Curt Doolittle

Form: Thread

  • 1) In the 1980’s we enacted major changes in the legal system. This is what redu

    1) In the 1980’s we enacted major changes in the legal system. This is what reduced litigation. It was adequate but not beneficial. IN the previous decades due to the Jewish migration to the west we enacted devolutions of our law. In the previous century we enacted devolutions.

    2) As far as I know we are restoring (reversing) the common law prior to those ‘enlightenment’ modifications. and correcting the problem of the inability to demarcate free speech from free testifiable and reciprocal speech.

    3) The traditional method by which these laws are tested are by jurists the way medical procedures are tested by doctors. By testing how we would handle present cases under the new law. This is indifferent from how the supreme court handles cases today.

    4) However, there is very little opportunity to implement half measures. instead it is far better to have the top jurists ‘test’ the arguments against the body of historical cases and present cases. This has proven effective in the past.

    5) What I have suggested is that we are very clear about the scope of such constraints, and that we provide special dispensation for christianity. And expressly state that we are attacking the abrahamic method of deceit. (which is in the documents already).

    6) But all law is open to incremental application and incremental revision. So in the end we are left with the choice between attempting to suppress the Marxist-pomo-woke destruction of the west or the consequences of doing so. There are no free rides. Only tradeoffs.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 17:05:03 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105725028202932734

  • 1. Because science is the discipline of producing testifiable evidence of causal

    1. Because science is the discipline of producing testifiable evidence of causal relations when we do not yet know the first causes (first principles). Via positiva (chemistry) vs via negativa (Law). In chemistry we know them – it’s ‘done’ yet all the application isn’t.

    I separate science (discovery of first principles) from technology (discovery of application of first principles). Chemistry is a science that appears to be in the technology phase. Subatomic physics is still in the scientific phase.

    2. But law we know the first principle, and we know the dimensions of justifiability of humans and we know the list of their demonstrated interests. We know the first principles of law. Like chemistry, we do not yet know the totality of APPLICATIONS of it b/c man invents crimes.

    3. So we can experiment in via Positiva legislation within the limits of the first principles of law, just as we can experiment with via positive constructions of chemistry but the first principles do not change.

    4. So in physics we know the first principle down to the standard model, but we do not know the geometry of the next ‘grammar’ down, that produces the standard model.

    5. In economics we know that suppression of irreciprocity produces monetary and economic velocity, and we know around 150 different economic general principles. But they are general rules of arbitrary precision. (The neutrality of money is the example I usually use.)

    6. In econometrics we are just discovering symmetries (general equilibrial invariances) in economic phenomena which may help us develop a new macro-economic theory the way chemistry and biology evolve from physics.

    7. So when we say ‘science’ (testifiability) evolves incrementally in evolves incrementally inward until we discover first causes, and then incrementally outward as we discover applications.

    8. But first causes do not change. This is why math describes the physical universe and P describes the behavioral universe of man MAN. These are formal logics. There is no variation from these formal logics. That’s how it is. I know this you don’t yet., That’s all.

    9. I (know) P provides the solution to a problem we should have solved just after Babbage in the 19th century that opened the hole for the second wave of Abrahamic deceit. it is an incremental improvement over the Aryan, roman, germanic, anglo, and American common law.

    10. This is why p is structured as amendments to the constitution that define man and man’s behaviors, and define the law, and the rights and obligations under that law, and the optimum political order under it, and why it’s least divergent from the laws of the universe.

    11. This completes the Wilsonian Synthesis of the unification of all fields in a single logic that is indifferent at all scales from the subatomic to speech.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 17:00:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105725011515420918

  • 6) But all law is open to incremental application and incremental revision. So i

    6) But all law is open to incremental application and incremental revision. So in the end we are left with the choice between attempting to suppress the Marxist-pomo-woke destruction of the west or the consequences of doing so. There are no free rides. Only tradeoffs.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:32:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360461845258264581

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360461516638666753

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN 5) What I have suggested is that we are very clear about the scope of such constraints, and that we provide special dispensation for christianity. And expressly state that we are attacking the abrahamic method of deceit. (which is in the documents already).

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1360461516638666753

  • 5) What I have suggested is that we are very clear about the scope of such const

    5) What I have suggested is that we are very clear about the scope of such constraints, and that we provide special dispensation for christianity. And expressly state that we are attacking the abrahamic method of deceit. (which is in the documents already).

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:31:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360461516638666753

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360461234018127874

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN 4) However, there is very little opportunity to implement half measures. instead it is far better to have the top jurists ‘test’ the arguments against the body of historical cases and present cases. This has proven effective in the past.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1360461234018127874

  • 4) However, there is very little opportunity to implement half measures. instead

    4) However, there is very little opportunity to implement half measures. instead it is far better to have the top jurists ‘test’ the arguments against the body of historical cases and present cases. This has proven effective in the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:30:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360461234018127874

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360460906010935297

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN 3) The traditional method by which these laws are tested are by jurists the way medical procedures are tested by doctors. By testing how we would handle present cases under the new law. This is indifferent from how the supreme court handles cases today.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1360460906010935297

  • 5. In economics we know that suppression of irreciprocity produces monetary and

    5. In economics we know that suppression of irreciprocity produces monetary and economic velocity, and we know around 150 different economic general principles. But they are general rules of arbitrary precision. (The neutrality of money is the example I ususally use.)

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:16:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360457757510557697

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360457455914913793

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN 4. So in physics we know the first principle down to the standard model, but we do not know the geometry of the next ‘grammar’ down, that produces the standard model.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1360457455914913793

  • 4. So in physics we know the first principle down to the standard model, but we

    4. So in physics we know the first principle down to the standard model, but we do not know the geometry of the next ‘grammar’ down, that produces the standard model.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:15:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360457455914913793

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360457247265083393

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN 3. So we can experiment in via Positiva legislation within the limits of the first principles of law, just as we can experiment with via positive constructions of chemistry but the first principles do not change.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1360457247265083393

  • 3. So we can experiment in via Positiva legislation within the limits of the fir

    3. So we can experiment in via Positiva legislation within the limits of the first principles of law, just as we can experiment with via positive constructions of chemistry but the first principles do not change.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:14:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360457247265083393

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360456940351062016

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN 2. But law we know the first principle, and we know the dimensions of justifiability of humans and we know the list of their demonstrated interests. We know the first principles of law. Like chemistry we do not yet know the totality of APPLICATIONS of it b/c man invents crimes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1360456940351062016

  • 2. But law we know the first principle, and we know the dimensions of justifiabi

    2. But law we know the first principle, and we know the dimensions of justifiability of humans and we know the list of their demonstrated interests. We know the first principles of law. Like chemistry we do not yet know the totality of APPLICATIONS of it b/c man invents crimes.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:13:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360456940351062016

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360456588088254464

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN OMFG. 1. Because science is is the discipline of producing testifiable evidence of causal relations when we do not yet know the first causes (first principles). Via positiva (chemistry) vs via negativa (Law). In chemistry we know them – it’s ‘done’ yet all the application isn’t.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1360456588088254464

  • OMFG. 1. Because science is is the discipline of producing testifiable evidence

    OMFG. 1. Because science is is the discipline of producing testifiable evidence of causal relations when we do not yet know the first causes (first principles). Via positiva (chemistry) vs via negativa (Law). In chemistry we know them – it’s ‘done’ yet all the application isn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-02-13 05:11:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360456588088254464

    Reply addressees: @torinmccabe @BlurmpfG @PROPERTARYAN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360455951627808769