Article #3: The Illusion of Authority

“Authority is the belief another man has a higher claim to your life, liberty, and property than you do.”

Authority is a man-made construct, an illusion, and does NOT exist in nature. Everyone from the poly-tics to the judge all claim they have authority. These people actually believe they have control over other people’s life, liberty, and property and are willing to use violence to keep the illusion intact. The main components holding the illusion of authority together are 1) mind control and 2) violence.

First, lets tackle the mind control component of authority because it is the glue that holds the system in place. When you ask the poly-tics where they obtained or derived their authority, they will often cite the Constitution (of whatever country). The Constitution of the United States was a document written in 1787 and thought of as the framework for the country. It is commonly taught that the Constitution is what gives people or grants people’s “rights.” The consequence of thinking that a 200+ year old piece of paper with words written on it by men who are dead grants “rights” is: your rights are dependent on something outside of you or your control. If the piece of paper disappears do your rights also disappear? If men alter the words on the paper, which they have before, does that also alter your rights? So rights can change? What even is a right?

When I ask most people what a right is they often describe abilities. The right to peacefully assemble, right to free speech, right to bear arms (possess tools), right to follow whatever religion, etc; are all abilities. The reality is, a piece of paper does nothing to GRANT or PROTECT abilities. After most people really contemplate what their rights are, they often arrive at a position where any abilities or action one can perform that does not stop or infringe on other people’s abilities/actions (are rights). Further, actions or abilities that infringe or stop other people’s abilities/actions is “wrong”. When describing the nature of reality in this way, by deducting what our rights are by eliminating what is wrong for us to do, is referred to as Negative-Rights. We don’t have the right to steal or violate another person, so no amount of voting or delegating it to another person will convert it into a “right,” which is what people attempt to do with modern day government.  

Another way to say it is “your rights stop where mine begin and vise-versa.” For example, everyone has the right to consume any substance they choose as long as they are not directly harming or violating another person by doing so. Other people DO NOT have the right to stop that person from consuming  the substance. They don’t have the right to stop that person even if they call themselves government.

In the case of bitcoin, since no one is being harmed by someone running software on their computer (property), it cannot be considered a wrong or a crime. No one has the right to stop anyone from running or interacting with software providing it does not violate another person. I cannot think of one possible example of someone running software on their own computer causing a direct effect where someone is harmed as a result. Paying someone in bitcoin to violate another person does not count, as the simple act of sending the transaction did not violate anyone. Any action that does not result in the direct violation of another person is considered “not wrong” or a “right.” However, people who call themselves government will label certain actions that are a “right” as a crime; often referred to as a non-violent victimless crime. Historically, a crime has been commonly defined as something that involves a victim; and a victim is someone who has been injured or harmed. To be clear, non-violent victimless crimes do not exist in nature. The whole concept of labeling an action as a non-violent victimless crime is to CONTROL people. If you are reading this, hopefully I sound like a broken record because that means you get it.

Authority and control in the context of governance are essentially the same thing. No one has the “right” to control another human; that would be considered slavery. Even if a person consents to being a slave, they can only consent in the present moment and cannot logically consent to being a slave in a future state. Consent, as in the context of engaging in a sexual act with another person, can be withdrawn at any time, period.

For a deep dive into the debunking of the Constitution and it’s alleged authority, I suggest you read Lysander Spooner’s excellent essay published in 1867 titled No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. I consider Spooner’s essay near required reading for someone new to this idea and who wishes to deeply understand how the constitution could not have possibly created authority for men today. Comprehending this idea is critical because those claiming authority tend to cite the constitution as the ultimate source of their authority.

Lysander points out that the Constitution more resembles an Agreement than a Contract. In addition, the men who wrote it did not include any language that attempts to bind the future generations of people to it. It cannot possibly be a contract that binds the “public” because we know only a small portion of the people during that time were consulted to express their consent or dissent on the manner, and those who did are all dead by now.

People who voluntarily vote or voluntarily pay taxes could be viewed as consenting to the Constitution; however, those actions cannot possibly bind others to it. Lysander also points out a very small % of the public actually voted, which holds true today, and it can only possibly bind them for the time period the vote is valid for. If a person does not vote during the next election, it would be as if they removed their consent. Even if someone votes, there is still a question of if they did it voluntarily or under force or coercion.

The act of paying taxes could also be considered an action that binds people to the Constitution and the subsequent government. However, all people who produce are required (or coerced by the threat of violence) by the government to pay various forms of taxes or else be imposed on. Because of the threats of violence, it is near impossible to determine if the consent of those involved is voluntary. Like a viscous loop, once people are coerced to pay taxes, a portion of those will vote in an attempt to prevent their money from being used against them.

The next question in my mind is, are there any forms of authority that are legit? One instance I can think of is if two people or groups of people entered into an agreement in the form of a contract, and choose a 3rd party to be a judge to determine an outcome for a situation that was not specified in the contract.

A friend explained a contract to me in a general, non-legalese sense like this: when two people enter into a relationship, the outcomes are infinite. Some relationships require the CONTRACTING of those infinite possible outcomes down to a very specific one, such as Bob provides Alice with lawn care once a week and she pays him a certain amount of money in exchange for the service. Ideally, when you enter into an agreement with someone where there is a lot on the line, you want to list all the scenarios that could happen along the way and how to handle those situations, so it prevents the need for a judge or arbitrator. There comes a point of diminishing returns when listing events that are highly unlikely to occur, so at some point, those involved may want to list a catch all, such as Carol will act as an arbiter to decide how to resolve a contentious issue that was not specified in the contract. If an event that was not specified in the contract occurred, then Carol would have the authority to rule over Alice and Bob’s life/property.

Now, lets shift gears over to the Court Game… In order to defend ourselves we require the state to fulfill their obligation of satisfying the burden of proof of their claim. The state will claim the defendant broke one or some of their rules. Before we even discuss the merit of their claim, we need to first verify those rules even apply to the alleged defendant. The state refers to this concept as Jurisdiction and there are three different types. I will likely talk about each type in detail in later articles but ultimately, certain elements (or ingredients) are required for the Judge and the court to have “authority” to hear a case, and we are using Socratics to verify the evidence of those elements. If the rules do not apply to the defendant, then there is no reason to even discuss if the defendant broke the rules. If the prosecutor is unable to provide evidence that the rules apply, by their rules, the case should be dismissed.

What would satisfy the element of jurisdiction in court? If we look to military court and a soldier attempts this strategy, the state would likely produce a contract (called the UCMJ – Uniform Code of Military Justice) signed by the defendant that clearly states the defendant consents to be under the jurisdiction and authority of the state. As I stated earlier, in reality, consent can be withdrawn at any time, but if the alleged rule breaking occurred prior to the withdraw, the rules would still apply and the state has the required evidence to proceed.

Some people will ask me, “well what about actual criminals, do you think their cases should be dismissed for the same reasons? for lack of evidence of jurisdiction?” and I usually answer this Socratically with “do you think unethical actors deserve to be treated ethically?” In other words, if someone is violating another person, do you think they forfeit their “right” to be treated ethically? My answer is YES, and it can be done within the framework of the Non-Aggression Principle and her masculine brother, the Principle of Self Defense. I will leave it there and if you disagree or want clarification, I invite you to leave a comment or join the discord server for further discussion.

The other component holding the illusion of authority together is Violence, or the threat of violence. Just because someone is willing to use violence to force others to follow their rules does not make the rules or authority legitimate. In the Court Game, there is always the threat of violence looming over the alleged defendant which is referred to as the gun in the room. The Court Game rules state that it is okay for judges to put someone in jail for breaking one of the Court Games rules. For an example, if someone continually interrupts a judge or another participant, the judge can put that person in jail for however long they see fit. In some cases, judges have left people in jail for so long that an outside party had to file paper work to free the person, or at a minimum, get them back in the Court Game.  The only reason most people show up to a court is because they fear violence being imposed on them if they do not comply.

We know the government, or even organized crime groups, prefer to not use violence as it is terrible for public relations (PR). When I speak of violence in reference to the court game or the government, it usually comes in the form of arresting (kidnapping) and jailing (caging) someone for a period of time, which is expensive. Normally, I advocate for people to physically defend themselves when someone is violating them; however, with big criminal organizations such as the government, one must consider the force continuum that will likely happen if they do use physical force to defend themselves. What I mean is, if you are able to defend yourself against being kidnapped by a couple of government agents, then they are likely to send more and more agents until you are unable to do so, and may kill you in the process.

I don’t have much more to say about violence in regards to authority other than it becomes expensive, to the point where it has problems scaling or being used widely in certain situations. I will present methods to overcome the fear of violence in the article discussing Mindset, and ways to navigate the threat of violence such as public pressure/awareness in the Game Theory article. Once those topics are covered, we will analyze the different situations one may find themselves in when defending against bureaucratic attacks. I will present these situations with examples of how the verbal interaction might go between the people involved, and break down how to use Socratics to mitigate the attack.

Article #2: The Socratic Method of Investigation

The Socratic Method of Investigation is the key strategy employed by people with verbal skills and is essentially the heart and soul concept for navigating reality.

Before I illustrate the strategy, I will present a short history of the legend who it’s coined after, Socrates. Socrates was a man living in Athens, Greece approximately 2500 years ago, from 469-399 B.C. There is not much factually known about his life because he didn’t write anything down and the few people who did have conflicting reports. We know he was born during a time of the Greco-Persian war, which ended around the time he was 20 years old. Allegedly, earlier in his life he was a stone mason and later fought as a hoplite in the Peloponnesian war. However, he was most known for being a teacher and a philosopher.

His teaching and philosophic style can be summarized as the Socratic Method of Investigation. Like many of the best teachers in the ancient past, they did not lecture, they responded to the student’s questions and inquiry. Socrates would ask specific leading questions to his student’s causing them to clarify their position or inquiry. As a result, the students would be forced to think deeply about whatever it was they were learning about.

At the time, most of the knowledge about the nature of reality was explained by the Gods, or in a metaphysical way. Socrates teaching style did not rely on either of those, but instead, relied on logic and reason. Socrates became so well known, the Oracle of Delphi, who was considered one of the most powerful women at the time and known for her prophecies (woo-woo), proclaimed he was the wisest man alive. When Socrates heard of her sentiment, he thought it was non-sense and as the story is told, spent time in search of a man wiser than himself. He would go thru the town asking strangers questions, most of whom would get annoyed or irritated when Socrates’ line of questions drew out contradictions or made them sound silly. Ultimately, he found no man wiser than himself and essentially comprehended what the Oracle proclaimed. You see, his position was, “The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing” while almost all other men claimed they knew something. The lesson here is not to make a claim.

Socrates also knew there were problems with democracy because of the attack vectors that could enable an undesirable outcome. For instance, dumb people voting, or a person manipulating the public with mind control techniques. My point is the poly-tics in control likely did not appreciate Socrates clarifying the problems with the system for the public. Fast forward to the end of the Peloponnesian war when the state of Athens was deteriorating, the state was looking to push the blame off on to others. The state targeted Socrates and put him on trial for:

  1. Refusing to recognize the gods acknowledged by the state
  2. Importing strange divinities of his own
  3. Corrupting the young

Socrates did not have anyone re-present his story at trial, instead he defended himself in the same manner he taught his students, and the same strategy we use to defend ourselves today. He asked his accusers to clarify their position and to support their claim with evidence. He did not do this necessarily to make them (the state) think deeply, but to make the jury and the public think deeply. I will go into detail in later writings about some nuances, but it is important to know, when someone defends themselves in this manner in court, they are not really expecting an unethical actor to have an epiphany and suddenly act ethically. They are trying to build up public awareness and pressure so that it will explode if the state continues. From a game theory perspective, we want the state to see us as a dangerous target because of the Risk/Reward dynamic. Ultimately, the people of Athens voted 280 to 220 in favor of Guilty and sentenced Socrates to death. The state allegedly allowed Socrates to propose an alternative punishment, like living in exile, but he did not wish to do that. Instead, he drank hemlock, a poison, and then expired. 

I summarize the Socratic Method of Investigation (Socratics) as:

  1. Not making claims.
  2. Asking clarifying questions of people who do make claims.
  3. Active Listening; for logical fallacies or contradictions and then calling them out and/or ask them to clarify further.

There are some other ingredients for success which I will touch briefly on in this article, but will go into detail in the coming weeks. The proper mindset, which includes a genuine curiosity and an absence of fear, is critical and makes a huge difference in the outcome. In the adversarial Court Game, with a lot on the line it is natural for people to be in a state of fear, but we must overcome it with knowledge of the situation and practice. It is also natural to see the other side in this scenario as an opponent or the enemy; however, that is likely counterproductive.

In Chris Voss’ book, Never Split the Difference, he mentions the importance of treating the other person as a partner who you are attempting to solve a problem with, and NOT as an opponent or adversary. We do not want the person we are communicating with to be operating in a mind set of fear as fear reduces people’s ability to perform higher order thinking. Higher order thinking is often required of all involved in order to reach the best possible outcome (for you). I fully realize there are low conscious people who are not capable of higher order thinking and simply react to stimuli. Let’s call those people Non-Playable Characters (NPCs). 

When dealing with NPCs, the principle of Cause & Effect is in play so let’s shift gears for a moment. The principle of Cause & Effect is one of the natural law’s or forces at work in nature and is described as:

“Every cause has an effect; every effect has a cause; everything happens according to law; Chance is but a name for a law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the law.” – The Kybalion*

Once someone becomes aware of this principle, they are able to transcend it by becoming the cause and not the effect. When dealing with NPCs, you can introduce stimuli that will get them to react a certain way; the way you want them to act. For instance, if a tax agent claims you broke some rules, you can create a record (evidence) of the tax agent admitting they do not actually have evidence that the rules apply to you. You can cause them to do this by asking some clarifying questions leading them to the truth you suspect. This is accomplished by simply asking “How do your tax rules apply to me?” and the agent will answer with something like, your physical location and some piece of paper your employer sent them. They may reference some other rules or document like the Constitution, but whatever it is, with a few more clarifications, they will be lost for words. It will be hard to get them to admit they have no solid evidence, but something like “would you agree you currently don’t have any evidence to prove the rules apply to me?” often yields either a yes, or them going mute/hanging up the phone which is just as incriminating.

Causing an NPC to behave a certain way may not always good enough. Sometimes we need the people we are negotiating with to break out of their programming and think outside the box. One way to do this, is to ask a question they are not programmed to answer. In the example with the tax agent above, after they make an admission, you can request they de-escalate the case until they find such evidence. If they refuse, then ask “well, then what will it take for the case to be de-escalated?” and see if they give you any more information to work with. Another way to break NPCs out of their programming is to insert fear into the equation by asking “Are you personally accepting liability for continuing to pursue this ‘case’ without evidence the rules even apply to me?” We don’t want them to be in a state of fear, but we can strategically use elements of fear to our advantage. Asking if they are accepting personal liability inserts fear into the equation and gives them an another opportunity to think for a solution that helps them and you. If they will not accept liability, request to speak with the person who will and watch a game of hot potato be played. Since the conversation will be recorded, it creates a record which is evidence, and if you remained calm and non-combative, it makes you and your position look much better than the state’s.

Most of the time when dealing with the state or in the Court Game, we are not asking questions because we DON’T know the answer, we are asking the questions because we DO know the answer. We are leading them down a path and setting traps along the way. I will do a whole article on mindset but it’s important to mention here that we need to be genuinely curious about their position, which means you cannot be combative. Being combative triggers alarm bells in their mind, shuts down their higher order thinking, and they begin to close off open communication.

For a great example of how to act, I suggest watching a few episodes of the 1970’s classic TV show called Columbo, which is about a homicide detective solving cases. To the suspect, Columbo appears as a naïve and incompetent person, which causes them to let their guard down or outright dismiss Columbo as a threat. Columbo’s catchphrase was “just one more question..” which he spoke prior to asking the clarifying question which the suspect couldn’t really answer without incriminating themselves. If you are able to verbally defend yourself in court, you will be walking the judge down a similar path ending with you asking the judge a final clarification question they do not want to answer. That moment is usually either the start of the battle or the end of the battle.

I have found using Socratics works beautifully as a base strategy for any interaction with another human. Most people don’t successfully communicate what they want or desire. A wife may tell her husband “I wish you wouldn’t spend so much time working” because ultimately, she wants to spend more time with him. You can see what she says does not match what her desire truly is. If the husband is also a bad communicator, he may do what she says and work less, only to golf more, which would not fulfill the desires of his wife. If the husband asks for clarification on why she wishes for him to work less, he will discover her true desire of wanting to spend more time with him. My point is, most people have poor communication skills and it is often results in wasted time, arguments, and headaches. 

Marshall Rosenburg, who created a communication strategy called Non-Violent Communication (NVC), points out that all forms of communication are essentially someone seeking help from another person in fulfilling one of their unmet needs (or desires). Someone who blurts out “I’m thirsty,” they don’t just want people to know, they are hoping someone offers to bring them a drink. When someone initiates communications with you, they almost always want something, whether it’s your attention, time, or resources. Using Socratics, or genuine inquiry, will help clarify the nature of other people’s requests. The beautiful thing about genuine inquiry or curiosity is it builds empathy with those who you are interacting with.

I mentioned Chris Voss earlier and he points out how important empathy is in the equation of a successful negotiation. In the Court Game, we call this steel manning – or confirming the other person’s position – before you attack it. Back to the husband/wife example from earlier; after the husband draws out his wife’s desires, he needs to confirm them; “It sounds like you want me to work less so we can spend more time to together?” If she confirms, he can isolate by asking if there is any other reason she wants him to work less? Asking if there is a certain time or activity she prefers is also useful information. Once you properly investigate the other person’s needs or desires, you can proceed to help them how you see fit, without unnecessary sacrifices on your end.

I have mentioned the state’s lack of evidence a few times so next week I will be delving into the topic of Authority and what would actually constitute evidence that the rules apply. There will be a couple more articles presenting some of the foundational groundwork, general ideas and concepts before we can get into some of the specific strategies and examples of badass Verbal Armament.

Article #1: Transmuting: sWORD // WORDs

TLDR: I am currently hearing lots of talk about (lack of) privacy in bitcoin and as a result, state sponsored attacks. I do not hear anyone discussing how to defend against the likely attacks, which is what I will attempt to do – high level – in a series of short articles. Bottom line is, the state has no evidence to support their claim that the rules apply to me or a citizen. For non-state sponsored attacks, buy a gun.

Introduction:  Welcome to this series of articles attempting to clarify the nature of reality for the purpose of navigating, and ultimately being able to verbally defend one’s self in any situation. This guide is not meant to be an “authority” on the subject; it is my humble attempt to initiate bitcoiners into the Court Game and to sharpen independent thinking. Bitcoiners are one of the most mentally strong group of people I know, so much of what I present in the first few articles may be nothing new. If that is the case I welcome your critique of what I present, and input on strategies as we progress. The knowledge that will be presented originates from many sources and I take no credit for discovering or creating it.

At the time of writing, privacy is lacking on the bitcoin network and new “laws” are being introduced in an attempt to control bitcoiner’s behavior. Some poly-tics are attempting to define bitcoin as “money” while others are trying to define it as an “asset” or “property.” Almost all believe bitcoin is something that can be owned, when in reality, we know a person can only control unspent transaction outputs (UTXOs) on the network, which operates on free open source and permissionless software. The dangerous consequences of these man-made “laws” being created is people who use bitcoin will be attacked, taxed, and tracked by the group of people who desire to control others. We must challenge these man-made laws and force them to clarify their claim on the record and in their court.

Satoshi and the Cypherpunks created bitcoin as a tool for people to opt of out of the parasitic nature of the current system, which has been controlling money and people for a very long time. I am pointing this out because the ability to opt out will all be lost if bitcoiners capitulate to the demands of poly-tics and 3rd parties. We must challenge anyone and everyone who tries to encroach on this new liberating technological tool.

To me, bitcoin is a tool that enables freedom, both on the material plane and on the mental plane. On the material plane it allows an individual to store value and interact with others anywhere in the world, without permission. On the mental plane, for those motivated, bitcoin educates users on vast fields of knowledge or adds clarity to the nature of reality.

I should also clarify what I mean by “freedom”. I define freedom as being able to take personal response-ability for all aspects of your life, including actions and interactions with others. The more someone outsources their responsibility to Trusted Third Parties (TTPs) the fewer choices and options they have; and we know TTPs are security holes. Freedom becomes this paradoxical problem where trusting no one will require nearly all your time and ultimately reducing your options. On the other extreme end, taking no responsibility and trusting a TTP like a government to provide safety/resources will result in similar reduced options and ultimately rektage.

The mystery traditions will tell you not to become polarized and to strike a balance. How can we strike a balance and not outsource responsibility to TTPs? When considering freedom, a requirement for success is Independent Thinking. We must OWN our mind. Someone who does not think for themselves is a low conscious being, simply reacting to stimuli. The controlling class knows what stimuli to introduce to cause the non-thinkers to react how they desire. As long as we think for ourselves, when we do trust others, we will be aware of the vulnerabilities or security holes for doing so.

Back to man-made laws, poly-tics, prosecutors, judges, and lawyers.. I get it, going into court and challenging these people’s foundation is dangerous and can be stressful. It may not be for everyone. However, if one chooses to have a state licensed lawyer re-present them, it is important to know the trade-offs and vulnerabilities. For instance, a state licensed lawyer takes an oath not to challenge the courts foundation; with the foundation being the Constitution. Lawyers risk having their licensed pulled and barred from working in the industry if they piss off a judge, by using a strategy in a gray area for instance. Third, they speak for you, period (“power of attorney”). Sure, you can fire them and hire someone else to try to reverse the damage, but that will cost time and money. Worse yet, if you have a public pretender re-present you, they are paid by the same people that are prosecuting you, and the same people who pay the judge. It is common knowledge that most criminal defense lawyers’ strategy is to try to convince the defendant to plead guilty, and most defendants do. 

My intention with these articles is to present the key concepts, tactics, and strategies used to defend oneself against the final boss, a Judge in a court room. These are strategies a typical state licensed lawyer will not attempt, for the reasons mentioned above. It is worthy to note, if one is able to defend against a judge, all other situations will feel like child’s play. I think one of the biggest threats to bitcoiner’s freedom is people who call themselves “government.” Most serious bitcoiners know about the US government confiscating gold in 1933 via “Executive Order 6102,” and we would be naïve to think they will not try again with bitcoin. As I write this, poly-tics are dreaming up new rules to force upon users of a tool in an attempt to reduce freedom. We must challenge these attacks when they come, and not outsource the response to lawyers, who require permission from a fictitious entity known as the “State” to re-present you. No state licensed lawyer will ask the judge to clarify what he means by “1000 dollar fine” – what’s a dollar and where do they come from? This may seem silly, but it is not, and may violate one of their rules about a punishment not involving a 3rd party.

The topics or ideas that I will be sharing will involve but are not limited to psychology, philosophy, communication, and game theory. The format will be in a step wise fashion, with each article building upon the previous ideas presented, and hopefully connecting some dots. My plan is to write and publish once a week and I will often include reference or source material for the reader to further examine. It is important to note, I will be acting as a curator of sorts, and cannot possibly condense a 200 page book into a 2 page summary and do the knowledge justice. I have found summaries to be useful for myself, but they are no substitute for the work needed to deeply comprehend some of these ideas.

The next few topics I will be presenting are the Socratic Method of Investigation, as it is one of the main underlying strategies, followed by analyzing the concept of Authority which doesn’t really exist and is used to control others. Before getting into the actual strategies in defending against bureaucrats, I will discuss the importance of Mind Set and the mental framing required to be successful. Then some game theory before I finally walk you through a high level timeline of what is involved in defending one’s self against a state sponsored attack for a non-violent victimless “crime”. The weeks following the walk through will be a deep dive into each of the events in the timeline to examine what forces are at play, the strategies used to navigate, and possible outcomes.

Once this strategy is mastered, it can be used to defend against any “law” that attempts to criminalize bitcoiners. If a bitcoiner has their wealth properly stored out of government reach, they have huge leverage when defending in this manner.

I welcome feedback and critique. I want these ideas to be challenged and I welcome being wrong. A lot of what is presented in the Court Game is a result of people going into court, trying a strategy and then reporting back to others to analyze what happened, why, and to further strategize. Shout out to Marc Steven’s “parking ticket challenge” to gather information from around the world! It’s important to remember that life is fluid and in a constant state of change, so some of these best practices and strategies may change or evolve over time. There are discord servers dedicated to discussing and sharing ideas and experiences related to the Court Game. If you are interested, I invite you to participate and you will find a link in the related material section to one of the discord servers. We do have a few “haters” who hang out and play the other side, so if that’s your thing, I welcome you as well.

My style will be to try to communicate in as clear and simple language as possible to reduce confusion. I see no value in speaking legalese, either in the court room or in discussions. Due to the deepness and variety of topics presented in this series, and the lack of time to fully communicate the details and nuances, I hope you leave a comment asking for clarification when needed. Depending on the level of clarification needed, I may revisit some topics and go into detail or nuance to clarify; although my intention is to give a high level understanding and hope to motivate those seeking more knowledge to join the discord servers and start engaging as these ideas and concepts are easier to communicate in a voice chat. There used to be regular voice chats with a dozen people practicing and strategizing.