See, if you stick at it for a few years, the incomprehensible is distillable to a string of statements that are – at least for the informed – relatively intelligible. Remember all the criticism I used to get a few years ago? Well, we are getting PRETTY CLEAR these days. 🙂 Patience, hard work, and trial and error.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 13:06:00 UTC
Just finished Counter-Currents Radio interview with Greg Johnson. Best coverage of Propertarianism I’ve been able to do. I think at this point I probably can give a one hour lecture and get most of it across pretty easily – and stun the audience with how easy it is to restore western civilization.
I found out at the end that we lost 12 min of audio to a tech problem on their end. So I will try to provide the missing content when the interview comes out.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-23 17:13:00 UTC
So here is the process I use to research (attack) opposing positions.
THE SUSTAINED ATTACK
Your opponent will never agree with you. Your objective is to educated him through repetition, and to eliminate his means of obtaining confirmation, signals, and status from his conceptual peers.
Construct a criticism, and a solution. (libertarianism or Russian involvement in Ukraine)
Look for comment streams with elaborate but rhetorically weak arguments. (rothbarianism or russian moral equivalency).
Watch for a few weeks so that you understand the general arguments that they make. (haunt blogs and fb pages)
Create an aggressive, full frontal attack, in order to draw attention and fire. use loaded language, framed language, every thing possible to inflame the audience.
Use their attacks on you as opportunities to repeat the central argument.
Never show anger. Treat them as ‘cute’. Stick to the facts. Repeat the central argument.
They will try to rally. Try to shame. Try to ridicule. Try ad hominems. Try straw men. And every other fallacy.
Answer every single person who responds by showing their fallacy, then close by repeating the central argument. The purpose of responding is to repeat the central argument and show that they are dishonest in debate.
At this point, after two to five days, you have already succeeded in controlling the discourse, and eliminating the sense of comfort, familiarity and safety that they have on the forum, but now, you want to defeat your enemy completely.
So keep up the attack, and make fresh ones, until they bring in their ‘best’, who will undoubtedly have confidence that he can defeat you. This individual will seek status by showing his dominance. If you defeat this individual you defeat the ‘team’.
At this point, the others will largely drop out except for cheers from the peanut gallery. You now have control of the discourse.
Now that you have someone who can actually conduct a debate rather than rally, shame, ridicule, and throw fallacies, agree with his true and empirically stated points, and repeat the central argument.
Keep this up until you exhaust him.
At this point you have killed the venue as a means of self-reinforcing justification, and yo have probably repeated your central argument a hundred times. And it is now part of their conceptual vernacular.
They will eventually try to ban you. At which point if you have conducted yourself with humor, rather than personal attacks, you can argue that they can’t defend their ideas, repeat the central position.
YOU JUST HAVE TO WORK AT IT PATIENTLY.
It’s a yeoman’s labor. But it works. You can accomplish by repetition what you can not accomplish by persuasion.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-23 01:07:00 UTC
If you wanna learn something, start a fight. Or at least, start an argument. 🙂 I’ve been doing it forever. It’s not very victorian. It’s not even nice. But it works. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-22 08:46:00 UTC
LIFE IS AN IQ TEST
—“Life is an IQ test. And the only way to cheat, is to read.”—
(thus endeth the lesson)
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-21 05:17:00 UTC
WHY ARE MOST DESIGNERS ‘SH_T’?
(rant on)
They have no formal training in design, in aesthetics, in composition, in the fine arts, in art history and very little intuitive talent.
They have no understanding of type, it’s history or symbolism. They think in boxes instead of white spaces. They think of getting information instead of only the necessary information. They think color matters rather than color suggests time and space “moments”.
If you cannot design it with white space and type, then you should go home. So design it with white space and type, and without any boxes at all. Ok? Remember “wax on, wax off”? Well, do the same: white space and type (wax on), new page (wax off), until you get it right.
To do that, (a) you start with a message, (b) you build a type pallette after researching the associations the audience will make with that type, and (b) you draw it freehand with pencil and paper, or at least Illustrator and a stylus.
After that, you add images and after that, color.
And then let the marketing people write all their absolutely sh_t copy, and then get it to a good writer or editor that can reduce it to no more than eight words. And hopefully not more than three. And test the sh_t copy from marketing and the edited copy on someone other than the marketer – preferably a customer. Watch how they read it, and then just ask them how they feel. Don’t ask for an opinion. How they feel is all that matters. Your client is an idiot. That’s their job: to be smart in their profession and an idiot in yours. (So try not to ALSO be an idiot.)
For most of you untalented ‘creatives’ (which is the opposite of what you really are), research the entire brand space. Put it in a hierarchy (order).
Build a pallet of fonts, symbols, colours and layouts.
And try to be craftsmanly. Try not to be ‘creative’, because in your case that means relying on your intuition. And really, it sucks. Becuase unless you have mastered your craft, your intuition is a hodge-podge of lower middle class and upper proletarian propaganda.
Great advertising is the truth spoken elegantly and succinctly.
Good artists copy great artists. Great artist steal.
Pre-schoolers and amateurs rely on ‘inspiration’.
Try not to suck. You just make the world uglier than if we only let the good people publish work, and sent you back to washing dishes in the scullery.
Sigh.
(rant off)
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-19 06:04:00 UTC
[C]hurches are our monuments. Monuments claim territory. I want the churches: Arsenal. Banking and Credit. Education. Training. It sounds nuts. But it’s brilliant really.
[C]hurches are our monuments. Monuments claim territory. I want the churches: Arsenal. Banking and Credit. Education. Training. It sounds nuts. But it’s brilliant really.
[W]e have Series 7 license for investment. We have the MD for medicine. We have the RN for medicine We have the Bar for law. We have the CPA for accounting
[W]e have Series 7 license for investment. We have the MD for medicine. We have the RN for medicine We have the Bar for law. We have the CPA for accounting