Curt Doolittle

Theme: Constitutional Order

  • When you say civl rights to you mean positive rights rather than negative rights

    When you say civl rights to you mean positive rights rather than negative rights? ’cause that’s what you’re saying. Without jewish activists we would still have rule of law (the formal logic of reciprocity). We don’t. Which is the whole problem.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 21:24:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975483217359900672

    Reply addressees: @Communism_Kills

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975482200966737920

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975482200966737920

  • “If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights mov

    —“If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement”— Yes and I am educating you about the meaning of rule of law by the test of reciprocity that prevents rule by discretion. Yet these very people destroyed rule of law by intentionally selecting cases to fund and prosecute in order to undermine it. (really). The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law. The west differs from the rest for one reason and one reason only: we pay the price of truth telling and reciprocity even at the cost of self image, status, and influence on the dominance hierarchy. That leaves only rule of law possible. You have your choices because of that rule. We dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by that one rule. And they destroyed it. Never assume you understand the big things. They did.

  • “If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights mov

    —“If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement”—

    Yes and I am educating you about the meaning of rule of law by the test of reciprocity that prevents rule by discretion. Yet these very people destroyed rule of law by intentionally selecting cases to fund and prosecute in order to undermine it. (really).

    The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law.

    The west differs from the rest for one reason and one reason only: we pay the price of truth telling and reciprocity even at the cost of self image, status, and influence on the dominance hierarchy. That leaves only rule of law possible. You have your choices because of that rule.

    We dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by that one rule. And they destroyed it. Never assume you understand the big things. They did.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 17:41:00 UTC

  • “If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights mov

    —“If it weren’t for (((Those))) Lawyers we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement”— Yes and I am educating you about the meaning of rule of law by the test of reciprocity that prevents rule by discretion. Yet these very people destroyed rule of law by intentionally selecting cases to fund and prosecute in order to undermine it. (really). The correct answer to the civil rights movement was to provide internal funding to the underdeveloped community, so that they could establish a middle class using cheap postwar credit. Instead, well intentioned people without any history of self government destroyed rule of law. The west differs from the rest for one reason and one reason only: we pay the price of truth telling and reciprocity even at the cost of self image, status, and influence on the dominance hierarchy. That leaves only rule of law possible. You have your choices because of that rule. We dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, child mortality, early death, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by that one rule. And they destroyed it. Never assume you understand the big things. They did.

  • There is a difference between obeying THE law (reciprocity) independent of regul

    There is a difference between obeying THE law (reciprocity) independent of regulation, legislation, and command, and obeying regulation, legislation, and command that violates that law. If we obey THE law we are sovereign. Otherwise, prisoners, serfs or slaves.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 14:44:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975382542428901376

    Reply addressees: @capital_matter @JordanPeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377498396659713

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377498396659713

  • There is only one law: reciprocity. Everyting else is either findings of law(com

    There is only one law: reciprocity. Everyting else is either findings of law(common law), contract(legislation), warranty (regulation), or command(discretion). There is only one possible means of rule of law rather than discretion. The perfect decidability of reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 14:34:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975379929100619776

    Reply addressees: @capital_matter @JordanPeterson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377498396659713

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377498396659713

  • Compare ancient german, chinese, babylonian, egyptian, and jewish law. We still

    Compare ancient german, chinese, babylonian, egyptian, and jewish law. We still all organize by those same principles. Myths change, laws do not. Law defeats all. Hence why all that matters in politics is control over the production of regulation, legislation, and command.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-18 14:23:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975377144615403521

  • It’s rather technical, (natural law of reciprocity) and it’s the logic behind th

    It’s rather technical, (natural law of reciprocity) and it’s the logic behind the constitution and our ancient tradition of germanic common law. -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 20:33:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975107899176386565

    Reply addressees: @JacobtCroft

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975046491810160640

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975046491810160640

  • Voting as an alternative to revolution (tossing out the government of the common

    Voting as an alternative to revolution (tossing out the government of the commons) is an excellent idea, as long as (a) this does not affect the monarchy and the military, and (b) as long as it is not asymmetric among the classes. In other words, those who have greater responsibilities and those who have lesser responsibilities must both agree. The real problem of democracy was (a) women and (b) underclasses and (c) vast immigration of underclass (including the catholics who are white.)

  • Voting as an alternative to revolution (tossing out the government of the common

    Voting as an alternative to revolution (tossing out the government of the commons) is an excellent idea, as long as (a) this does not affect the monarchy and the military, and (b) as long as it is not asymmetric among the classes. In other words, those who have greater responsibilities and those who have lesser responsibilities must both agree. The real problem of democracy was (a) women and (b) underclasses and (c) vast immigration of underclass (including the catholics who are white.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 13:06:00 UTC