Theme: Sovereignty

  • 20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Nat

    20) Transcendence (Evolution), by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Duty, The Natural Law of Tort, An Independent Judiciary (Nomocracy), and the only option remaining under all of the above: Markets for voluntary cooperation in all aspects of life.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:44:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055455045276352513

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 12) … who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy o

    12) … who were seeking to restate the successful group evolutionary strategy of western civilization (transcendence: by adaptive velocity ) using Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, Jury and Tort Law, and Markets (empirical evidence of reciprocity) in everything …


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:30:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055451654227673091

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitr

    3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitrary, truth as arbitrary, reciprocity as arbitrary when they are necessary, and a presumption of an arbitrary good (equality rather than evolutionary survival) as justification for the fraud.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:08:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055445962762665984

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • ALL OF THIS IS DETERMINISTIC Of course we are going to go to war with China

    ALL OF THIS IS DETERMINISTIC

    Of course we are going to go to war with China.

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/24/us-war-with-china-is-likely-in-15-years-retired-general-says/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 12:44:00 UTC

  • USA-MEXICO LIKE RUSSIA-UKRAINE-CAUCUSES, CHINA-TIBET, IRAQ-KUWAIT IS A PANDORA’S

    USA-MEXICO LIKE RUSSIA-UKRAINE-CAUCUSES, CHINA-TIBET, IRAQ-KUWAIT IS A PANDORA’S BOX

    —“Does Mexico even have a claim to sovereignty when cartels do as they please?”– Micah Pezdirtz

    ^Well, IMO this is the problem: we can’t do this without ourselves breaking the postwar consensus. I mean. We do this then russian and china do this, and iran does this and we eventually have world war three MAYBE, unless we agree with russia and china first on how to manage our spheres.

    The postwar consensus is over. But if *WE* are its defenders (police) and WE do it, then it’s really over and then the entire purpose of the postwar consensus – preventing another world war – is finished.

    IN my opinion graceful transition to balance of powers is going to happen and we are committing suicide by resisting it.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 10:39:00 UTC

  • “We have a strong claim to counter invade Mexico for facilitating an invasion by

    —“We have a strong claim to counter invade Mexico for facilitating an invasion by their inability to stop this caravan and their direct invasion over the past 4 decades. Move the border further and further down until the wall is just a few hundred miles or Panama canal”–Steve Pender


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 10:11:00 UTC

  • THE OPTIMUM PLAN by Jim Leis Call Mexico. Tell them to fix it before the border

    THE OPTIMUM PLAN

    by Jim Leis

    Call Mexico. Tell them to fix it before the border or they will not like how USA stops it. They are either a country or not.

    If they don’t fix it, close the border. No freight, no tourism, no remittances, nothing. Let Mexico fix it then.

    Remember, because of insane US immigration laws, touching US soil is a get-out-of-shithole free card.

    Now Mexico pays for the wall because they are the wall.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 08:43:00 UTC

  • It all begins with the militia. We restore the militia, we have western civiliza

    It all begins with the militia. We restore the militia, we have western civilization. We end the militia we end western civilization. The militia constitutes the shareholders (owners) of the territory, capital, and institutions.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-23 19:15:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054813624303263744

  • Origins of Militia Obligation

    October 23rd, 2018 3:27 PM ORIGINS OF MILITIA OBLIGATIONThe origins of military obligation in England and can be traced to the ‘common burdens’ of the Anglo-Saxon period, among which was service in the fyrd, or army. [T]here is evidence that such an obligation existed in the Kingdom of Kent by the end of the 7th century, Mercia in the 8th century and Wessex in the 9th century, and the Burghal Hidage of 911–919 indicates that over 27,000 men could have been raised in the defence of 30 West Saxon boroughs. In the late 10th century, areas began to be divided into ‘hundreds’ as units for the fyrd. The obligation to serve was placed on landholders, and the Domesday Book indicates that individuals were expected to serve for approximately 60 days. The Norman conquest of England in 1066 brought with it a feudal system which also contained an element of military obligation in the form of the feudal host. This system supplemented rather than replaced the fyrd, which continued to be deployed until at least the beginning of the 12th century. The Assize of Arms of 1181 combined the two systems by dividing the free population into four categories according to wealth and prescribing the weapons each was to maintain. The first category corresponded to the feudal host, the next two corresponded to the old fyrd and the last to a general levy. The Statute of Winchester in 1285 introduced two more non-feudal categories to impose a general military obligation on all able-bodied males, including non-free, between the ages of 15 and 60, and updated the prescribed weaponry in the light of developments in warfare at the time.[2][3] Because it was not practical to call out every man, King Edward I introduced a system whereby local gentry were authorised to conduct commissions of array to select those who would actually be called for military service

  • Origins of Militia Obligation

    October 23rd, 2018 3:27 PM ORIGINS OF MILITIA OBLIGATIONThe origins of military obligation in England and can be traced to the ‘common burdens’ of the Anglo-Saxon period, among which was service in the fyrd, or army. [T]here is evidence that such an obligation existed in the Kingdom of Kent by the end of the 7th century, Mercia in the 8th century and Wessex in the 9th century, and the Burghal Hidage of 911–919 indicates that over 27,000 men could have been raised in the defence of 30 West Saxon boroughs. In the late 10th century, areas began to be divided into ‘hundreds’ as units for the fyrd. The obligation to serve was placed on landholders, and the Domesday Book indicates that individuals were expected to serve for approximately 60 days. The Norman conquest of England in 1066 brought with it a feudal system which also contained an element of military obligation in the form of the feudal host. This system supplemented rather than replaced the fyrd, which continued to be deployed until at least the beginning of the 12th century. The Assize of Arms of 1181 combined the two systems by dividing the free population into four categories according to wealth and prescribing the weapons each was to maintain. The first category corresponded to the feudal host, the next two corresponded to the old fyrd and the last to a general levy. The Statute of Winchester in 1285 introduced two more non-feudal categories to impose a general military obligation on all able-bodied males, including non-free, between the ages of 15 and 60, and updated the prescribed weaponry in the light of developments in warfare at the time.[2][3] Because it was not practical to call out every man, King Edward I introduced a system whereby local gentry were authorised to conduct commissions of array to select those who would actually be called for military service