Daniel Roland Anderson

Trader working on my edge, Geopolitics, Generational Theory/4th Turning, Natural Law, Eurodollar system, Dollar Milk Shake, ECLET, HIIT.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

You either understand this, and govern yourself accordingly, or you are not even in the game.

[Dandalf @DanTalks1]

This is the most ruthless post I have and probably will ever do. This is the intellectual skeleton key to turning the west around. There are a few posts will change your perception of the world, this is one of them.

There is no such thing as migrant crime. There is no such thing as migrant rapes, thefts, scams or murders.

Crime is when someone within your tribe or in-group violates the rules that your own tribe has created. These are not universals, rather idealized preferences that you have as a westerner in a western country. These are not "real", they are preferences to how you want your society to function.

Humans are tribal, we are not "individuals", we operate and require groups to function and succeed. That's why we have tribal instincts and tribal loyalties. Modern businesses hijack this with things like sports teams. But tribal loyalty and nationalism, which is its end derivative is the most powerful force in the world, because it quite literally is our survival mechanism. Without a tribe we cannot survive, so tribal instincts, after personal survival are our most powerful drivers.

Question is what is a "tribe". Look at your hand, that's your tribe. We are concentrically loyal. Family, race, religion, region, in that order and ideally homogenized.

Liberalism is a belief and an attempt to universalize the western tribe to everyone. And if everyone is subject to the standard, they are subject to both access and protection within that standard.

White westerners are not exempt from this. This underlying fact is the one thing everyone tries to gloss over. But it is the underlying truth about how the world really is. The world is anarchic, what that means is there is no higher authority in the system. We form governments as a result of our tribal loyalties, to represent and organize ourselves as a tribe. That's what a "nation" is. It's the formalized structure of a tribe of people.

Survival is our highest goal, and violence is a very effective way of getting resources for yourself and tribe. It's literally Cain vs Abel in the bible. Because the world is anarchic, the underlying structure behind the resolution of tribal disputes is to be resolved by violence.

"Migrants", or people who are not from your tribe, are not subject to your standards or ideals. They have no responsibility to adhere to your standards, ideals or values. Their goal is to maximize their own and their tribe's resources and power. With whatever means possible, including violence.

When a Pakistani clan drugs and invites everyone over to have sex with a young white girl. This is not rape. It's not gang rape. Rape, and gang rape are crimes done within your own tribe. This is inter-tribal violence. There are no rules in inter-tribal violence. This is the outcome of losing an ideological war and not understanding the primal structure of the world correctly. THEY ARE NOT YOUR TRIBE. They are not subject to your standards.

When they kill 20 people in an attack at an event. This is not murder. Murder is an intra-tribal crime. This is inter-tribal conflict where they have been given access, by our own leaders to do this to you. They are predators, this is how the real world really is. These are the monsters behind the walls we worked many generations to construct.

When a foreigner scams you out of money. This is not stealing. This is inter-tribal resource acquisition. They are taking resources from rival tribes. It's only fraud and theft if you believe they are apart of your tribe.

THEY DO NOT THINK THIS. They do not want to be apart of your tribe, they seek to dominate, abuse and exploit you for the benefit of theirs.

Western culture has universalized our system of ethics and protection to everyone. When they have not done the same to you.

And here is the line I repeat to everyone. "Those who are not subject to ethics, are not subject to the protection of ethics.".

Read that line as many times as you need, internalize it. Free yourself from the constrains of the propaganda levied upon you, that is what will free you. They are rival tribes, and in inter-tribal conflict. There are no rules except victory.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@RogueLou18 @BigBicNick Projection.

If you’re immoral, you project that onto all of society and govern yourself accordingly.

These people wreck the world.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@oldstatemark They’re making it happen.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@TmthyPatrick @curtdoolittle Obtuse sissy.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

He thinks the First Amendment protects liars, because that has become the main effect.

No. The 1A protects free TRUTHFUL speech.

@curtdoolittle is likely correct that we will have to amend the amendment to deal with professional liars.

[JasonCoombs.CEO❤️🤓💰 @JasonCoombsCEO]

Lying is protected by the First Amendment also. Civil litigation may commence but the government cannot prosecute. When they do bring charges it is unconstitutional and must be overturned on appeal, as this case will be. ⚖️

The more important factor here is that “MILLIONS” of dollars DOES NOT MOVE THE MARKET IN THE STOCKS TRADED AND ANALYZED BY @CitronResearch

When the market came for Andrew, when Wall Street Bets criminally-manipulated the price to short-squeeze the hedge funds and Citron, successfully causing truly huge losses and with the intent to do so because Wall Street Bets tried on purpose to cause harm to the short-sellers, maliciously, in a manner completely unlike what the sellers hoped they would cause by correcting the market with discipline and other narratives, the manipulation to the upside was much more criminal-adjacent than anything Left did or said. Speaking about this phenomenon as he did, adapting to it by going long instead of short, was protected speech and lawful action, full stop. 🛑

To express privately a sincere disbelief and frustration that the market was being forced higher by liquidating all the hedge funds and targeting the short-sellers, and to genuinely believe the only way to make money today is to publish a short report and never sell, because the mob of trading desks worldwide (not retail investors, the global trading desks are the ones behind the moves) will fat-finger every stock higher as soon as the short report comes out, and to trade for survival in this market bubble, was never criminally-motivated.

The prosecutor’s private emails would likely reveal they were pressured to find a way to prosecute. Freedom of Information Act requests should be filed. Until we see the full truth of the political motivation behind this prosecution there’s no way to fully understand it and petition Congress to solve its rogue prosecutor problem.

The @VP should never be able to put her finger on the scales of justice to prosecute anyone, despite the Executive Branch function of @TheJusticeDept it should be a crime for a former prosecutor-turned-VP to influence any criminal investigation or any prosecutor. Influencing the judge is valid and reasonable, by comparison. Attempts to influence the Judiciary through ordinary transparent public service on behalf of constituents are not corrupt acts.

Any influence from the Executive over DOJ prosecutorial discretion looks corrupt. No matter the outcome of this case we need to fix that systemic flaw to protect everyone in the future.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

You really are a dense one, aren’t you?

My opinions don’t have the weight of law.

Your opinions don’t have the weight of law.

Any moron can tell you what the Supreme Court says ABOUT the law.

So you are qualified to tell me what the court said. Because qualify as a moron. Barely.

What you are NOT interested in discussing the text of the constitution—and you haven’t.

Because you are a moron who thinks what judges say about the law is the same thing as the law.

Now it’s your turn to say the same thing you keep saying because you can’t get your head around this distinction.

So, go ahead.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@RogueLou18 Wait.

He wants sympathy because he’s mourning the child he had killed?

Does he read his own posts before he hits send?

The moral inversion is jarring.

He’s not cruel for killing a child.
People are cruel for saying he’s cruel.

This kind of moral reasoning is too common.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@sarahadams @GoatInitiative CIA and MI6 created Al-Qaeda.

I would expect you to know what they’re doing.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@IDSurvivalPrep @TRHLofficial Wow.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

Well, no shit dummy.

I’m talking about the law.

You’re talking about what judges say about the law, because your are too damn dense to discuss the law.

That’s what I’m trying to get through your thick skull.

My mistake. I keep telling myself you’re not an idiot.

I stand corrected.

You are an idiot.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@RogueLou18 (It’s a real quote!)

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@TmthyPatrick @curtdoolittle You keep saying the thing, and it’s still showing your confusion about the issue.

Case law is what judges say about the text.

The text is the law. Case law is what judges say about the law.

You can’t get your head around this difference.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@sarahadams You mean the CIA is busily working on executing false flags using people they paid and trained?

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@wayofftheres Mother Africa is calling.

They’ve had 400 years. I think we have the results of this little experiment.

Justice Thomas is the exception that proves the rule.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@RogueLou18 Medical professionals will kill for profit.

Legal and law enforcements professionals will do it for fun and profit.

And both groups want us to treat them like they win the Medal of Honor daily.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@TmthyPatrick @curtdoolittle You are confused.

Let me help you.

What judges say about the law stands on a lower footing than the law.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

You’re starting to get it.

Now try to absorb this:

“Lies are protected speech,”

Protected by what?

Lies are protected by legal holdings that incorrectly interpret the term “speech” to include untruthful speech.

Curt is correct that constitutional amendment is going to be necessary to correct this error.

But don’t tell me that it inevitably had to be this way because the “law” demanded it.

It got to be this way because courts failed to develop the jurisprudence in a way that protected speech by punishing lies.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

Once again, you’re right.

LBJ knew exactly what was going on, and gave orders that made sure no help arrived, and that the attack was covered up.

Israel operates within a larger imperial system. Trump is dismantling that system.

It’s a process.
And it can go south.
But it happening.

Now, please tweet you comment about self-deportation at Auron.

https://t.co/UdLy8YG03i

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

Prosecutors who push these cases should be prosecuted for conspiracy against rights.

Judges that don’t refer these prosecutors to the state bar should be prosecuted as co-conspirators.

The “presumption of regularity” has swallowed the presumption of innocence. And the process is punishment.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@lindgrenowitz @muddywatersre @AndyBradley93 https://t.co/0HcNRQ8YsG

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

Following CS Lewis’ advice on avoiding Bulverism, the older of operations is to demonstrate “that” he is wrong before moving on to explain “why” he is wrong.

You did, because applying IRAC structure, i.e. engaging in in legal analysis, and not braying like a donkey: the Issue is whether any reasonable juror could conclude on this evidence that the defendant violated the law.

In the evidence you present in this post, the reader gets to decide if the answer is “yes.”

I say obviously.

Moving on to: Why does he walk past this evidence to try to convince the reader that the jury was unanimously unreasonable?So unreasonable it’s no wonder Kir Starmer wants to get rid of them!

Why?
Because he needs the issue to be whether the defendant created enough evidence of plausible deniability—instead of whether the prosecution provided enough evidence for a reasonable conclusion.

The law says the issue is the latter.

He needs the issue to be the former.

I think lawyers that argue like this have violated their duty of candor to the tribunal, and should be disbarred.

I think they should do time for the federal crime of conspiracy against rights. And if a judge doesn’t refer the case to the state bar, that judge should be prosecuted as a co-conspirator.

And then disbarred.

This is the kind of stuff that wrecks the system.

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

@muddywatersre @AndyBradley93 @lindgrenowitz https://t.co/0HcNRQ8YsG

[Daniel Roland Anderson @DRolandAnderson]

Following CS Lewis’ advice on avoiding Bulverism, the older of operations is to demonstrate “that” he is wrong before moving on to explain “why” he is wrong.

You did, because applying IRAC structure, i.e. engaging in in legal analysis, and not braying like a donkey: the Issue is whether any reasonable juror could conclude on this evidence that the defendant violated the law.

In the evidence you present in this post, the reader gets to decide if the answer is “yes.”

I say obviously.

Moving on to: Why does he walk past this evidence to try to convince the reader that the jury was unanimously unreasonable?So unreasonable it’s no wonder Kir Starmer wants to get rid of them!

Why?
Because he needs the issue to be whether the defendant created enough evidence of plausible deniability—instead of whether the prosecution provided enough evidence for a reasonable conclusion.

The law says the issue is the latter.

He needs the issue to be the former.

I think lawyers that argue like this have violated their duty of candor to the tribunal, and should be disbarred.

I think they should do time for the federal crime of conspiracy against rights. And if a judge doesn’t refer the case to the state bar, that judge should be prosecuted as a co-conspirator.

And then disbarred.

This is the kind of stuff that wrecks the system.