Theme: Sovereignty

  • Let’s assume you’re right that the people will tolerate any government, and that

    Let’s assume you’re right that the people will tolerate any government, and that your neighboring states will tolerate any government, and you could find trading partners that would tolerate any government, then how do you produce a government of your preference if the extant elite and extant population resist it? So it’s not that people will tolerate it, its whether the elites, bureaucrats, the military, the financial, industrial and other sectors, and then the factions of the population will permit it.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 20:26:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877089508061315072

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877084973548572729

  • RT @NSDarkHorse: @truckdriverpleb Canadians need a robust US style Constitution,

    RT @NSDarkHorse: @truckdriverpleb Canadians need a robust US style Constitution, not the watered down “bill of rights” that can be easily t…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 19:54:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877081421891682665

  • RT @truckdriverpleb: Reasons why becoming an American would be advantageous to m

    RT @truckdriverpleb: Reasons why becoming an American would be advantageous to me

    – 60% reduction in taxes
    – gun ownership
    – free speech p…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 19:53:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877081267155456506

  • IMPERIALISM VS EXPANSIONISM Well as someone said recently, there is a difference

    IMPERIALISM VS EXPANSIONISM
    Well as someone said recently, there is a difference between imperialism (formal and by force) and expansionism (informal and by incentives).

    I wish I had thought of that method of explaining why I disagree that it’s western imperialism. Empires are forcibly dominating. Federations are incentivizing cooperation.

    The USA has been trying to end the age of empires (the world wars) and this third ‘world war’ we are currently involved in is to to complete the project of ending empires and building federations by the defeat of the remaining empires: russia, iran, china.

    And at present, that defeat appears to be in the progress of working. The only variable is the rate of US and European re-armament (basically ammunition, artillery, bombs, drones, missiles). Because neither of us has the industrial plant to do so vs china.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 19:23:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877073770562859011

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1877056714886767018

  • Trump is such a Troll. But his trolling is perhaps the most brilliant means of r

    Trump is such a Troll. But his trolling is perhaps the most brilliant means of reorganizing the postwar order with “if russia and china can, then we can” causing the world to defend the postwar order … and step up to pay for it. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-08 03:02:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876826707929211302

  • RT @AutistocratMS: Most people want to be slaves and they will never forgive bei

    RT @AutistocratMS: Most people want to be slaves and they will never forgive being freed. At least to some extent, they’re not even wrong.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-07 07:08:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876526334379511809

  • Musk is imitating what Trump did to Canada with the ’51st state’ nonsense. Essen

    Musk is imitating what Trump did to Canada with the ’51st state’ nonsense. Essentially he’s publicly claiming that the government of the uk, like that of canada, and the US government just ousted, is illegitimate, and hostile to the british people and needs a reformation as much or more than the USA does. Trudeau is out. Starmer needs to go. And Reform needs to get in. And the people need to stop tolerating that their elites are destroying their civilization for their own profit.

    Reply addressees: @findfredhampton @eyeslasho


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-07 01:42:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876444253997727744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876441403783582091

  • ADVICE FOR CANADA: Our organization suggests the following. 1) The Canadian cons

    ADVICE FOR CANADA:
    Our organization suggests the following.

    1) The Canadian constitution made the parliament not the people sovereign – the same mistake made in the rest of the anglosphere. The American constitutions makes the people sovereign over the parliament. This simple failure to preserve the sovereignty of the people is the origin of the undermining of Canadian people.

    2) The people and the parliament are limited by three properties rarely understood, and almost never understood in the States: That the constitution is EMPIRICAL:
    (a) Natural Law (Citizenship as mutual guarantee of Self determination by self determined means, sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed: tort) as the basis and enumerated rights as enforcement of natural law,
    (b) Concurrency across regions and classes – not majority – in voting and Legislation.
    (c) Common Law: commonality in findings of the court, under natural law and concurrent legislation, producing a government that does not rule, but that serves as a market for the production of commons between states(provinces) and classes.
    If you do not have both popular sovereignty, natural law, concurrency and commonality the people are subjects not sovereigns. They are RULED. Not Governed.

    3) In an information age, there is no value to representatives – they merely create a vehicle for ideology, conspiracy against the people, purchase by special interests, a race to the bottom (tyranny), and corruption. Direct democracy eliminates this vulnerability. Yet direct democracy still requires houses for the classes (Senate(provinces), Upper House (contributors), and a lower house (dependents).)

    4) Please do not give up the Monarchy. Despite centuries of propaganda the solution to government is expansion of the division of labor of governing, not replacement of it. The British Crown requires reinforcement not debasement or elimination. “The purpose of monarchy is to function as a judge of last resort, and above parliament (houses) and legislation in restoration of constitution, natural law, concurrency, and commonality. Our monarchies are constitutionally too weak to protect us from the failings of democratic and government and it’s capture by ideology and credentialism and corruption. And as we have seen overwhelmingly, democratic institutions always fail at the margins. Canada is an example. The USA is an example. Every postwar government outside of liechtenstein and switzerland has been an example.

    5) As many participants in today’s X Space have stated, you must fully integrate and conform and demonstrate loyalty to that culture (informal institutions) and its formal institutions. Or they must exit. As such skepticism to immigrants and skepticism to seditionists (take Quebec for example) must be defended against through education, formal, and informal institutions.

    Affections
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @JohnnyNash77


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 22:25:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876394573687300096

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876365732109312017

  • Criticism: Curt: –“Separate houses for women? That won’t work!”– Houses of gov

    Criticism: Curt: –“Separate houses for women? That won’t work!”–

    Houses of government formed under western individual (or at least familial) sovereignty and subsequent limits on authority for the purpose of developing concurrency between the classes as a means of creating a market for the production of commons between the classes without violating that sovereignty those limits.
    Women are not a mindless mob – they have priorities counter to the purpose of government which is the production of the capital of the commons which produces reduction in costs for all.
    Your argument is that women cannot be educated, courts established, legislation imposed, laws discoverted to limit the female as much as we have the male instincts and intuitions that are counter to the production of commons.
    Women are environmentally susceptible more so than men, But it’s quite clear that we can create environments. ANd women are more adaptive to such things than men.

    The net is whether we want to pay the cost of domesticating women as thoroughly as we have men, so that their political participation is possible. That cost depends upon the personality and IQ distribution of women in the polity and therefore their adaptability. If IQ declines further the possibility becomes irrelevant. If IQ returned to 115 (pre-industrial revolution) then I think such a thing is possible. In the meantime we merely have to make the choice. I would prefer institutionally domesticating women and limiting political participation to those demonstrating responsibility for the commons and its ever expanding capitalization.

    But it would require an experiment. The reason being that the value of femininity is very high and is a capital we fail to account for like much of social capital. And if we were to lose femininity in exchange for their domestication and integration into politics (which appears to be the case)then personally I would say the trade off doesn’t appear a worthy one.

    I work on solving problems, not admitting defeat just because those who came before me were defeated. 😉

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @RichardArion1


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 20:54:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876371668819652608

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876367042606928214

  • RT @elonmusk: That is why the founders of America made freedom of speech and the

    RT @elonmusk: That is why the founders of America made freedom of speech and the right to bear arms the first two amendments


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-06 18:33:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1876336287336251803