Form: Argument

  • Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Re

    Truth is a Commons in the West. Limiting public speech to the Testimonial and Reciprocal licenses VOLUNTARY TRADE (argument) but prohibits INVOLUNTARY HARMS. The duel between sovereign men b/c insult prohibited untruths. We failed to clarify that free speech meant Free Testimony.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 15:09:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225073865937838082

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1225072500037636100


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @ScottAdamsSays WESTERN CIV’S EXPLANATION: Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225072500037636100


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @ScottAdamsSays WESTERN CIV’S EXPLANATION: Testimony: Jury > Thang > Senate > Multiple Houses > Public Speech. In the Western Tradition of Sovereignty the only reason to tolerate free speech is if it is Testimony (Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Reciprocity) – else violence licensed.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1225072500037636100

  • The science says Physical law, Natural law, and Christian extension of kinship l

    The science says Physical law, Natural law, and Christian extension of kinship love, constitute the laws of the Universe. These Laws are the only evidence of god’s word, written in god’s hand. If any faith is incompatible with those laws, then it’s not god’s word but man’s lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 18:41:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224764932463480835

    Reply addressees: @Sov3r3ignSoul @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224757228051357697


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Sov3r3ignSoul @JohnMarkSays Judicial material ‘priesthood’, Religious spiritual priesthood. As always, render unto caesar the material world, and unto the gods the spiritual.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224757228051357697


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Sov3r3ignSoul @JohnMarkSays Judicial material ‘priesthood’, Religious spiritual priesthood. As always, render unto caesar the material world, and unto the gods the spiritual.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224757228051357697

  • WE CARE THAT HE IS QUITE OBVIOUSLY YOUR ENEMY No one in “the Heartland” cares wh

    WE CARE THAT HE IS QUITE OBVIOUSLY YOUR ENEMY

    No one in “the Heartland” cares whether Trump truly cares about us or not. We also do not care if he is a “good guy” with “values” and “character.”We care that he is quite obviously your enemy.

    We are in the war before the war.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 18:32:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224762657279967232

  • THEY ALWAYS WANT TO LIE CHEAT AND STEAL – BECAUES THEY DON”T WANT TO SELF-POLICE

    THEY ALWAYS WANT TO LIE CHEAT AND STEAL – BECAUES THEY DON”T WANT TO SELF-POLICE (THEY HAVE NO AGENCY)

    —“Ok the way the comments are here maybe you should call it totalitarianism. If the is what you want to do thats fine but take that shit to a deserted island and have at it”–John Lafferty

    Your only objection to natural law is to say that you have the right to impose costs upon others against their will. It means you want to lie, cheat, steal. So it means you’re a bad person. That’s all natural law prevents: lying, cheating, stealing, harming, directly or indirectly. SO why do you want to preserve lying, cheating, stealing, and harm? So you can lie cheat steal and harm?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 16:01:00 UTC

  • WHY WILL NEW LAWS WORK? —-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to chang

    WHY WILL NEW LAWS WORK?

    —-“My point is how is a new set of laws going to change human nature? We are a nation of many different peoples with many different religions , cultures and morals.

    What one group of people see as acceptable another group sees as unacceptable.

    I do agree that whatever laws we have , and few they should be, should apply equally to everyone regardless of any status.”—John Lafferty

    GOOD QUESTION

    1) Under the natural law, we are each sovereigns (kings of different countries). Our contract with one another is an alliance that insures one another’s sovereignty. That is our ‘social contact’- it’s not social at all. It’s military. As such we are all equal before the law, because the law is nothing more than reciprocal insurance of one another’s sovereignty, and therefor the requirement for reciprocity in all interactions; and that in any violation of reciprocity, they may request defense restitution and punishment from the allies. So we are unequal in ability, unequal in value to one another, equal under the law, and equally insured. But we are sovereign, autonomous mini-countries, with each man, woman, and children and their land the smallest possible nation.

    2) Natural law is a description of human nature. It is the MOST descriptive of human nature. Reciprocity is the same as the law of thermodynamics – but with our memory we can create credits(give help) and debts(receive help) with one another: But reciprocity is unavoidable because people demonstrably spend heavily on punishing irreciprocity – both interpersonally by retaliation, judicially by restitution, and socially by what we call altruistic punishment.

    3) No, while people WANT differently, people all see irreciprocity equally: bad. They see proportionality differently. In other words, the right sees capitalizing, meritocracy, hierarchy and reciprocity more important than proportionality, and the left sees consumption, equidistribution, equality, and proportionality more important than reciprocity.

    This is just an expression of cognitive differences in development since these reflect female consumptive short term dysgenic, and male capitalizing long term eugenic strategies.

    4) Given that we express different strategic demands, under the same natural law we can separate and pursue our different strategies (and the left will die off), or we can be eradicated by the left and all die off in another dark age, or we can eradicate the left and transcend man into the gods we imagine.

    The only solutions are separation to produce our commons, conquest, or failure.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-04 12:41:00 UTC

  • SHOULD A MONARCH BE ABOVE THE LAW? Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politi

    SHOULD A MONARCH BE ABOVE THE LAW?

    Yes. Otherwise they are the victims of politicians.

    1. There is one way to remove a monarch. It requires revolution.

    2. There is one way to remove a parliament. it requires voting.

    3. There is oneway to remove those who would violate our constitution – the court of the commons.

    4. There is one way to remove those who would violate laws against crimes – the criminal court.

    We have a rather interesting but odd system in that unlike the continent we have no court of the commons (for claims against the state)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 21:00:00 UTC

  • NO, THE CONSTITUTION DIDN’T SURVIVE THE CIVIL WAR The constitution didn’t surviv

    NO, THE CONSTITUTION DIDN’T SURVIVE THE CIVIL WAR

    The constitution didn’t survive the civil war. That’s the whole point. If it had, we’d still be a collection of european states like old europe, like it was intended, and people could move to states that had the values that they preferred, while the entire continent could be protected by a unified army (military) as the founders intended.

    The left wants to destroy the constitution as a transactional document of natural law of sovereigns and their reciprocal rights to life, liberty, and property. They want to change from rule OF LAW that limits the state and the people from violating that natural law, to rule BY LAW that violates that constitution of natural law.

    There is no political means of saving the constitution. There is only conflict or at least sufficient threat of consequences of conflict, that will require both parties to settle. The right wants to take over and rule. The left to take over and rule. And I propose converting blue cities to states, with 50% of the population and income, and red states with 50% of the population and income.

    Then to restore the 10th destroyed by the civil war, clearly numerate the federal governments limited scope of powers, and return all power to these states. This will allow the ‘big sort’ to continue and leftists moves to their cities so that they can continue to cause them to collapse one at a a time, while not letting the leftist disease spread to the rest of us. If this is not ‘fair’ then war is preferable and there is zero chance the right will lose.

    There is no possible moral objection to the constitutional amendments we have proposed other than to engage in conquest of peoples and to deprive them of rights to self determination. If that is the case then war is what we are left with.

    You may not deprive us of rights of self determination. Ever.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 14:05:00 UTC

  • Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act. Corporations a

    Papers and Titles can’t act, so can’t agree. Only people can act.

    Corporations are not superior to people, they are WARDS of people (children). People can act on behalf of wards, wards cannot act. All corporations regardless of tax and decision constraint are operated by people.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 13:37:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224326106419015681

    Reply addressees: @EBryceLee @CorwinElder @FrostieCash @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221873546571341824


    IN REPLY TO:

    @EBryceLee

    @CorwinElder @curtdoolittle @FrostieCash @clairlemon But the LLC can agree, through it’s representatives, to a contract, and be held accountable for violating the same.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1221873546571341824

  • Conservative (european) market order is the compromise between the gender strate

    Conservative (european) market order is the compromise between the gender strategies, at the cost of limiting the reproduction of the unproductive. All other strategies are MORE male, and the left wants MORE female.

    Ok. Have it. Separate Specialize.
    And you will have slums.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 11:34:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224295138052202496

    Reply addressees: @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224294670974496769


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump This pair of differences explain the Left(Female Social Temporal Consumptive Strategy) vs Right (Male Political Intertemporal Capitalizing Strategy) and (a) our political differences are not a choice (b) they are no longer compatible and we need to separate and *speciate*.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224294670974496769


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump This pair of differences explain the Left(Female Social Temporal Consumptive Strategy) vs Right (Male Political Intertemporal Capitalizing Strategy) and (a) our political differences are not a choice (b) they are no longer compatible and we need to separate and *speciate*.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224294670974496769

  • This pair of differences explain the Left(Female Social Temporal Consumptive Str

    This pair of differences explain the Left(Female Social Temporal Consumptive Strategy) vs Right (Male Political Intertemporal Capitalizing Strategy) and (a) our political differences are not a choice (b) they are no longer compatible and we need to separate and *speciate*.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 11:32:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224294670974496769

    Reply addressees: @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224293874820141059


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump 1. Cognitive Spectrum: Female Psychotic Solipsistic Sensitive Agreeable < Balanced > Disagreeable, Insensitive, Analytic, Autistic Male

    2. Conflict: Female: Social Predation: Undermine Until Destroyed. Male: Political Predation: Fight For Position then Settle.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224293874820141059


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HeadProph @realDonaldTrump 1. Cognitive Spectrum: Female Psychotic Solipsistic Sensitive Agreeable &lt; Balanced &gt; Disagreeable, Insensitive, Analytic, Autistic Male

    2. Conflict: Female: Social Predation: Undermine Until Destroyed. Male: Political Predation: Fight For Position then Settle.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224293874820141059