To solve a problem, you must have a commensurate level of experience and IQ.

Patents are used to encourage invention. It takes much less IQ and experience to implement a solution than it does to come up with a solution. A company may spend a lot in research and development of a solution, and if they did not retain an exclusive right to that solution, then some other company would just pick it up and benefit from it.
Without inventors benefiting from their solutions, by way of temporary exclusivity, there is a much decreased incentive to invent.

Societal solutions are unique in that they are not individually profitable. That is to say, generally, a person or organization does not uniquely profit by inventing a societal solution. Consequently, there is very little incentive for those not in or controlling government to come up with societal solutions.

Those in government are incentivized to increase the power of government and their station. And, those controlling government are incentivized to get government to pass legislation to benefit themselves and their special interests.

So, who can create good societal solutions? I’m not talking about local problems. Many local problems have solutions that become obvious to residents through experience, and these same residents are incentivized enough to solve local, and thereby small, problems. I’m talking about bigger societal problems, like how to deal with government corruption.

From my estimation, solving these problems takes a very good, inherent understanding of economics, which seems to require an IQ above 125. It also seems to require a base of knowledge about Natural Law philosophy, and economics through history.

The issue here is, if you have a very good, inherent understanding of economics, you tend to benefit from the system by being a banker or investor, and this completely de-incentizes creating good societal solutions since the society is already oriented towards bad solutions that benefit banks.
In addition to this, I’ve never encountered anyone who, at the very least, has read The Law Of Nations, which would give that person a decent understanding of Natural Law. There are many other books to read that I would consider useful for a background enabling one to come up with good societal solutions – all of the books on the philosophy of Natural Law and society that led up to The Law of Nations; Tragedy and Hope; The Wealth Of Nations; Morals And Dogma.

So, we are left in the scenario where probability just about rules out the occurrence of someone that can solve societal problems well.

Religion and culture used to serve to reward the intelligent to guide the less intelligent. In this way, priests were incentivized to help with and solve problems in their societies. However, as with most poorly designed systems, the direction of solutions changed towards benefiting the organization, and the role of priest changed into that of a funnel towards pre-made solutions that benefit the top down religious organization.

Online how-to’s and social media influencers have largely taken the place of the wise man. Now you can look up a video on how to change your car oil instead of going to the mechanic or having someone show you in person.

With the internet, ideas are freely available. When it comes to politics and society, because the outcome of a societal solution is distant, fuzzy, and often excusable, people can adopt political ideas without consideration of the actual outcome (eg, the not-true-communism argument).

Combine this with: many people are affected by politics, and thereby form opinions, and that none of these people have the background to
form good opinions – and you have the environment for a cacophony of bad societal/political ideas.
Then factor in social media influencers who’s incentive is to gain audience by appealing to emotion or a niche crowd.

I recognized most of this back in 2012. Back then I put out a book with many solutions hoping it would spawn discussion, but there was little except upon my least intellectual article ~”The Fallacy of a Return to the Constitution”, which got about 50 replies.
What I learned was, even with the people who should have a hobbyist interest in the matter, they lacked the background, the IQ, and the interest to discuss it.

In 2018, seeing the move to outlaw meat, I gave some solutions that helped the carnivore movement succeed. But, what I saw from that was, the success led to a lot of people benefiting that I didn’t like, and did not conserve the availability of raw pig brains which I used to make an ice cream out of.

I tried around 2019 to give people some necessary background for the discussion with a youtube channel. That got about 750 subscribers, but I couldn’t even get people to hand out 2nd amendment fliers, and I got zero engagement on my efforts to create a new religion, so I closed that down.

In 2022, in social engagement, just prior to and during the Kanye events, I may have had some effect in reorienting people to speak out against Zionism rather than Judaism. And, the point here is not that there is nothing wrong with Judaism, it is that Zionism is a smaller and more acceptable target, and many Jews are not particularly interested in defending Zionism.

Now its 2023, and I wanted to see what the state of the movement was, so I took to twitter. The Gaza conflict presented an opportunity to call out ZOG and perhaps do something about it. I posted a bit, trying to incite people towards solutions or discussions on solutions, but this resulted in no discussions of interest. There were some interesting pro-Gaza anti ZOG twitter campaigns, but no matter how loudly you yell, yelling doesn’t change things.

What really hit it home was seeing complaints about inflation without mention to the 0% reserve requirement. Do you realize how mind blowing that is? The biggest factor that controls money supply growth and inflation goes unmentioned. In 2020 I was telling people we are going to see huge inflation, and through till now, I have seen no one mention the 0% reserve requirement.

This country is regressing. The best I could find in 2012 didn’t have the brains, and now it’s even worse. I don’t even like the people I could help by providing societal solutions to. Socialite peacocks, complainers, and people who are hellbent at being continual losers, completely allergic to solutions. It seems we have reached the time where, to quote Bertrand Russell

A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.

You might think, “But I’m no sheep, I have counter mainstream opinions!”. Let me tell you, sheep complain too, and it doesn’t matter.

So, I’ll just be roasting marshmallows on the societal fire.

As for the title: I’ve never seen anyone like me involved in this. There are people a few steps down. David Knight, perhaps 130 IQ, knowledgeable, but also a continual complainer hellbent on losing. Nick Fuentes, perhaps 125 IQ, very charismatic, but ultimately just a profiteering peacock who will never come up with useful solutions – he doesn’t have the economic mind for it. Ryan Dawson, perhaps 130 IQ: Slow learner; I talked to him for about a week, trying to imbue some lessons (“religion is a tool, it is not inherently evil”, “the south really is dumb, smart people migrated after the civil war”, “the peacefulness of Japanese people is because of the relation with the US. If that relation did not exist, Japanese people would be just as warmongering as they’ve been in the past”, “Asian society adopted masks because they follow authority”, etc). After that week, I got fed up and left the inner circle. I find as the months went on, Ryan adopted various of these lessons. So, a slow learner, but at least a learner.

But, I don’t have the patience and the world doesn’t have the time. These societal issues are also unique in another way. In engineering, I can ignore the naysayers and build a good system prototype, and other engineers and customers are forced to acknowledge it is good by the fact it works well. With societal economic problems, you can’t do that. Any societal economic prototype would require a lot of people to participate. Since that’s not happening, what remains is discussion using models. But, people don’t have the mind for it.

The model of the church is theoretically useful by providing a pyramid meritocracy. Lower IQ people often do no understand high IQ solutions, somewhat like someone in arithmetic would not understand calculus equations. I find that +15 IQ seems to be the limit after which a person becomes hostile to another, just like how the morons in Idiocracy acted towards the protagonist. Consequently, an organization where the top high IQ people teach the next step down, and this continues to where a preacher of 110 IQ is conveying lessons to his 100 IQ flock, that come from the 120 IQ leader above him, is useful compared to the alternative.

The alternative is where the high IQ people in power (not usually the politicians) know how dumb the people are and take advantage of it by presenting facades and leading the sheep to the slaughter, which has a big sign above it – “Free stuff”. Of course, the situation is more complex than this, but words are exhausting and imprecise.

As it stands, there is no such church, there is only the alternative. And, as we’ve seen, the sheep are much at the mercy of the goodwill of billionaires.

I don’t expect to see anyone like me that meets the criteria, and I don’t expect others to stumble into solutions. And, in case you didn’t know, we are all getting fucked in about 10 years any way. So, because of these things and because I don’t like speaking sheep ( the language you speak ), and because I’m the only one who’s come up with actual solutions, my retirement means you are all doomed.

To end on a positive note, though, it doesn’t really matter because you were all doomed any way. Have a cookie.