Theme: Constitutional Order

  • A NOT-BAD EXPLANATION OF THE MILITIA AND ITS SWISS AND AMERICAN VERSIONS Explain

    A NOT-BAD EXPLANATION OF THE MILITIA AND ITS SWISS AND AMERICAN VERSIONS
    Explains Why We Diverge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnBDK-QNZkM
    Author tries to take a central position so understand that while watching. šŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-07 15:16:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744015083628380180

  • TOTAL SEPARATION OR FEDERAL DEVOLUTION – WHICH CHOICE? –“This reply leads me to

    TOTAL SEPARATION OR FEDERAL DEVOLUTION – WHICH CHOICE?
    –“This reply leads me to another point that you help provide. There is no other peaceful option for the US than to balkanize and separate into two separate countries.”–@jdparizee70

    My usual answer: (below) https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1743787810853683543

  • TOTAL SEPARATION OR FEDERAL DEVOLUTION – WHICH CHOICE? –“This reply leads me to

    TOTAL SEPARATION OR FEDERAL DEVOLUTION – WHICH CHOICE?
    –“This reply leads me to another point that you help provide. There is no other peaceful option for the US than to balkanize and separate into two separate countries.”–@jdparizee70

    My usual answer: (below)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-07 01:44:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743810751070887936

  • yes. Though our organization’s position is that if we can devolve the federal go

    yes. Though our organization’s position is that if we can devolve the federal government back to the states as originally intended (we can) but preserve the geostrategic military and trade advantage of defense of the continent that would seem more difficult but in practice ‘getting along’ would be easier.

    We’ll finish the constitutional revisions this year, and the plan of transition. So we should be ready when the overton window finally closes over the opportunity (soon).

    Reply addressees: @JDPARIZEE70


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-07 00:13:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743787810786529281

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743720360174813393

  • SIMPLE LOGIC OF WHY EMPIRES VS FEDERATIONS When you can’t trust each other, you

    SIMPLE LOGIC OF WHY EMPIRES VS FEDERATIONS
    When you can’t trust each other, you consider the state the nation. When you can trust each other, you consider the people the nation. This is the difference between Russia, China, the Middle East versus the West. First, they are empires, not nations. Second, They are low-trust societies. So, their diversity creates low trust, and their low trust generates demand for authority which then justifies itself. And, the enemy has been undermining our trust from inside us for over a century by claiming oppression rather than domestication and the rule of law so that we can trust one another despite our inequality.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-05 08:01:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743181008315301888

  • (priceless) –“The problem is you view rule of law as some sort of imposition –

    (priceless)

    –“The problem is you view rule of law as some sort of imposition – and this to some extent understandable due to all the clearly unjust impositions pretending to be law over last six decades.”– Martin Stepan @AutistocratMS

    Martin is terribly funny even when he’s completely serious. šŸ˜‰

    He continues:
    –“However, whenever a community forms, some form of rule of law and law enforcement develops with it because people actually want it and need it.”– Martin Stepan @AutistocratMS

    While libertarians tend to be the most intellectual political demographic especially in economics, and conservatives the most historically informed, Martin spends a substantial amout of time debunking libertarian propaganda that doesn’t correspond with the evidence, nor is it internally consistent without presuming false premises of human behavior.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 02:24:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742733587495964672

  • (priceless) –“The problem is you view rule of law as some sort of imposition –

    (priceless)

    –“The problem is you view rule of law as some sort of imposition – and this to some extent understandable due to all the clearly unjust impositions pretending to be law over last six decades.”– Martin Stepan @AutistocratMS

    Martin is terribly funny even when he’s…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 02:24:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742731182142263349

  • (priceless) –“The problem is you view rule of law as some sort of imposition –

    (priceless)

    –“The problem is you view rule of law as some sort of imposition – and this to some extent understandable due to all the clearly unjust impositions pretending to be law over last six decades.”– Martin Stepan @AutistocratMS

    Martin is terribly funny even when he’s completely serious. šŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 02:24:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742731182054207488

  • “Q: What changes in the law caused the 1960s cultural revolution?”–Bob FAILURE

    —“Q: What changes in the law caused the 1960s cultural revolution?”–Bob

    FAILURE TO UPDATE THE LAW NOT CHANGES IN THE LAW
    The changes in the law were a consequence not a cause. Instead, it was a failure of the 20th century legislative process to carry forward prohibitions within the common law to the federal code – something I have addressed elsewhere: the feminine cognition driving the left was prohibited or at least contained during the pre-industrial period.

    And it was a widespred presumption, almost across the populations f the west that the end of scarcity had arrived, and therfore our self regulation had ended, and the horn of conucopia of endless growth hand fallen from the heavens into our lap.

    So instead, the “revolt” against culture in the 1960s was the result of an overlapping sequence of factors as the global (Jewish) left recognized the failure of class marxism and sought power by other means.

    CAUSALITY
    (a) the left’s migration from europe to the states, and conversion of their objective from fomenting class conflict by false accusatino of oppression (rather than domestication) and instead shift to culture, then race and sex marxism to pursue power by fomenting those conflicts by false accusation of oppression (rather than soft domestication.)

    (b) The unification of feminine christian optimistic but scientific progressivism combining darwin, malthus, and s spencer with new economic possibility, with jewish pessimistic and pseudoscientific revolt against darwin malthus and in particular the eugenics of the progressives.

    (c) The success at their capture of academy and education, with the specific intention to destroy western civilization by the “march through the institutions of western cultural production, beginning with education, media, finance, then government.”

    (d) The postwar shift to credentialist (managerial) state instead of demonstrated competency in miltary and industry. This put ideology rather than evidence and ended loyalty and replaced it with undermining (sedition).

    RESOURCES FOR THE LEFT TO EXPLOIT
    (e) The postwar baby boom, especially among the lower classes caused a demographic shift in the composition of the values and skills and knowledge of the electorate.

    (f) the economic shift of the lower clases into lower middle economies and some middle class employment, made possible only by the rest of the world’s economic capacity being decimated by the war (which ended by 1972) such that the lower classes had sufficient economic influence and political influence that the new communications methods could be use to easily influence them – because they were not yet inculcated into middle class ethics of the american, anglo, and western tradition.

    (g) the introgression of women in to both the voting pool and the economy, when women are vulnerable to the Neo-Marxist, Postmoder, Feminist, Race Marxist (now Woke) false promises and false claims of oppression – a behavior which is the only terms underwhich the feminine mind feels comfortable in non-conformity and aggression.

    (h) the failure of the movement to purge the country of the communists, socialists, and broader leftists during the late 1940s to the mid-1950s McCarthy era – which had it been successful would have prevented the 1960s. This was a catastrophic failure that will cause us to have much worse purges in the future all across western civilization.

    LEGAL DEVOLUTIONS THAT THE LEFT COULD EXPLOIT
    (i) Loosening moral laws (‘blue laws). The widespread availability of i. the pill, ii. abortions, iii. no fault divorce, iv. easy credit (debt), v. radio, television, newspaper and magazine advertising that appeal to female demands for hyperconsumption and hypergamy, vi. deprecation of our prohibitions on ‘baiting people into those moral hazards’.

    (j) The immigration act of 68 whose vast amplification of the “underclassing” and “feminizing” of american, anglo, germanic, western, european masculine “maximization of individual rsponsibility for self, private, and common” such that we make the production of high trust low cost commons possible, such that the need for income by each family is decreased in order to obtain the same quality of life.

    CURRENT CONSEQUENCE
    (k) the feminiization of institutions of education, government and media, and the continous decline in business and industry and the resulting infantilization of the population and loss of competitiveness worldwide.

    Those causes (a) thru (j) are causal. All the events during the sixties are simply an expression of this underlying causeality.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @BOB37702515 @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 00:24:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742703447772733440

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742694184853938519

  • (Nerdy NLI Humor) Context: discussing the lack of domain specific courts in the

    (Nerdy NLI Humor)
    Context: discussing the lack of domain specific courts in the usa. Brandon suggeted that every market place should have it’s own associated court. Martin asks whether we need a court fo the sexual marketplace. Brandon answers with family court. Martin responds with “family court is no longer the same market as the family court market”. So sex and family(marriage) are now two separate markets. So Curt wonders, what the heck do we dispute in a court for the sexual marktplace? “You didn’t fu*k me good?” Brandon responds with that’s not a tort without a contractual obligation for satisfaction. Martin, as usual, gives the correct answer in that without mutual satisfaction it’s a violation of reciprocity in the broadest sense. But failure to perform a promise or a implied result that is subjectively determined by the other party is not an enforcible contract. Brandon explains that it is a private not a public endeavor so it is outside of the scope of the law. šŸ˜‰

    This is how we divert ourselves for a moment from the serious work of explaing the legal criteria for exiting a polity…. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-03 19:05:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742623351443439616