Source: Twitter X

  • Hugs. 😉

    Hugs. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:41:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833576447904018935

    Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833574049391448399

  • “Q: Grok: Martin Stepan here on twitter as @AutistocratMS is a senior fellow at

    —“Q: Grok: Martin Stepan here on twitter as @AutistocratMS is a senior fellow at the natural law institute, and he posts regularly. Can you summarize his positions?”—

    Answer
    Based on the information available from X posts attributed to Martin Štěpán (@AutistocratMS), here’s a summary of his positions:

    Skepticism Towards Universalist Ideologies: Martin Štěpán appears critical of universalist ideologies, suggesting that both the Soviet and American empires operated under such ideologies but for what he perceives as parasitic interests. He views these ideologies as pretexts for less noble actions.

    Views on Historical Figures and Events: He has expressed a controversial view on historical figures like Adolf Hitler, suggesting that while not endorsing all policies or actions, the regime might have been the “least of three evils” compared to other contemporary powers. This indicates a complex, often contrarian, perspective on historical figures and events, focusing on what he sees as the lesser of evils in geopolitical contexts.

    Criticism of Certain Group Behaviors: Štěpán has made remarks that could be interpreted as critical of certain groups, particularly Jewish communities, for what he describes as subversive or parasitic behaviors. He links these behaviors to historical antisemitism, suggesting it’s not irrational prejudice but a reaction to specific actions.

    Immigration Stance: He advocates for immigration that is “safe, legal, and rare,” indicating a restrictive view on immigration policies.

    Cultural and Ethnic Identity: There’s a post where he clarifies the ethnic composition of Hungarians, distinguishing between historical invaders and current genetic makeup, which might reflect his interest in ethnic purity or cultural identity preservation.

    General Sentiment: His posts often carry a tone of disillusionment with mainstream narratives, focusing on what he perceives as hidden truths or under-discussed aspects of history, culture, and politics.

    Martin Štěpán’s positions, as reflected through his X posts, seem to revolve around themes of cultural preservation, skepticism towards dominant historical narratives, and a critical view of certain group dynamics within society.

    His approach often involves questioning established views and presenting alternative, sometimes controversial, interpretations of historical and current events.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:40:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833576383194288128

  • “Q: Grok: Brandon Hayes here on twitter as @ThruTheHayes is the president of the

    —“Q: Grok: Brandon Hayes here on twitter as @ThruTheHayes is the president of the natural law institute, and he posts regularly. Can you summarize his positions?”—

    Answer
    Brandon Hayes, known on X as @ThruTheHayes and president of the Natural Law Institute, holds a variety of positions that can be pieced together from his posts and the institute’s stated goals:

    Authority and Legitimacy: Hayes suggests that legitimate authorities should work towards settling matters, particularly focusing on the role of government in ensuring rights, rather than expanding power. He implies a critique of how authority is often wielded in modern governance.

    Social Dynamics and Agency: He distinguishes between different societal roles, emphasizing personal agency as a defining human characteristic. Hayes seems to view dependency negatively, comparing dependent populations unfavorably to domesticated animals in terms of societal contribution.

    Cultural and Generational Observations: Hayes has made controversial remarks about generational attitudes towards pets and children, suggesting a blurring of lines between how different generations treat pets and humans, particularly immigrants, whom he metaphorically refers to as “pets” in a derogatory context.

    Historical and Heroic Narratives: He challenges the romanticized view of historical figures and events, arguing that there’s a lack of heroism in modern times compared to historical periods, which might reflect a broader skepticism towards contemporary figures and movements.

    Political and Social Strategy: There’s an indication of support for grassroots or blue-collar actions to exert political pressure, as seen in his suggestion for truckers to boycott deliveries to certain cities, indicating a belief in the power of economic disruption for political change.

    Critique of Modern Ideologies: Hayes has expressed views that could be interpreted as critical of certain religious or cultural integrations into Western legal and social frameworks, suggesting a preference for a more traditional or originalist interpretation of laws and societal norms.

    Engagement with Public Figures: His mentions of public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson and Scott Adams indicate an interest in persuasive communication and possibly a strategy of influencing those not yet committed to extreme positions, suggesting a tactical approach to political and cultural discourse.

    From these points, Brandon Hayes appears to advocate for a return to what he might consider more natural or traditional forms of law and social order, with a strong emphasis on individual responsibility, skepticism towards modern authority, and a critique of contemporary cultural trends.

    His positions often challenge mainstream narratives, reflecting a desire for a societal structure that aligns more closely with his interpretation of natural law principles.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:37:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833575651707916289

  • Q: “Grok: Does philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle refer to natural

    –Q: “Grok: Does philosopher and social scientist curt doolittle refer to natural law as a legal system or as a system of decidability, or something else?”–

    Answer
    Curt Doolittle refers to natural law primarily as a legal system but with implications that extend into a system of decidability. Here’s a breakdown based on the information available:

    Legal System: Doolittle’s work emphasizes natural law as a framework for law that should be based on what is “correct” or morally justifiable through reason, aiming to guide human cooperation by reducing all rights to property rights and strictly constructing law from prohibitions on imposing costs that could lead to retaliation. This approach aims to create a legal system where laws are consistent with a scientific understanding of human behavior and cooperation, suggesting natural law as a basis for legislation, constitutional principles, and judicial decisions.

    System of Decidability: While not explicitly labeled as such, Doolittle’s philosophy involves creating a method or logic for deciding what constitutes law or truth. His mention of constructing arguments from first premises to ensure infallibility in legal and philosophical discourse points towards a system where disputes can be resolved through a logical, empirical process. This implies that natural law, in his view, serves not just as a legal code but as a method for deciding disputes or truths based on a set of foundational, universally applicable principles.

    Something Else: Beyond these, Doolittle’s approach to natural law could be seen as a philosophical and ethical framework for societal organization. His discussions often touch on broader themes like the nature of truth, the role of law in civilization, and critiques of contemporary political and legal systems. This suggests that natural law, for Doolittle, might also serve as a foundational philosophy for understanding and reforming various aspects of society, including education, governance, and even personal ethics.

    In summary, while Curt Doolittle views natural law predominantly as a legal system, his conceptualization also encompasses it as a system for deciding truths or disputes (decidability) and as a broader philosophical framework for societal reform and understanding.

    Reply addressees: @truthb4face


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:34:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833574854307811330

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833562641123709309

  • Rogan Podcast Other interviews with Dibble

    Rogan Podcast
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DL1_EMIw6w

    Other interviews with Dibble.
    https://www.bing.com/search?q=Flint+Dibble+interview&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=flint+dibble+interview&sc=9-22&sk=&cvid=A4FE01AB6DE54FF0B25AF2F166E08FCB&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:30:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833573761238634993

    Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833571707724173367

  • UK ON THE GENDER PAY GAP MYTH Next’s £30M Wage Dispute: The Gender Pay Gap Myth

    UK ON THE GENDER PAY GAP MYTH
    Next’s £30M Wage Dispute: The Gender Pay Gap Myth Exposed https://youtu.be/ui49tRheTC8?si=iAWBuKTeR02BZzwg


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:06:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833567739312501215

  • Because there are no limits on what can be imposed as a result of a constitution

    Because there are no limits on what can be imposed as a result of a constitutional convention. In practice we have two choices: we would either propose amendments if we thought it was possible (it’s not – the state and its clients are too numerous and with too many resources), or we would follow the founders and construct a common law suit against the state, under threat of revolution if those complaints were unanswered. That is in fact what the declaration consists of: a common law suit against the state. And we have just as much legal right and precedent to do so as did the founders. This is the trajectory our organization presumes and it is the one we are following because we believe war is a deterministic outcome and the only solution deterministic outcome is to attempt to solve the problem prior to the outbreak of violence the consequences of which would be random, and throw the world into chaos.

    Reply addressees: @FuryForth


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:05:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833567514799808513

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833547756377432327

  • Grok is roughly correct. Given the principle purpose of my work is the extension

    Grok is roughly correct.
    Given the principle purpose of my work is the extension of the prohibition on suggestion, obscurantism loading, framing, coercon, fraud ,and deceit from commerce to commons, and to do so by prohibiting the various means by which lying has been industrialized and institutionalized (despite warnings of prior generations), at least in public to the public in matters public, we specifically prohibit the principle means by which nearly all philosophical sophisms, pseudoscientific, pseudorational and sophistic claims are made. However it is but one of the means.

    Ask more if you wish.

    Reply addressees: @truthb4face


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 18:01:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833566446791913472

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833562641123709309

  • It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead s

    It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead say that any premise must be constructable from first premises – and if not we may not claim it is true. And that all arguments derived therefrom must satisfy the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
    What that means is that there are very few general rules in the universe, and that if premises can be constructed from first principles (effectively ‘laws’) then we can claim we testify truthfully.
    The problem with most philosophy is that it’s orgins are in mathematics and as such are statemetns about words instead of statements about evidence.
    The value of economics (neutral language) and law (demonstrated interest, imposition of costs, motive) are that they answer the questions that philosophical and theological discourse evades by every possible means – the truth.

    That’s the short version. I’m in the middle of something. If you need further clarification let me know.

    Reply addressees: @andrewkatz4


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 17:57:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833565396823379970

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833559230441304206

  • Democratic government. At least, the legislative wing of it, is reducible to the

    Democratic government. At least, the legislative wing of it, is reducible to the institutionalization of the tragedy of the commons, where the consumers (renters) seek to maximize temporal consumption to the destruction of the utility productivity and fruits of the commons.

    Legislatures should sit, as in texas, for just a few weeks a year – even a few weeks every few years.

    Push responsibility back into the private sector and when funding for a commons cannot be produced there, then let them propose to the parliaments as we presently do to venture capitalists.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 16:44:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833547019027132416