CORRECTION “9. Political discourse is dominated by feminine and infantile irresp

Source date (UTC): 2023-09-01 18:00:27 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697670772251042163

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1697649965437268424

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

TWITTER WAS THE LAST STRAW BEFORE REVOLUTION?
Here is the case we make:

1. This new CEO, Linda Yaccarino, is going to ruin Elon’s ambition for Twitter – our demand for open discourse, and with it, place the final stamp of approval on revolution and civil war – the last straw by removing the last hope.

2. Elon’s mission to provide a public forum necessary for the presentation of participatory government by informed citizens will fail.

3. The X-Twitter platform as a political commons is a necessary public service in the preservation of participatory democracy in its conflict with organized social construction of the ‘March through the institutions of cultural production of western civilization and its process of, and demand for, individual responsibility in exchange for individual liberty.”
Ergo, X-Twitter is political infrastructure not industry.

4. But as infrastructure masquerading as a business, X-Twitter is bound by the need for subsidy by advertising, (until it can be supported by fees) just as politicians are financed by the financial sector donors.

5. Advertisers are constrained by the undermining and cancel strategy of the left, which is repeating the Islamic means of suppression that has destroyed seven great civilizations of the ancient world and reduced them to ignorance and ashes of poverty and superstition.

6. The left’s warfare against civilization relies on the antisocial behavior of the feminine method of warfare by undermining, shrilling, shouting down, canceling, gossiping, shaming, rallying, psychologizing, and moralizing in order to evade rational argument and reasoned discourse. (See “GSRRM”)

7. So, instead, X-Twitter’s ‘SAFETY” will once again facilitate the spread of his antisocial behavior that is the primary means of undermining our institutions, our rule of law, by the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity, our republican government, our concurrent democratic participation. Why? Because there is no means of non-public resolution of disputes other than adversarial debate. Historically newspapers had asked a set of competent parties to comment, then displayed both sides of an argument, and let the public decide. In some cases there is insufficient evidence to decide (ie: the vaccine question) and we must make a pragmatic decision. But most importantly, our job is to expose evasions, denials, falsehoods, false promises and baitings into hazard by propagandists.

8. Advertising and marketing programs are bound by the dominance of women in the field, their indoctrination by the academy, and the dominance of women in hyperconsumption, hypergamy, debt accumulation, spending of 70% of household income, and consuming 70% of government resources, while being net tax consumers subsidized by male taxpayers.

9. Political discourse is dominated by feminine and infantile irresponsible intolerance or truth before face, which is the principle reason that our civilization was able to produce participatory government and rule of law and jury trials.

10. None of us are any longer bound by the inalienable obligation for truth before face to the public, in public, in matters public.

11. Through legal activism we are no longer bound by the common law requirement of truth before face, and reciprocity of exchange in matters of public speech.

12. None of us are any longer bound by limiting ourselves to resolution of conflict by adversarial debate before the jury refereed by a judge.

13. Through legal activism, we are no longer bound by the common law’s prohibition on conflict outside of truthful reciprocal debate or court – particularly the crimes of defamation regardless of material impact.

14. Through legal activism against the courts we are no longer bound by demand for concurrency in voting or legislation.

15. Through the process of deliberate undermining by:
(a) majoritarian activism and
(b) enfranchisement of all, regardless of merit,
(c) direct election of the Senate instead of Senate a proxy for the governor, and
(d) overwhelming immigration in lieu of demand for full integration, and
(e) the desperate attempt to circumvent the Electoral College as well;
… we are no longer bound by concurrency between classes and regions, with a small number of vast immigrant cities attempting to seize the continent as the north did in its war of aggression against the agrarian south.

16. As such we are no longer bound by the common, natural, concurrent law of self-determination by self-determined means, by reciprocal insurance of sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, and inalienability of duty, truth, excellence, and beauty before self, limiting us to voluntary markets for cooperation whether private or public, or truthful reciprocal debate and adversarial competition before a jury of our peers.

17. As such, as far as I can determine from the evidence:
(a) We are no longer operating under the rule of the natural law of self-determination that is the only of suppressing conflict and maximizing cooperation.
(b) We are no longer operating under the process of common law discovery of universal interests in conflict resolution.
(c) We are no longer operating under the process of voting and legislation by tests of concurrency in agreement of interests between classes and regions.
(d) Therefore, the state has failed to defend and secure our self-determination by self-determined means, by security of life, liberty, and property (demonstrated interests). And it is time for the replacement of this government and the restoration of our natural rights under our constitution of natural rights obligations and inalienations.
(d) and the demand for restitution, punishment, and prevention against those who have brought about this criminal condition by sedition and treason both with intent, self-interest at the expense of others, and failure of due diligence against participation in such crimes.

I think that’s a pretty solid case.
Let me know what YOU think.

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1697649965437268424