Theme: Education

  • Untitled

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2019/02/09/oxford-universitys-classics-degree-overhauled-bid-boost-number/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2019/02/09/oxford-universitys-classics-degree-overhauled-bid-boost-number/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-13 14:41:00 UTC

  • RULES OF DISCOURSE 1 – ASK IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, AND BE RESPECTFUL (“How can

    RULES OF DISCOURSE

    1 – ASK IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, AND BE RESPECTFUL

    (“How can you restate that as an intellectually honest question?”)

    2 – DON”T DEMAND OR GSRRM US INTO EDUCATING YOU.

    (“We only respond to intellectually honest questions asked in good faith”.)

    3 – YOU WILL NEED TO READ A LOT. SORRY. READ DON’T ASK.

    (“We cannot repeat long chains of logic for everyone. You must do the work on your own. If you can ask a specific question we will answer it providing it only takes a few minutes.”)

    4 – EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IS IN OUR OVERVIEW

    (“It’s a lot of material, and a lot of reading, and it’s pretty much all there. P is like any other system of ‘calculation’ and it takes time to learn.”)

    5 – IF IT”S TOO HARD WE GIVE CLASSES (THAT COST)

    (“If the reading is too much for you, then you will have to consider the classes. Classes reduce our cost of teaching you by batching you together, and let us ensure that you understand the material.)

    6 – IF YOU THINK WE ARE WRONG, YOU WILL 100% EITHER BE IMMORAL OR INCOMPATIBLE, MISUNDERSTAND, OR BE WRONG. “P IS TIGHT.”

    (“The only criticisms of P that we know of are (a) that it is a purely via-negativa system of thought and as such, it is up to you to supply ideology (power), philosophy (strategy and choice of good), religion(conformity), and Government (means of constructing the commons”.), (b) that some of you are still silly enough to believe any option other than revolt is possible, or that revolt won’t be successful – albeit costly.)

    WE BAN FOR

    1 – Wasting our time by GSRRM, Intellectual dishonesty, disrespect of the person, badgering, meming, non-argument We give only one or two warnings. We do not need to be popular with people who waste time, rely on GSRRM, are intellectually dishonest, badger, meme, and engage in non-argument.

    Why?

    We are the only answer you have.

    Its just going to take you a while to understand that.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-12 17:25:00 UTC

  • THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies) 0)

    THE METHOD TO THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS

    (An Opus for the Newbies and Normies)

    0) I work through the combination of aristotelian, logical, scientific, social scientific, pedagorical-religious, and cognitive-linguistic fields with a discipline that most cannot imagine. And at any time I’m attempting to solve a handful of problems. If the audience understands what problem I am solving it does not help me with their reactions so I tend to mix them up to prevent it.

    1) I ‘riff’ off arguments wherever i find them in order to create controversy in order to draw attention in order to educate those who are educable, and filter out those who are not.

    2) I never resist the opportunity for a fight for this reason: it is exceptional, relatively free advertising, that lets us search for people that have potential for contribution to the development of an intellectual movement sufficient to counter second era abrahamism: destruction of advanced civilizations by islamism, judaism, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism, and outright lying that baits the ignorant and foolish into moral hazard, and civilizational collapse.

    3) I teach by conducting a continuous the king of the hill game, which consists of making an argument or assertion which generates either defense of a prior assumption, offense against a presumption, or conflict between assumptions. This is how men must be taught. There is no penalty for failure except one’s learning. The only reward is attention, respect, quoting, and republication of good arguments. One does not need to be ‘right’ in this game, one needs only continuously strive to improve his abilities at discourse, debate, argument, and prosecution.

    4) The principle methods we teach are actually quite simple:

    (a) deflate, operationalize, disambiguate, serialize, define limits and completeness and express as a supply demand curve. This produces ‘better definitions, redefinitinos, and new definitions which are not possible to use in decet by the incomplete sentences, inflation, conflation, sophism, or the fictionalisms of idealism, supernaturalism, and pseudoscience.

    (b) All human behavior can be reduced to attempts to obtain, maintain, or defend expenditures of investment, whether physical, emotional, or intellectual. … As a consequence we can enumerate everything that humans attempt to acquire as some form of property. … As a consequence we can test whether attempts at obtaining property are reciprocal and if reciprocal within the limits of proportionality – thus maintaining the incentive to cooperate …. or they are not. if they are not then they are violations of reciprocity and proportionality, and as such simply ‘violence by other means’. Violence by any means, invites reciprocity by retaliation by violence by any means. Therefore the only reason for those who are able, to cooperate rather than exterminate, enslave, enserf, en-tax, or en-debt, is reciprocity within the limits of proportionality.

    (c) humans divide not only labor, but time-frame, perception, cognition, memory, paradigm, opportunities for predation and conditions of(fear of being) prey, demands, advocacy, negotiation, cooperation, rejection, conflict, and warfare.

    (d) there are a limited means of dividing that cognition and advocacy and those are primarily driven by gender differences in cognition and intuition, the bias of male or female brain structure and resulting behavior in the group, very minor differences in personality trait within the group (stages of the prey drive or reward system), the degree of neoteny in a group, and the success of the group in upward redistribution of reproduction thereby limiting the dead weight of the unproductive or costly.

    (e) Within groups there are only three means of persuasion i) force, ii)remuneration, iii) ostracization. These three strategies reflect the masculine conservative(defensive), ascendent male (opportunistic), and female(consumptive) biases in cognitive strategy. We see this in extreme conflict behavior between the genders as men fight only to preserve hierarchy then end the conflict. Ascendent men (libertarians) rarely fight but move to other opportunities. Females undermine by reputation destruction and do not stop until the enemy is destroyed. We also see this same effect in three personality type clusters. In other words all human groups cluster around three sets of personality types (big5/6) that reflect the masculine, libertarian, and feminine reproductive and social competitive strategy. This strategy is modified slightly by the sexual, social, economic, political, and military genetic, cultural, and knowledge value that the individual demonstrates by his display word and deed. and if we modify by the increasing adaptation provided by intelligence we see that there are a finite number of means by which individuals and groups compete. Therefore, all group strategies can be understood as genetic expression of group evolutionary demands.

    (f) Societies form elites in each of the means of coercion: i)force, government, and law, ii) finance, production, and trade, iii)education, gossip, propaganda, moralism, religion and these elites compete to make use of their strategy on behalf of their followers. They ally with one another. Traditionally religion and state. At the present it is religion and the middle class and the military (the middle) against the immigrants, minorities (non whites), underclasses (disenfranchised), and media, academy, state complex. In other words the new ‘religion’ of the academy and state is in competition with the old religion of the church, law, and people – it’s the top and bottom against the middle classes.

    (g) Since this new ‘religion’ is imposed upon our people by the same technique as the abrahamic religions (false promise, baiting into moral hazard, sophism, pilpul(excuse making), and critique (undermining), by a process of environmental overloading (informational saturation by repetition), that takes advantage of our genetic and cultural high trust (vulnerability to moral deception by moral hazard), and particularly because this is the natural intuition of the female biased mind out of evolutionary necessity, the increase in females in the work place, in voting, in consumption, and in particular in education in pseudosciences (social science and psychology and literature) which are simply vehicles for deceit by baiting the female mind into moral hazard, we can make use of the law to suppress falsehood, fraud, and high-fraud: baiting into moral hazard, in commerce, finance, economics, law, politics, and pedagogy (the academy), and let the natural competition between offenders and defenders incrementally suppress these frauds through the court system. and this will produce the most rapid change possible, and the costs of prosecution will, as in most things, drive the bad out of our society by negative market pressure (the law) alone, using natural self interest of even a minority of ordinary people.

    (h) It is quite possible using ‘testimonialism’ to define what is truthful speech (really, it is, surprisingly, and without that much difficulty) and teo extend the same involuntary (forced) warranty of due diligence against harm (falsehood, fraud, high fraud: baiting into moral hazard).

    (g) We have in the west relied on a unique, counter-intuitive human evolutionary strategy, evolved by our early military origins as charioteers, raiders, pirates, vikings, conquerors when we combined horse, wheel, bronze, language, and developed sky worshiping and paternalism as means of expressing our new found dominance over others and nature. However, this military order required personal investment by families in expensive equipment (arms, men) necessary to conduct raids and wars, and conquest. This order required putting TRUTH BEFORE FACE REGARDLESS OF COST TO THE HIERARCHY. Including the self. And it required relatively ‘democratic’ rights among those raiders (warriors, vikings, conquerors), who fought by choice not command. With the headman (chieftain) being the judge of last resort, and the people as the jury. As a result we produced heroism (risk) for the franchise (equality), and resulting sovereignty, reciprocity, common law, meaning the law of tort (property), and as a consequence, markets for voluntary cooperation in association, reproduction (marriage), production(economy), commons (‘society’), polity (government), and war (defense and offense), where war is another business venture like any other. And this tradition and this tradition alone – our sovereignty by earning it, our law, our militia, our jury, is all that separates us from the rest of the world that did not develop these traits. And the east asians were insulated from the barbarians by their territory, more so than we were by the Urals, black sea, caspian, bosphorus and mediterranean. So they not only had a longer time to develop, fewer genetically different neighbors, a larger population, and and the flood river alleys to feed themselves. They never developed truth over face, and because of that were not able to organize as fast and invent as fast as europeans in the ancient and modern worlds. The middle of the earth was destroyed by the semites over the past few thousand years, and their destruction and reduction of man to ignorance dysgenia, and poverty, is universal. They have destroyed and consumed the genetic, informational, normative, political, administrative, fixed, environmental capital of every great civilization of the ancient world reducing them to ashes of superstition. WHen rome discovered it must build a wall they did not choose the bosporus the caucuses, and the urals – and they should have. Because beyond there. nothing but Mordor waits. We are the people of science and law, the east are the people of reason and family, and the middle are the people of cancer upon the world that we must all defend against.

    (j) There are enemies among us that are not europeans and do not have our genetic and cultural dispositions, that exist (survive competition) ENTIRELY BY BAITING IN TO MORAL HAZARD and preying upon our people. We do not need to war against these people. Only outlaw their behavior in self defense. If we do so those people will have a choice of conforming, leaving, or prosecution and if necessary, execution. These people specialize in Advertising, Finance, Media, Entertainment, Propaganda, Activism, Law, Government, Prostitution, Gambling, Pornograpy, and white collar crime. And they do so by immigration, undermining, baiting into moral hazard, profiting from it, investing in the privatization of commons (rent seeking), and sponsoring further immigration, conversion, and destruction of all we have spent 4000 years developing.

    We can end the 2000 year war against our people very easily.

    A moral license (predation upon us, extermination of us)

    A set of demands (new constitution and policies)

    A plan of transition (how to reorganize peacefully)

    A means of altering the status quo. (uprising to delegitimize the state.)

    It is hard for people to argue with definancialization, de politicization, de propagandism, de population replacement, and the total criminalization of lying, fraud, and high fraud against our people in matters commercial, financial, political, economic, and military.

    We must choose. At least. The answer is about two million of us must choose. And we must choose to pay the price of defense of our people from the current attacks on our civilization.

    We can easily win.

    It’s just a choice.

    5) I am, we are, creating a movement the size and scope of marxism and postmodernism precisely to counter the use of semitic abrahamism version two, against our people in the forms of the great deceits of baiting into moral hazard: boazianism, freudianism, marxism, socialism, keynesianism, postmodernism, denialism, and outright lying; the destruction of our rule of law, of our constitution of natural law, and our civilization nearly devoid of burdensome underclasses that must of necessity parasitically depend upon us just as the utility of unskilled labor, skilled labor, clerks, craftsmen, are being eliminated from the economic pool. I’m searching for the members of our equivalent of the ‘frankfurt school’ – the development of our arguments of Restoration.

    All I care about from the Libertarians, Traditionalists, Constitutionalists , and Religious, is to i) not impede our work ii) be willing if the time comes to raise the few million we need to bring this entire country to a halt in short order, such that once published, our demands are met without bloodshed. ii) BEcause while you don’t understand, and I do, the ability to starve tens of millions of our enemies and turn their island cities to ruin is about as difficult as having a sandwich and beer.

    Thanks for your time and attention.The gods, all of them, are with us. Because only a devil would leave behind so many dead gods, and so many dead people, a genetic wasteland, and the attempted reversal of human history back into the stone ages.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (and really…now we are everywhere)

    Please start a group in your area. Winning is easy once you know how to win and what to do once you’ve won.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-11 15:50:00 UTC

  • Knowledge, expertise, and eloquence require years of practice, not talent

    Knowledge, expertise, and eloquence require years of practice, not talent.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 17:01:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094642508041052161

  • Knowledge, expertise, and eloquence require years of practice, not talent

    Knowledge, expertise, and eloquence require years of practice, not talent.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 12:01:00 UTC

  • That said, (a) I was laughing because I found the circumstance humorous, absurd,

    That said, (a) I was laughing because I found the circumstance humorous, absurd, and intellectually ridiculous. (b) I teach and practice radical intolerance for ignorance, error, bias, sophism, and deceit and laugher is more pleasant than anger. (c) I don’t feign respect.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 03:24:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094436987547906049

    Reply addressees: @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094436623637458945


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy … And I answered questions according to that law. Not according to whether it’s normative, pleasant, or acceptable. Just whether decidable (true). The law does not appeal for your permission. It just is the law whether you like it or not. And my work on law suppresses untruth.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1094436623637458945


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy … And I answered questions according to that law. Not according to whether it’s normative, pleasant, or acceptable. Just whether decidable (true). The law does not appeal for your permission. It just is the law whether you like it or not. And my work on law suppresses untruth.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1094436623637458945

  • A Legit Criticism that Is an Unreasonable Criticism

    —“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is…” I wish he would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith

    [I]t’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing. Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era. It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas. So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.) I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all. Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose. Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.

  • A Legit Criticism that Is an Unreasonable Criticism

    —“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is…” I wish he would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith

    [I]t’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing. Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era. It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas. So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.) I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all. Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose. Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52508044_10156975689627264_544311565

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52508044_10156975689627264_544311565

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52508044_10156975689627264_5443115653126946816_n_10156975689622264.jpg Steven MillerI’ve tried to explain small portions of propertarianism to “normie” people I know and this notion is the brick wall. They agree with everything else but this is the deal breaker. How do I maneuver around this? Do I start with attacking the sky daddy? Omit that part all together?Feb 9, 2019, 7:13 PMJohn MarkSteven Miller I tell them you cam have your religion you just cant let it be parasitic. “I believe in Jesus” yes. “I believe in Jesus therefore we must invite 10 million 85-IQ 3rd worlders into our country” no.Feb 9, 2019, 8:01 PMSteven MillerThe people I talk with want their political representatives to be openly religious and make decisions from that base. They dont want immigration. I dont really bother with speaking to Democrats as I have better things to waste my time on.

    This topic is becoming my go-to because it is my only challenge. I know people will dismiss Curt’s work because of the delivery so I try to dumb it down but I dont know how to dumb this topic down. The generational religious brainwashing is strongFeb 9, 2019, 9:02 PMCharles M TriplettSteven Miller I hold strong religious convictions. With that offered at the outset, I would be more inclined to support a government rooted in my same religious beliefs than I would an atheistic government, or one of false religion (Islam, Catholicism, etc.), because however bad religious governments may have been in the past, Godless governments are much worse, for they have nothing restraining them from evil works.Feb 9, 2019, 9:27 PMJohn MarkSteven Miller tactic to try possibly: “why are there so many different Christian denominations who all interpret the Bible differently?” (“Uhhh…) Answer: “the Bible is easy to misinterpret. Do you want our law to be easy to misinterpret so parasites can get a foot in the door? The law has to be bulletproof. Thus our law cannot be based on the Bible cuz too long, too easy to misinterpret & Jesus hasn’t shown up yet to interpret it perfectly.”

    Also – “you’ve never had a Christian President. They all claim to be, but none of them is a true Christian, including Trump. If you want a Christian president/ruler/leader/king, come up with a plan to make it happen. We (Propertarians) have a plan to institute parasite-proof govt, we have a parasite-proof constitution written (almost finished), and it punishes evil like the book of Romans says govt is supposed to do. Get on board or get out of the way. Until Jesus comes back hop on board the next best thing.”Feb 9, 2019, 10:09 PMCurt DoolittleVery very smart.Feb 9, 2019, 10:10 PMCurtus MaximusSteven Miller You’re right, the brainwashing is strong.

    Come at it from the economist’s perspective, then work your way to showing them how lies of others can serve to aid in direct theft in things that matter to them like things they consider property. And that currently the only way to keep these people from aiding in that theft entails ending their lies and forcing them into a form of negotiation instead.

    And when it comes to the religious stuff, you have to treat the message very delicately. But like I’ve done with you (in my opinion), the strategy I used with you came to me easily because I already know you, and I (at least I think I know you) know that you care about others well-being, you always try to lighten up the situation with good humor and sincerity, and you make very wise decisions in how you treat others.

    So, I knew you wanted assurance that people you consider innocent people could have their unique way they get fulfillment out of life preserved for them to keep. Which, I think I did that fairly successfully so far.Feb 9, 2019, 10:36 PMSteven MillerIn my experience, the difference of interpretation doesnt matter as long as the core beliefs are the same. As the man above said, a Christian gt is better than an atheist gt.

    The ultimatum approach may work when the “time” comes but in everyday conversation it won’t.Feb 9, 2019, 10:36 PMCurt DoolittleThere is no conflict between christianity and the natural law – they are identical. However, there is a profound conflict between what christians may publicly claim is true and the natural law. This is a problem for christianity per se, just as it is for islam and judaism. If there is a conflict between christianity(faith) and the law(science) then science prevails under the law,Feb 9, 2019, 10:40 PMJohn MarkSteven Miller the ultimatum approach combined with “there have been no sincere christian presidents (at least not recently) is designed to remind them that there is a huge difference between what they want, and what they get. To snap them out of their idealism. Do you want to be ruled by leftism? Or not? We have a solution. To demand that our solution have a christian leader at the top of it is ridiculous since you dont have that now and never have.Feb 9, 2019, 10:49 PMCurtus MaximusSteven Miller I think you (by that I mean hypothetically you along with others with similar or virtually identical evolutionary strategies) could form your own form of gt however you’d like given you’ve created it honestly and contractually and it passes the test of scientific morality. Then on top of that you can do whatever, if I interpret how the propertarian system would work correctly.Feb 9, 2019, 10:57 PMSteven MillerGood stuff here. I keep coming back to this subject as I see as the only thing to stop us. I’ve been slowly chipping away at my immediate circle of influence. My strategy has always been devil’s advocate but I think it’s time for a more direct approach.Feb 9, 2019, 11:05 PMCurtus MaximusSteven Miller Good luck. Try using the e-prime and write some thoughts down in it. You may have some insights.Feb 9, 2019, 11:08 PMSteven MillerThat’s like Greek to most people. I have to translate for everyone I’ve shown it to. No, you all have that horse to ride. I’m just trying to see we all arrive at the same place.Feb 9, 2019, 11:11 PMBenjamin IrelandHe’s not invisible, he’s just really far away!Feb 10, 2019, 12:21 AMGreg HamiltonBenjamin Ireland or is he really close and really really small?Feb 13, 2019, 5:53 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 17:59:00 UTC

  • AGAINST CRITICISM ON WORKING IN PUBLIC *POLICY:TRANSPARENCY* (i.e. “CURT: WHY NO

    AGAINST CRITICISM ON WORKING IN PUBLIC

    *POLICY:TRANSPARENCY*

    (i.e. “CURT: WHY NO SECRECY!!!”)

    1 – I do my work out in the open with my real name. I always have.

    2 – I educate our people on how to produce and implement a restoration of the constitution that will allow us reclaim our destiny by constitutional amendment, and certainty of members of the state the rebellion to enact it – or to cause secession between those who do and do not wish so.

    3 – I do this to provide an actionable solution that will prevent the bloodiest civil war in human history that is one spark from igniting, and one that has been deterministic since the 1965 socialist transition of immigration from kin to aliens.

    4 – I NEVER EVER cross the line to advocacy or organization or participation in direct action. I seek only to make our people understand that if we did choose to revolt that our success is a virtual certainty and therefore to make the state end its denial that we would.

    5 – If you cannot do the same then I can’t be associated with you, and I don’t want to. You are a danger to me and our people

    6 – All ‘secret’ activity only attracts the wrong people, with the wrong incentives, to engaging in the wrong behaviors, that will end in their and our harm.

    7 – All any action by the state against me as a thought leader working on restoration of the constitution to prevent its usurpation, and the creation of policies in the defense of our people from economic, cultural, and genetic predation would only serve to demonstrate to the people we seek to reach the corruption of that government, and in turn grant additional legitimacy to both the promise of my work, and the promise of our ability to force our self defense into the body of law.

    8 – If we must, at some future time, act, then we must and will act toward a moral end, with an actionable plan, and all act at once. And in the interim we must constraint all lunatics from preventing our expansion into the majority and the provision of solutions for the vast majority of our people – exclusive of those fools, traitors and enemies among them.

    9 – Only the more sophisticated followers understand how I use the ‘marketplace’ of the internet to criticize ideas, whittle away at them, and discover those few grains of truth therein. Only the more sophisticated followers understand how I use the king of the hill game to run those tests. At any given time I might be testing any set of ideas by king of the hill games, to get you to defeat them so that I understand how to replace those ideas with better ones. I don’t want you to understand what I am doing. If you undrestand I am playing this game, and running these tests, then their utility declines. The secret to any psychological testing is to work indirectly by appealing to people’s intuitions such that their natural tendency to signal rather than report is circumvented. This is is how I work. I create games that indirectly allow me to discover possibilities. I do not start with presumptions, I simply start with what is presumed, and attack it until only a few grains of truth remain. With those gains of truth I then reconstruct the law. What we do with that law is up to us – should we obtain the power to enforce its adoption. And I must convince you only that we both have the power, and that the laws once enacted will serve our purposes. This means that all my work was in the construction of the law, the rest is only the policy we enact by that law, and the incentives of citizens to use the law to suppress, defeat, or exit those who continue the 2500 year war against our people.

    Thank you for your time.

    -Curt Doolittle

    ======

    FROMl: thisisnotmyemail@hotmail.com

    REGARDING: https://ordoevangelistarum.com/

    Sir, I love your thoughts but am not happy with your boomer-tier tools. Thomas Lewis from Ordo Evangelistarum has the right ideas when it comes to implementing websites, forums, and comms. He only uses open source programs that have been rigorously tested. He is also friends with some honorable computer nerds that help him out.

    You use gmail. For the love of god, why? I’m not emailing you only to be flagged by the crazed technocrats at google for not thinking like them. Discord is run by a bunch of SJWs who do not share anything with you in common either. Once again, I wont be using discord.

    Open source alternatives like OE is using.

    1) comms. Riot app using decentralized matrix servers. Thomas has his own server which he controls. I prefer servers in third world countries because why not.

    2) Forum. He uses Discord which is simple and effective and once again, you control it yourself.

    At least use some free tools that arent made around collecting user data to sell. Other than that, my respect for you overrides any disdain I have for your boomer tech strategy.

    ====


    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 17:07:00 UTC