RT @state_secession: @FoxNews Secession is legal and constitutional. The foundational argument in Texas v White (1869) was overturned by th…
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-02 19:50:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598766501204459562
Trifunctionalism: Domain: Moral(psychological, social) > Judicial(material) > State(poliitcal: order, defense, limits) Just like we have in the past.
Benefit: Aquinas had it largely right. We had no ‘aquinas’ after darwin. Maybe that’s what we’re doing w/o knowing it…? Maybe.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-02 18:36:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598747886891696140
Reply addressees: @astrotrad @Thaeus4
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598744246483267584
The french, in their revolution, maintained the concept of responsibility of the church for the peasantry, so they view ‘law’ as utilitarian, and philosophical, and almost pseudo-religious instead of empirical and scientific. French law seeks to be MATERNALLY MORAL not ‘true’.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-01 19:22:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598397115289550848
Reply addressees: @erikbrus25
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598396222057971716
If I could reach through the internet and hug you for this tweet, I would. 😉
French (continental) and Jewish (semitic) law is authoritarian conformist produced by intellectuals (theoriests) who RULE society. European (Germanic) prohitibit rule and authorize only DECIDABILITY.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-01 19:10:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598394172322766848
Reply addressees: @erikbrus25
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598393217296351232
4. The common post-hoc law is empirical, slow and reactive, and the positive ante-hoc legislation can, like a good lie, creating ignorance, prevent an empirical law.
5. Modernity (recent) has destroyed compatibility between the sexes.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-01 17:38:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598371092506107904
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598371090438492196
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Staff Meeting:
1. “Maintain Decorum” (Etiquette, Manners)
2. We’re judicial, not right, center, or left. Though, the hard left and hard right are least tolerant of the judicial.
3. They beat our pace of outlawing feminine antisociality with positive legislation licensing it.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1598371090438492196
Staff Meeting:
1. “Maintain Decorum” (Etiquette, Manners)
2. We’re judicial, not right, center, or left. Though, the hard left and hard right are least tolerant of the judicial.
3. They beat our pace of outlawing feminine antisociality with positive legislation licensing it.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-01 17:38:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598371090438492196
I’m pretty confident I understand the minds of the founders both individually and collectively because it’s so well documented. They believed they had ‘solved’ government. A Science of government so to speak. But understood it required men of virtue. And few still exist.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-29 18:09:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597654026048655362
Reply addressees: @nine_eleven_lsd
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597652957478387713
Q: “Curt; What is Lawfare?”
Lawfare is the use of legal institutions to damage, delegitimize, or deter an opponent’s exercise or defense of their legal rights; to exploit holes in the law to circumvent the people and the legislature; and to undermine established institutions.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-29 14:53:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597604552366493696
Neither Russia Iran or China is succeeding in their attempt to preserve authoritarianism against the glacial pace and mass of rule of law, consumer capitalism, and representative government. But they are not failing either. RU, IR and CN especially can hold out for a generation.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-29 00:06:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1597381494959329281
Boost of @DrRicardoDuchesne
Diversity and rainbow flags are deeply rooted in the inherently progressivist foundational principles of the United States. That’s a major reason why it is so difficult for conservatives to mount an effective ideological challenge against wokeness. This can be shown in numerous ways. Here’s one way: go back to George Bancroft (1800-1891), the most influential American historian of the 19C. By the standards of today, this man would be considered a fascist for his acceptance of the basic moral norms of his day about marriage, Christianity, and for his view that America was an “Anglo-Saxon” nation. But if you examine his 10-volume History of the United States, it expresses the ideals that eventually culminated in the woke politics of today with its Neocon policies of spreading democratic rights to the world.
Bancroft says that America was created “for the advancement of the principles of everlasting peace and universal brotherhood.” With the spread of American values, the “ages of servitude” and “inequality” would end. The prime longing of all humans is liberty. While this love of liberty was Anglo-Saxon in origins, it had become in America the “breath of life to the people”. Americans “heard the glad tidings [of liberty] which promised the political regeneration of the world”. The Declaration of Independence was the “announcement of the birth of a people” dedicated to the spread of liberty to the world. Slavery, Bancroft correctly saw, was an institution that had originated outside the American ideal of liberty, and that’s why it was eventually abolished.
The “new progressive historians” of the early 20C who “rejected” Bancroft’s liberal conception for a “social” or “economic” historical approach focused on the role of the masses, workers, new immigrants, and women, were merely pointing out the persistent impediments to the actualization of the ideal of liberty, driven by a longing for a more democratic society, by advocating reforms to lift out the masses that had not benefitted from the limited liberties of the past due to lack of public education and exploitative working conditions. Bancroft was himself an advocate of public schools.
But who were the historians of “the education of mankind” before Bancroft who influenced him?
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-28 21:45:05 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/109424109629507359