martin Ĺ těpĂĄn Polygamy works just fine

    THE UTILITY AND DISUTILITY OF POLYGAMY

    by Martin Štěpán

    Polygamy works just fine when the group’s strategy is to conquer other groups and take their women but in a society that is a closed system, there is a finite number of women and letting them naturally distribute in Pareto distribution will leave disenfranchised men with the only option of conquering men from their own society to have a chance at a woman of their own.

    The parallel zero-sum game to his I can think of is land. If all land in the nation’s territory was owned by the few leaving most men without realistic chance to own any by legal means, they will go to war.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 16:53:00 UTC

  • NO, WHAT THREATENS ISLAM IS LOW STATUS, TRUTH, RECIPROCITY, MARKETS, MERITOCRACY

    NO, WHAT THREATENS ISLAM IS LOW STATUS, TRUTH, RECIPROCITY, MARKETS, MERITOCRACY, AND EUGENICS THAT RESULT

    —“Nothing threatens Islamic extremists in the West more than a Christian identity that revolves around family, authentic values and principles. They love what the Left promotes: no genders, no identity, and total confusion. They use that as a vehicle to take over and gain power.”—Imam of Peace @Imamofpeace

    What threatens islam is low status, b/c the terms by which one finds value in the self(obedience), and pretense of value to others(conformity), and means of advocacy (lying) is destructive, vs the value of western rule of law, truth before face, real productivity for reputation.

    Islam tried to solve the problem of pervasive corrupt tribal paternity with an equality in ignorance, respect, obedience, and poverty regardless of productivity. This meant success by stealing (conquest) and taxing (trade), but a failure to develop food, law, truth, tech, trade.

    The result was an exhaustion of the accumulated genetic, resource, intellectual, cultural, artistic capital of every great civilization of the ancient world, as each successive gene pool collapsed under the weight of a massive, ignorant, illiterate, unproductive, underclass.

    When the European Age of Sail eliminated the ability to ‘free ride’ on world trade, keeping the rest of the world as backward as islam, the world circumvented the islamic world and let it fall into natural productivity without european agrarian (balkan) food, or world trade.

    The greatest casualty for the west was Iran, and the loss of the Persian people into the catastrophe of islam, instead of following the indian and european peoples into modernity, and prosperity. Unfortunately, islam was attracted to the false promise of Jewish marxism (again).

    And western attempts to prevent the expansion of marxism – as economically destructive to people as islam was genetically, intellectually, and culturally – into the islamic world have failed, and islamic fundamentalism has returned as the alternative to marxism – ….

    … with the same tactics: sell false comfort to the underclass, who will then recruit neighboring underclasses, and destroy western and indian civilization as islam has destroyed north african, egyptian, byzantine, levantine, persian, civilizations. But genetic decline within.

    The chinese, japanes, and koreans are fully aware of the cancer of the abrahamic religions of judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to destroy. The west has converted christianity into a germanic folk religion and destroyed the political church.

    All that remains: copy the Chinese, buy putting a wall around islam and letting muslims either reform or starve, rather than, like cancer, consume the other peoples by continuing the process of destruction of heroism and excellence, truth and duty, law, and merit in production.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 16:52:00 UTC

  • WHY IS NATURAL LAW A LAW OF NATURE? (A well intentioned person conducts a conven

    WHY IS NATURAL LAW A LAW OF NATURE?

    (A well intentioned person conducts a conventional argument giving us an opportunity to educate common people)

    —“”[what] inescapable law of the natural law[?’” You have a penchant for manufacturing spooks. Where is this so called “natural law”? I have looked everywhere, I have observed my surroundings and I have not located it.”— Gyeff Strife

    Then, unfortunately, you observe poorly. 😉

    —“Imagine the following: I have a friend. I ask him to turn around. I have deceptively acquired his trust, therefore he turns around. At this opportunity, I stab my friend in the back. We are only friends in the mind of the now deceased, who was a dullard. In my mind he was a competitor. Now tell me, will a divine bolt of lightning come and strike me where I stand? If no such lightning occurs then your “natural law” is an illusion. … You may say I’ve broken your natural law in spite of no lightning, yet I am walking about a free man (now with one fewer competitor), of what consequence is breaking or not breaking the natural law? … You may say that your collection of dogmatists will come and duel me and they will win due to a numbers advantage. But, I ask, what logic was used to convince the first dogmatist of the existence of “natural law”, in the absence of a dogmatist collective? … There is circular logic: The law exists because there are enforcers of the law; there are enforcers of the law because the law exists.”— Gyeff Strife

    Great example.

    If you try to violate the physical law of gravity by wishing you can fly, and jumping from a height, you will pay the price for it. If you violate the natural law of reciprocity within an in-group by earning trust, and harming one with whom you have engaged in a reciprocal exchange of non-imposition of costs we call ‘trust’, then if you violate that natural law of reciprocity (a) if the person whom you stab lives, he will retaliate, and likely retaliate using altruistic punishment meaning he will escalate to even greater punishment (retaliation) in order to preserve the group value of reciprocity; and certain the group with whom you have exchanged the promise of reciprocity for membership, will also punish you. In fact if you try, you will have a very hard time trying to discover (a) any violation of rational (reasonable) choice (bounded rationality), and (b) any violation of reciprocity. this is because it is a violation of the laws of nature: parasitism is intolerable for a life form, just as cooperation if possible, is an intolerable loss for a life form.

    The DIfference: The physical universe is deterministic and doesn’t have memory, potential to multi-forecast, and choice among forecasts. Humans have memory and choice, so that there is a time delay to human reaction in the natural law of man, that there is not in physical laws of nature. That does not mean that man is any different from nature. It means only that the same forces are delayed such that we can chose to capture the highest returns on energy we can imagine, rather than the first available that we cannot avoid capturing – wich is nature’s limitation we have overcome.

    —” … you have a penchant for manufacturing spooks.”— Gyeff Strife

    I have a penchant for avoiding ‘making words up’ in the continental model, and for prohibiting abrahamic sophism, pseudo-moralism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism by using disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization of existing terms instead. In this case the long history of Aristotle’s, the Church’s, and the Scientific Enlightenment term ‘Natural Law” – meaning necessary law whose violation is harmful (via-negativa) and whose observation is beneficial (via positiva) “living in harmony with nature” just like, in reductio, if we try to violate the law of gravity it will be harmful.

    This natural law is in evidence by every test available to man including the history of legal dispute resolution throughout all of recorded human history; the evolutionary necessity the natural law due to the laws of nature (physics), and due to the evidence of recorded human moral intuitions, recorded human retaliations, and our inability to circumvent it in subjective testing regardless of example.

    So just as all human action is rational (reasonable) within the limits of bounded rationality, and physical demands, so is the natural law of reciprocity is universal, and we can find NO examples otherwise – including any pretense of the existence of altruism. Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests, demonstrated by action or inaction, of others of one’s group also engaged in reciprocity with the actor.

    Ergo, as in this example, I have a penchant for testimonial truth in which I have used disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization, to disambiguate and define terms such that they function as systems of *measurement* at maximum humanly possible precision given our current knowledge, and no ‘analogies’ enable ‘putting one’s finger on the scale’ to lie (as did Boas, Marx, freud, cantor, adorno et all, derrida et al, rothbard et all, feminists et all, neocons et al – the second attempt at destruction of the cooperation between the classes by the use of abrahamic deceit to generate envy, using the false promise that any other political and economic organization is possible or superior in results for all.

    —“You say that there is no “we”, however, this sentiment appears to me to be inauthentic because simultaneously you mention “crimes against humanity”, “human life”, and “human civilization”. Of what consequence is the plight of humanity to “me”. If all of humanity becomes extinct a single moment after my death, am I impacted in any way? Furthermore, you suggest that the spreading of ignorance is a negative, however, if my competitor wallows in ignorance, is he not easier to exploit by me?”— Gyeff Strife

    It is hard to teach people disambiguation serialization operationalization and competitive falsification, leaving only the best truth candidates surviving, because it’s more expensive than justification, which is the easiest and most primitive means of human reasoning – wayfinding. Because wayfinding is a pre-rational process of the lower cortical religions. And so we do it by intuition.

    DISCIPLINE

    The fact that you are ignorant of the long history of the natural law, ignorant of the long history of the law, apparently ignorant of mathematics, and logic; ignorant of the techniques by which lies are created; and likely ignorant of the continuous pattern of transformations between the fundamental, the quantum, the particle, the element, the molecule, the organic molecule, the protein all the way up to sentience, consciousness, reason, and calculation is rather obvious – because you read literature (fantasy) rather than science.

    You don’t know my place in intellectual history, nor do you yet have a sense of the movement I and others have created, but I am, and we are, the reformation of the natural law, upon which western law depends, that has evolved to prosecute the crimes of the marxists, feminists, and postmodernists, in their attempt to violate the natural law of reciprocity, by the second attempt at the destruction of western civilization, the first time with judaism to undermine, christianity to weaken, and islam to conquer, using false promise, baitingin into moral hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding under the cover of moral pretense, in order to reverse evolution and restore us to dysgenic, egalitarian, maternal, poverty of the herd, prior to the indo european invention of eugenic, hierarchical, meritocratic, pathernal, wealth.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-27 10:35:00 UTC

  • I KNOW WHAT BOTHERS YOU ABOUT MY WORK. —” I don’t propose a good, or a prefere

    I KNOW WHAT BOTHERS YOU ABOUT MY WORK.

    —“

    I don’t propose a good, or a preference. I state a truth, and I state it prosecutorially, as natural law, that is not open to choice or dispute.

    Why? The Victorians civilized greek prose in continuation of their virtue signalling by overextension of christianity to justify their conquest.

    The marxists, feminist, postmodernists, and denialists took advantage of our kindness. They took advantage of our virtue signaling. Conservatives failed to resist them, Libertarians only resisted them in the economy, and science has only now falsified them. And they have sought to achieve by immigration and conflict

    I don’t make the same mistake.

    I don’t write appealing theology you want. I don’t write appeals empathically in moral philosophy to suggest. I don’t write empathic and rational appeals in secular philosophy to persuade.

    I write the law. The natural law. The only terms under which cooperation and compromise are preferable to conquest. I’m stating the only terms under which it is rational for us NOT to conquer, rule, tax, enserf, or enslave you, or worse.

    Europeans are done asking. They’re done tolerating. They’re done hoping. Science is proving us correct in human differences, just as it proved us correct in economics; just as it has proved us correct in politics.

    These are the terms of non conflict.

    And honestly, we are hoping you don’t accept them.

    You owe us 100M lives. I hope you are are ready to pay the debt.

    “—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-26 16:34:00 UTC

  • MARX, MARXISM, THE WESTERN SOLUTION, AND HIS LIFE OF FRAUD, IN HISTORICAL CONTEX

    MARX, MARXISM, THE WESTERN SOLUTION, AND HIS LIFE OF FRAUD, IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT

    —“Folks criticize what they don’t understand. Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income. The central dogma of Marxist economic philosophy is “From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need”. How can this translate into an advocacy for uniform income?

    The redistribution programs and other such interventions are geared towards redressing the prior social injustices that led to the undue accumulation of the means of production and opportunities by a few; to create access and opportunity for those with the ability to become productive members of society, but by the very accident of their births lack such opportunities. This should not be contorted into the school of thought which indiscriminately redistributes wealth without recourse to ability nor need, typical of the welfare state. Thus it’s quite instructive to distinguish the welfare state from the socialist state. …. Mind you, egalitarianism calls for equal rights and equal opportunities; this does not in any way guarantee equality of outcomes. Thus the presupposition that Socialists’ advocacy of equality of rights and opportunity means a certain determination of equality of incomes and any other such social outcomes is a flawed deduction. …. Lastly, it’s Marxism that introduced the concept of labour as capital in the production process in the first place; insisting that without labour, Finance Capital and Production Capital cannot automatically create value. So at what point does Marxism deny the value of humans in the production process?”—Jason Tutu

    Yes, except every premise he relied upon, and you reiterated is false, and those that aren’t false, are dysgenic.

    Families produce individual members of families.

    The distribution of proceeds of production by family despite the individual rights of the individual to property. That’s why families exist as the central unit of production in all civilizations that survive – and their work product is another generation of humans.

    The only ‘according to need’ that is ‘measurable’ is equality with subsidy for the dysgenic, diseased, or results of accident. Nothing else is need.

    The only ‘according to ability’ that’s measureable without markets is coercion, favoritism, corruption.

    The only ‘advantage’ to be gained under such a scheme is competition for the most dysfunctional so that one can do the least and consume the must – and that’s what we see in every instance.

    Labor isn’t capital. That’s the thing. Its just cheaper than automating until the present era. *all the value that is created is created by the ORGANIZATION of production*. Everyone else is just a fungible domesticated animal.

    And that is what we see in labor markets around the world.

    Labor is cheaper than slaves, because they can be positively motivated, and seek self interest. (In fact, investing hgh trust hgh value capital into low trust low value labor is merely a way of putting dead weight semi-domesticated animals to use such that they are less a burden on the productive.)

    All marxism did was return man to the condition under which he makes the least possible contribution in order to survive, and seeks rents, black markets, and corruption, by every possible venue. Marx tried to restore slave economy. All creativity (Positive incentive) evolves in the invention of black markets (every market other than the productive market, and every market other than the one suppressed by the authoritarian communist state).

    No one teaches marxism in economics, as other than yet another fantasy-moral-literature, except in pseudoscientific rather than supernatural, or moralizing prose.

    The most damning evidence of all, and why the marxist program of undermining western civilization’s tripartic division of responsibilities between the classes, by the generation of class conflict ended in the 60s and was replaced immediately by the Postmodern and Feminism as a means of undermining western civilization through gender and identity conflict, was that consumer capitalism and fiat credit, and fiat currency, made possible the expansion of employment and the vast at the cost of entrepreneurs and capitalists’ inability to save accumulated earnings except by flight into commodities (oil) or rental assets (land, buildings). The only beneficiary of the capitalist program has been the common man. And the only correct that needs to be made is the redirection of consumer credit from the financial sector (which has captured all gains from increases in employment and increased consumption) to the government, thus relegating the financial sector to the production of innovation, instead (driving them again out of savings) and back into longer and longer research cycles, with higher and higher returns .

    To offset this shift, the government may no longer generate inflation that would alter this investment, and instead redistribute liquidity (increase in the money supply to maintain monetary velocity in the economy) directly to consumers, to maintain the velocity and volume of investment, without requiring manipulation of the labor market. This effectively makes ordinary people shareholders in the state and eliminates all demand for, want of, immigration outside of exceptionally talented experts. And immigration must be stopped because it will destroy the balance by increasing the unproductive and dependent population to the point of causing the same systemic failure as the concentration of the results of liquidity distribution in the financial sector.

    I’m a lot better than marx mostly because I don’t want to lie cheat and steal, and undermine western civilization. He did. He was a parasite his entire life. And he tried desperately to justify and expand hs parasitism. Else if he was a moral and ethical and honest man he would have stopped taking money from Engels when he stopped writing, as soon as he’d read Menger and the marginalists, and in doing so understood his entire edifice was wrong, and that he had been falsified, and his work no longer of merit.

    Others would have known this except when Keynes used marx’s research to write the general theory he couldn’t believe anyone would see it as other than a means of recovering from the war, and a general strategy for economic development. Hayek likewise didn’t refute keynes’ reformation of marx, because he couldn’t imagine people being that stupid. Unfortunately, he didn’t, move on once he understood the problem of modernity was not economics but the rule of law, and while keynes told hayek he would correct the public and government if they got out of hand, he died early before he could do so.

    Marx was just another lying cheating scumbag like Boaz, Freud, Adorno, Derrida, trying to overthrow the applecat for no other reason than to rebel and get attention, so that he could have the pretense of moral cover by which to get away with parasitism – and he wanted to industrialize parasitism. And 100M people are dead because of it.

    An there are still idiots running around talking about marxism without realizing that there isn’t any difference between marx and tolkien other than subject matter. It’s fiction. Fantasy fiction. The difference is tolkien was moral and marx was, like saul of tarsus who he imitated, a sick evil immoral human being.

    I understand marx far better than anyone else I’ve ever met. But that’s because I’ve spent a great time studying the female and abrahamic means of deceit by false promise, baiting into hazard, profiting from hazard, and hiding behind pretense of moral ambition, selling by pilpul and defending by critique, to create the semitic dark ages we escaped, and to try to create the second semitic dark ages, we have been entering since Das Capital. Marx is just another crook lying by intuition, and covering his lies with extremely detailed fictionalisms.

    The most obvious sophism in the above post, is:

    —“Marxism advocates nothing like uniform income.”—

    Not directly, but he presumes (a) people are relatively equal in value, or worse, that many people are not harmful to others by their mere existence; When it is the excess of harmful people that are more influential to the current condition than the beneficial people; (c) western success was as much a product of our thousands of years of eugenics, as it was our truth telling, traditional law of sovereigns, and preference for technology and magic we controlled, over supernaturalism and the occult that controlled us. (d) labor is other than yet another fungible resource, and organization of production takes all the risk and creates all the value – automation has made this painfully obvious over the past fifty years – and it’s escalating.

    Marx was recommending a repeat of the semitic dark ages, this time in pseudoscience instead of supernaturalism, that would expand the underclasses we sought so hard to gracefully reduce, thereby reversing our self-evolution.

    He was a fantastic liar.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-26 11:19:00 UTC

  • “CAN I WRITE A 1000 PAGE NOVEL TODAY?”— 1. It’s economically unwise at present

    —“CAN I WRITE A 1000 PAGE NOVEL TODAY?”—

    1. It’s economically unwise at present to write a 900 page novel. It is much better to break it into three books, and edit to provide rewards for… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=492826014647627&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-26 01:17:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187900905837998083

  • “CAN I WRITE A 1000 PAGE NOVEL TODAY?”— 1. It’s economically unwise at present

    —“CAN I WRITE A 1000 PAGE NOVEL TODAY?”—

    1. It’s economically unwise at present to write a 900 page novel. It is much better to break it into three books, and edit to provide rewards for the reader at the end of each.

    2. It is extremely difficult to accumulate sufficient life experience to provide character, plot, and environmental novelty (entertainment) for 900 pages. That’s why people don’t do it – they can’t.

    3. The current trend is simply ‘more’ characters, plots, etc in an effort to move beyond the exhausted 90-min plot lines, that books were written for, in the hope that they would be optioned as scripts.

    4. To answer the question, I would need to understand the plot, theory, or experiment you’re trying in the book, the number of characters, and maybe a few of their story arcs.

    Authors you might know:

    RRMartin (Can I reverse the good vs evil exhausted plot line through continuous character development using epic character arcs over a long period of time, written for teens, and young adult heroes with adult subject matter,).

    Rowling ( can I reach a young adult or teen audience, with a stereotypical boy’s adventure, written from a girl’s perspective and voice, played by a boy to to maximize my book sales, using one year of schooling at a time, where the character grows with the audience and books are released in parallel to the audience’s growth.)

    Stephenson (Cryptonomicon: can I write the seminal work of the Cyberpunk era, combining Ludlum’s thriller, King’s Characters, Tom Clancy’s scale, tech entrepreneur life in the dot com boom, And in doing so explain the the history of cryptography across generations, construction of the world banking and economic system, and how it could change in the future, shifting the world power balance. Maybe gibson was more influential, but Stephenson wrote the canon literature of that era.)

    Eddings (can I merge with wizard of earthsea, pohl’s ‘scientific magic’, and tolkien’s epic wars between civilizations, and do the characters well enough to get a away with it and not be called a hack? Add a hundred other copycats using the formula after him here….)

    King (It, the Stand – most of his books – Can I weave an entire village , an enormous cast of characters, into an epic of mythic consequence mystery and scale, and succeed with most of the characters by producing an backstory, dialog, and character arc the audience will empathize with despite so many of them you need a score card to keep track. I mean, the stand is a dark sci fi attempt at Tolkein’s epic. We should note that while King does manage to produce some archetypal characters in a novel context he failed in the stand to achieve his goal of maintaining character empathy, and audience interests, for the duration.)

    Rand (Atlas Shrugged can I write a play that the reader will empathize with, that creates a middle class heroic mythos of creative excellence, where the characters represent political archetypes, instead of writing another work of philosophy that will be ignored? (it worked despite cutout characters. Not as clear as plato’s socrates, but she did it.) )

    Tolkien (Can I create the largest most detailed alternate world ever tried by the reconstruction of the tradition of anglo saxon, germanic, proto-germanic european, mythos as a means of exploring ancient tongues. Can I write an anglo saxon world we would be desperate to live in, because we sense it is more moral than the world we live in today? Don’t over analyze Tolkien. ).

    Michner: (can I learn about and teach history of different areas of the world by weaving long intergenerational family stories over many generations with interesting plots with strong characters instead of writing a history book or set of biographies – and will that sell to readers? Absolutely.)

    Gone With The Wind … (The experience of the entirety of the civil war in the south?)

    War And Peace (the experience of the entirety of the napoleonic invasion of russia and leave a lasting memory of it as a monument? Yes.)

    Don Quixote (Can I write a homeric epic of equal meaning, and greater tragedy because modernity traded knowledge and prosperity yes, but destroyed chivalry, honor, nobility – and his idealism is considered insane and useless in the face of modernity.

    You get the point.

    What are you going to deliver in 900 pages of novel that is novel, and novel enough to hold the reader’s attention when his or her attention is competing with every other demand for his or her attention? What do you have to offer?

    I wish I could get people to write write an overview of their plot (a theory of the book), then some back story. then some character backstories. Then write a few SCENES. So then you can immerse yourself in a world and weave your way through it because you have enough to work with that you won’t just imagine the most recent stereotypical thing you encountered.

    Try to write the skeleton of the story while inspired, in just one to t three weeks. Even if you just throw it away. Then pick scenes that you feel inspired to work with. You will find that you will create anchors, and then ask “why would my characters get from A to B”.

    Research. Fill your head with whatever your character’s head would be filled with in the circumstance. then your writing won’t be trite.

    If you sit down and try to daydream a novel you will create precisely nothing novel.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 21:16:00 UTC

  • IF YOU WANT TO LEARN P Propertarianism is like aristotelianism – it is a huge pr

    IF YOU WANT TO LEARN P

    Propertarianism is like aristotelianism – it is a huge project that reforms much human thought especially logic, language, epistemology (knowledge), psychology, sociology, ethics, law, and politics.

    1. You can learn about our proposed constitution and it’s policies (it’s a lot, and you might have to learn a bit bout economics and the justice system but you can do it.)

    2. You can learn the Big History of the competition between civilizations and in particular between european and semitic.(easy)

    3. You can learn why europeans evolved faster than the rest, and developed the only truth telling, high trust, wealthy, advanced, technological, civilization in so short a span in the bronze, ancient, and modern worlds – except for our period of failure during the abrahamic dark age. (relatively easy)

    4. You can learn a whole suite of the propertarian arguments (Takes some work)

    5. You can learn how to conduct propertarian arguments

    You can learn how to use the p-methodology (Not easy)

    6. And you can if you want to get into the foundations of the P-methodology, the completed scientific method, and logic and epistemology. (Hard)

    SO IF YOU WANT TO LEARN ANY OF THAT

    1) you can use the site and read it.

    2) you can follow along.

    3) you can use my friends list to contact and catch the attention of a mentor by asking for help:

    alain, stepan, bill, luke, brandon, erik, steve, eli, …(thera are a lot more)

    4) you can take our course (if you are patient enough for me to slowly release content – and I mean slowly).

    The other folks are better teachers than I am. Really. By far.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 17:27:00 UTC