Charles is easy to understand if you have the vaguest grasp of the importance of the monarchy, rule of law, and the vast burden that the people within the monarchy bear in duty and responsibility equal to or greater than any priesthood, general, or politician.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-20 16:49:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682070137485115399
Reply addressees: @beez104
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682026076049117184
–“My serious answer is that everything I’ve learned from these discussions tells me that a legal system is a piece of technology designed to steer a population towards either a specific eugenic outcome, or it is a system that tolerates dysgenic outcomes (Sharia, Left-Liberalism). One of those eugenic outcomes that I would like to see is that men become more cognitively, masculine, and women become more cognitively, and biologically feminine.”– Michael
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-20 16:45:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682069295369469953
Of course I don’t recognize the term as insulting, rather than it’s just hate speech. Secondly, I can testify to the truth of my claims in any court on earth and defend them with the overwhelming evidence provided by the data.
Lying about group differences prevents us from solving the challenges of group differences, because it’s those differences that determine the relative conditions of our peoples.
Reply addressees: @sldvg_
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-18 21:56:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1681422820276936706
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1681411918991376412
—“Q: Curt: And how does your large-brain high IQ explain the fact that islam is dominating, while europeans are on a degenerate suicide course?”–
(fixing our law is easy) https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1680273985009745920
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-15 18:24:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1680282138329993216
https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1680273985009745920
I’ve done the work on reforms of patent, copyright, trademark, etc. It’s all in there. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-14 17:28:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679905706265149445
Reply addressees: @FarajRashi93307
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679899743105822730
AUTHORITY VS RESPONSIBILITY
(more)
Authority to apply discretion vs Responsibility for Deciding according to rules and laws.
So we have two dimensions:
1 – Discretion (choice) vs Rules (laws)
2 – Authority (power) vs Responsibility (duty)
Etymology of authority from latin… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1679562287621853202
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 20:04:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679582573595439105
PROPORTIONALITY AND DEFECTION
However, should you defect by disassociation or emigration that’s just fine. However, if you try to engage in crime, resistance, rebellion, or revolution whether by free riding, fraud, rent seeking, privatization of commons/socialization of losses into commons, corruption, sedition, treason, or war, then of course, you’re engaging in irreciprocity and can be … well, let’s say ‘corrected or removed’.
#NLIGlossary
Reply addressees: @JohannNetram @TheAutistocrat
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 16:39:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679530979650568192
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679527584512585728
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
PROPORTIONALITY: If in any given reciprocal exchange the benefit I obtain in proportion to your benefit is insufficient to continue cooperation – ie: disproportionate – then my incentive is to defect to a different individual group or polity with which to cooperate.
Proportionality is a limit beyond which one’s interests to defect increase, until defection by disassociation, emigration, crime, resistance(sedition), rebellion(treason), or revolution(war).
#NLIglossary
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1679527584512585728
Did conservative justicies leak or did liberal justices leak?
As far as I know, we knew within twelve hours who leaked the abortion judgement, and who she was clerking for.
We always pay for people to come to our gatherings and proceedings. Justices aren’t paid enough to travel otherwise. Nor are academics or intellectuals – even minor think tank folk like me. All of us have appearance and speaking fees. Most of us will speak for free if we have our expenses covered in advance. The question isn’t if one benefitted, but whether there is a relationship between the benefit and a judgement: a quid pro quo. None of the justices have as far as I know engaged in a quid pro quo. They are aligned as constitutionalists vs populists and they are invited constitutionalist vs populist venues. If that requires buying a book I think that’s probably inappropriate because it is a quid-pro-quo even if not for the purpose of altering a judgement. But it’s not substantive enough. For example Obama’s book deal was pretty substantive and at least appeared to be a quid pro quo.
Now, should Sotomayor sit the bench? Of course not. She is an anti-constitutional activist happy to bypass the people and the legislature (‘violating the test of concurrency maintaining the sovereignty of the people over the state’), and it’s not clear she even holds to commonality in law (’empirical discovery of common judgements of irreciprocities by the lower courts’). I read her opinions as intellectually incompetent for the office she holds. At least with Justice Ginsberg she was just merely a populist and anti-constitutionalist activist, but she was intellectually capable -and all of us knew that.
Reply addressees: @KaivanShroff
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-13 14:16:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679495130598760450
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678798468280713216
RE:TURKEY IN THE EU
An important if not most important criteria for EU Membership is Rule of Law. And That won’t happen with Erdogan in office.
IMO it also requires Christianity as the state religion because all religions contain an immutable group strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-12 19:38:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1679213777911250944
ON THE UK VIOLATION OF THE COMMON LAW, BY “DEBANKING” POLITICAL FIGURES
#uk #banking #canceling
The purpose of the State’s “insurance of cooperation” (keeping the king’s peace) is to limit us to private behavior that is reciprocal, limit public behavior to fulfillment of rights, obligations(duties), and inalienations necessary for the production of intergenerational families of citizens, and political behavior to the production of concurrency, and court behavior to the resolution of conflicts by crime, tort, contract, and property, producing commonality.
And yes, there are some ‘big words’ in there that you might need to understand. So let’s simplify it a bit:
In other words, we are prohibited from interference in occupation, business, employment, family, access to the market of goods services, and information, the provisioning of utilities, and yes, the provisioning of financial services (banking). We may only resolve disputes by boycott, debate or argument, ‘duel’ (fighting) in defense of honor or commons, appeal to the hierarchy of courts, including that court we call parliaments.
The US court is restoring the obligation of the people to use the legislature to produce changes by tests of concurrency (agreement between regions and classes). This is achieved by reversing lawfare through the courts, and limiting activism in the private sector, where both are simply means of bypassing the democratic process of legislating by successful concurrency, and never by mere majority, and certainly not by authority.
As such, one may not interfere with ‘banking’ for political reasons, and arguably political affiliation demands as high protection as religious affiliation because fundamentally, under majority democracy, the natural outcome is for political parties to represent feminine left and masculine right factions, whose difference is feminine irresponsibility and masculine responsibility. And these biases are largely genetically determined.
I will, at some point, have the organization take this issue to court and try to push it to the supreme court. For the same reason, the court is reforming now: the private sector does not have the right to engage in negative coercion, especially for political ends, and that applies doubly so to institutions that provide necessary utilities for ordinary life.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-09 22:18:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678166849412816897