Source: Original Site Post

—“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”— Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’. Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed. Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice. The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law. I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time. And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation. Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult. I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural. What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information. Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance. Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization. So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved. It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality. And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do. Which is what we have done. IN CLOSING So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for. I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.