This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Founding Fathers Guaranteed Freedom of the Press … Even For Bloggers
Image by William Banzai
The First Amendment to the Constitution provides:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The powers-that-be argue that freedom of the press only applies to large, well-heeled corporate media. For example, the Nation noted last year:
When the Department of Justice rolled out new policies intended to “strengthen protections for members of the news media” this summer, it wasn’t clear who belonged to the “news media.” Other DOJ documents suggest a narrow application to professional, traditional journalists. (The DOJ did not return a request to clarify the agency’s definition of “news media.”) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide excludes bloggers from the news media, along with “persons and entities that simply make information available,” like Wikileaks. These policies are guidelines, not directives, but as the Freedom of the Press Foundation points out, they are “part of a broader legislative effort in Washington to simultaneously offer protection for the press while narrowing the scope of who is afforded it.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein argued for an amendment that would have restricted the shield to salaried journalists. “Should this privilege apply to anyone, to a seventeen year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for five dollars and starts a blog? Or should it apply to journalists, to reporters, who have bona fide credentials?”
(This is a silly distinction, given that many of the world’s top experts have their own blogs. And as the non-partisan First Amendment Center notes: “Traditional reporters now blog daily, and prominent bloggers show up in traditional media.”)
But the Free Speech and Free Press Clauses of the First Amendment don’t distinguish between media businesses and nonprofessional speakers (see this, this, this and this).
And the courts have ruled that the freedom of the press applies to everyone who disseminates information … not just giant corporate media companies who can afford to pay “salaries”.
For example, the United States Supreme Court has consistently refused to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers:
- In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court described freedom of the press as “a fundamental personal right” that is not confined to newspapers and periodicals
- In Lovell v. City of Griffin (1938), the Chief Justice of the Supreme court defined “press” as “every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”
- First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) rejected the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by” non-institutional-press businesses
- In Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001), the court could “draw no distinction between the media respondents and” a non-institutional respondent
Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. The Court held:
The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist.
And the First Circuit agrees. As Gigaom reported in 2011:
One recent appeals court decision specifically referred to the fact that the ability to take photos, video and audio recordings with mobile devices has effectively made everyone a journalist — in practice, if not in name — and therefore deserving of protection.
In the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, released just a few weeks ago, the judges pointed out that the First Amendment’s protection for freedom of the press “encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information,” and that citizens have the right to investigate government affairs and share what they learn with others. Judge Kermit Lipez also specifically noted that these protections don’t just apply to professional journalists. He said in his decision:
[C]hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders [and] and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
The First Amendment Center correctly notes:
The purpose of the free press clause of the First Amendment was to keep an eye on people in power and maintain a check on corruption.
Supreme Court justices Black and Douglas explained in their concurring opinion in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971):
In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people.
Indeed, the Founding Fathers made this clear even before the Revolutionary war started. Specifically, the Continental Congress – the legislative body of the Founding Fathers – wrote in 1774:
The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.
These are the invaluable rights that form a considerable part of our mild system of government; that, sending its equitable energy through all ranks and classes of men, defends the poor from the rich, the weak from the powerful, the industrious from the rapacious, the peaceable from the violent, the tenants from the lords, and all from their superiors.
These are the rights without which a people cannot be free and happy, and under the protecting and encouraging influence of which these colonies have hitherto so amazingly flourished and increased. These are the rights a profligate Ministry are now striving by force of arms to ravish from us, and which we are with one mind resolved never to resign but with our lives.
In other words, the Founding Fathers understood that people who stand up to “oppressive” government officials are to be zealously protected … because “shaming” corrupt, powerful people “into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs” is the only way to preserve liberty, justice and prosperity, and to remain “free and happy”.
Postscript: Unfortunately, the American government's current treatment of the press is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended: persecution of real reporters who expose government corruption and support for government lapdogs and apologists.
- advertisements -
You might be right on the facts, or you might be wrong (the link is to the site of a conservative who despises Obama...)
That is a similar tactic of OBOTS-- i.e citing an OPINION of someone else as fact. The FACT is that Obama has told us that Obama Sr. is his father. If that is not true then he has other problems. That writer is relying on CONJECTURE, and giving Obama an excuse.
The FACT is that natural born Citizens are born in the US of US Citizen parents. That is the only possible definition that lines up with the stated purpose of the requirmement--- national security-- to prevent foreign influence. It is also the only definition of the exact term "natural born Citizen" from US original Common Law (law of nations-- see Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain) which was adopted by the United States at the founding.
So you're saying that you don't trumpet the fact that Obama is not eligible because Frank Marshall may be his father? Pretty wimpy premise, and not logical. Or maybe you are protecting Obama and acting as a steam vent.
Those like you are particularly dispicable because you protect him under the guise of something else. Get a Clue and grow some balls you coward. Right now you are protecting the domestic enemy Usurper.
I've repeatedly called for Obama to be impeached
He does not need to be impeached, he can be REMOVED due to "INABILITY" (Constitutional disability--See Amendment 12, the 25th Amendment, 3 US Code 19, and A2S1C6). The precedent cannot be set that Obama is an eligible natural born Citizen.
The Senate will never IMPEACH Obama because the cretins in that body are protecting their own treason in allowing Obama to be POTUS.
Calling for impeachment is certainly not the same as INFORMING THE PUBLIC of the Constitutional disaster that has removed their sovereignty. Especially when it will never happen. Public knowledge of Obama's ineligibility is Obama's kryptonite, and you and others have done nothing in that regard.
There is no excuse GW. You are a coward.
Who will remove him, if not by impeachment? The courts? The opinion of 51+% of the people? What mechanism will be used?
Will Hillary Clinton - who was clearly born in the USA - be any better? Was Bush?
Regardless of what one thinks of it, the Constitution is the "law of the land." Despite the DC US' criminal disregard of it, it is the "law of the land."
The Constitution is important because as the "law of the land," it is the standard which we can and should use to judge the criminals of the DC US.
If we become sidetracked by divisions as to what form to restore the American country, we will become divided and and allow the the criminals of the DC US to continue to rob and enslave us.
We can debate and argue after they are gone and the American country is restored about what form of government we want for ourselves.
"Save the fight for the criminals not each other."
Refer to many of my previous posts for details.
-----
The following terms are ALL FICTIONS, and therefore have no real referrents in the real world: government, authority, official, nation, law. These are ALL fictions, meaning, they do not exist.
If you have problems with this, go back and read my past messages, where I explain why clearly.
Seriously. No sane individual can possibly claim that a group of individuals can smear ink on paper (write a document), then smear more ink on paper (in the shape of their names/signatures at the bottom)... and thereby obligate endless other individuals to obey the provisions in their document.
I mean... any such claim is utterly, totally, completely, logically and clinically insane in the most fundamental possible way... and obviously so.
So terms like "law of the land" are pure nonsense, unless the "land" you refer-to is limited to the inside of your house!
I do not consent to be governed... by anyone... ever.
honestann, I have referred to many of your previous posts. Just because there are legal fictions, in the form of legalized lies, does NOT mean those do not exist, and do not have energy in their existence.
Your kinds of sets of beliefs are only useful for your kind of lifestyle. In my view, honestann, you continue to be a typical reactionary revolutionary, who promotes old-fashioned forms of resistance.
My point is that the history of warfare selected for social organizations which had their own energy, in the form of that organization, which really existed as a sum greater than any of its parts. The tests of battle after battle, war after war, for thousands and thousands of years, selected for the kinds of organized lies, operateing robberies, which survived through that process.
Similarly, today, the reality one faces is the ability of organized groups to mobilize force to apply, contrasted to the less organized groups ability to do that. Governments are the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, because that is what the tests of history, in the crucibles of conflicts, selected for them to become. Their systems of legalized lies, or FICTIONS, are existing things, which have their own inherent energy, which enables them to operate.
The people who get to "smear ink on paper and call it a constitution" were those who fought through real revolutions, and survived in order to do that. Their ability to write that constitution was forged on the battlefields, and consolidated by them winning their revolution. Upon that basis, they could continue to create a governmental system, such as enough of those there then would agree to.
The PROBLEMS today are that the technologies have become trillions of times more powerful and capable, which has made all of the previously selected for systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, become criminally insane systems. However, the deeper basis for how and why politics was perception continues to exist.
As George Washington wrote in his
Postscript:
the exact opposite
persecution of real reporters who expose government corruption
and support for government lapdogs and apologists.
As I always say,
Welcome to the Bizarro Mirror World!
In my view, honestann, you continue to be typical of those who only go through a few superficial levels of the lies which are different at every level. As stated in your post below, your alleged "atheism" is typical of that. You rightly rejected the privatization of God, but therefore, also rejected the mysticism which the word "God" attempts to indicate, by pointing asymptotically towards.
I regard Energy as Spirit. Since matter is superconcentrated energy, Everthing is Spiritual. That includes the systems of legalzed lies, backed by legalized violence, which we call "governments." The government of the USA has automatically looped through the processes of becoming dominated by too many successful criminal conspiracies for too long, so that it has become so entangled in its own systems of lies as to become excessively hamstrung by that. But nevertheless, human organizations have their own real energy which exists in that organization, which is greater than the sum of its parts, as individuals.
That is why I continue to say that the solutions to recognizing that the government is based on organized crime is to have government which is based on better organized crime. Such a thing would only become possible after a series of intellectual scientific revolutions, which matched the ways in which the "freedom of the press" is now the freedom of globalized electronic communications.
Globalized electronic communications were based on breakthroughs in the paradigms of science, which enabled those technologies. The discovery and development of electromagnetic radiation first came to human beings through pure mathematical physics. The eletronic gadgets which are common today would not exist without systems of thought such as quantum mechanics. We should change our metaphysics to correspond to our physics.
I'm reading through some older comments today RM, of people I like to keep tabs on, and in touch with (people worth reading and bothering with that is) and read your reply to Honestann.
I must say its a sophisticated and complex reply and an apt critique (though Ann is not quite so sure). I've also had this sort of discussion with honestann, several times, and I and you agree with the fundamentals of what she says. But the deeper reality as you put it, is that the organization is there, emerging from the fictional concept that grew from past actions and consensus. Unfortunately 'emergent properties' is a problem for Ann, but as Ann knows (or should know) emergent material properties certainly do emerge in unexpected ways. There are numerous physical examples of property and configuration changes originating from unexpected resonances. Does not thinking unfamiliar thoughts emerge new electrical configurations and dynamic patterns within the brain? Or do we insist that the brain is just the sum of individual connections of a dead brain? Is life itself not an emergent property of matter, that if you were an inorganic consciousness and had not encountered organic life before, would such a life have predicted it would emerge from weathered rocks?
And to say a 'fictional' thing does not physically exist is not actually correct.
We know of these fictions via the physical electro-chemical patterns the concept generates within the brain (and I do not conclude chemical action of matter is the total mechanism of thought - I don't know and nor does anyone else so far), so at that level the fiction is bought into real and physical existence by the thought, so it is in fact not immaterial. And thus the fiction has a physical effect on the real material cosmos, in a form.
Even a lie or concerted untruths exist, due to their own emergent implications and effects and the mental impact these have on other minds. These fictions are all designed to engender effect, primarily submission, control and manipulation into subservience - a soft pliable efficient consensus govt control being the desired least systematically problematic result.
I love the simplicity of Honestann's view and refusal to accept that even a fiction has its place in 'reality' (which I will show is the same thing) but I also have tried to point out that fictions do still impart an existence by their mental effect and electro-chemical expression (which is always variable and not-discrete or objectively defined, so it is indeed a perception, and thus personal).
I tried (mostly successfully) to point out to a forum discussion, over a decade ago, the non-existence of all objects. That these were entirely a mental construct defined by apparent sensory limitation. That if the limitations and parameters of the sensors were set differently when we made the definitions, then we would then have set the boundaries and 'defined' objects differently also, and our processing 'conclusions' would have often varied from what our human senses would conclude, but still have appeared entirely logical.
So the objects are in fact not objective, at all, but are purely subjective and undifferentiated and implicitly variably imagined from varying sensory capacities.
From this 'perception' from sensory limitations, and input types, a 'definitional' construct and symbolism is built up, in this case strung together verbiage from alphabetic symbols, as a tool to sort and process the apparently 'real' object classes which are in no way real or absolute objects. A different spectral and spacial sensor looking at the same 'object' will produce entirely different thematic boundaries and classifications of an 'object'. As Honestann is an astronomer, I know she thoroughly understands that.
So the definitions of physical objects are defined by variable senses and conveyed to others by symbols, which innately are all imagined and abstracted, as thematic boundaries and squiggles and verbal utterances of the 'mind' alone, so the thematic classification of objective thought has no physical reality or expression outside of the cranium of a human perceiver of the sensations or interpreter of the conveyed symbols representing that object they have never really seen.
And that is clearly true, objectivity is thus entirely subjective, without exception, so 'objectivity' is verbal abstract trick of the memory and the memory's ability to interpret what was conveyed to it in definitions relayed by symbols. But the receiving mind in the conversation of information may never have actually directly seen the imagined and conveyed 'object', but can use the definition to interpret what the conveyor may mean sufficiently to conduct an entirely meaningless abstract conversation about what they imagined was meant.
So all objects in objective thought are in fact imagined fiction and have no physical reality even if the definitions are of a physical feature in material reality.
A commenter in that forum also pointed out that electro-chemically within the brain the interpreted definition did exist as a physical pattern, as it has an electrochemical pattern of expression in the physical brain. However, even that is variable as the memory changes with time, it is not constant, memories often evolve and degrade. The effect of nostalgia being over rated is often cited to show this. And anyone who re-reads an old journal will notice how their current memory can vary from the way if was written down so after the events in the journal.
So even the abstract patterns in the brain are not discrete, and the objects and events are not clearly defined with time, and the definitions of 'objects' can and do evolve.
So the fine objective distinctions that Honestann makes within her brain are also producing these on a basis of strung-together actual fictions, that exist in her cranium and not outside of it . I'm not entirely sure she'll ever agree to that, or rather see that its the case, but being the honest person she aspires to I expect she'll examine it.
My own view is that nothing objective exists, at all, that every objective category is entirely imaginary and that includes both the conception of 'fact' and 'fiction'. They are fundamentally the same thing at the abstraction conveyance level level as both are imagined and abstractions.
Logic clearly works only where definitions are exact and consistent (why sciences have its own dictionaries and formal definitions) and where subjective extension to continuous linkage with everything else is at least mentally absent in the analysis.
So we use symbols to define a limit (i.e. we invent 'finite' where there is physically none outside of a cranium) and in that way we can execute and process logic.
In other words, without the cerebral concept of finite limits, logic can gain no traction for objects do not exist if there is no finite, and thus objective thought is likewise rendered inoperable. Without definition and the fiction of objects logic has no meaning and though can not occur. So the very process of thinking is the process of cerebral 'finite' abstraction.
Which is more simply stated that if we don't mentally create the mother-of-all-fictions, namely 'finite', within an actual infinite space, then we can not think at all. So logic and objectivity are both innately limited by finite, and can never define the understanding of the unlimited, which is what is really the physical basis in which the human brain/mind developed.
So even the 'real' object is also not real, and that objective logic is innately based on subjective discrimination of a personal nature, and entirely determined by where we self-select to draw the boundary around things we process. Nevertheless it imparts are tremendous sense of right and wrong 'answers' to any logically and objectively valid question, with a cerebral physical 'reality' the reference and measure of what is deemed to be 'true' or 'false', within the defined bounds.
I suppose RM, that we differ in the sense that you (rightly) point out that religion points toward something real, and not necessarily to deity or religion, as such. The difference is that I say it refers to something entirely physical, and that the 'spiritual' beyond the veil concept is surplus to requirement, as the concept of spirit is in fact related to a perception in the physical brain.
I can say (with no evidence) from DIRECT experience, that infinity is physical, it is this that we are and we are not something else, not something unseen or 'ethereal', for want of a better word. Much of the problem of metaphysics is this retreat from the unintelligible physical perception to the imaginary realm of unseen ethereal non-physicals, to account for the seemingly impossible or inexplicable (Honnestann and I entirely agree in this).
On the contrary, infinity by definition lacks any sort of lack, so there is no need for a beyond infinity, and of course there is nothing but infinity.
It's everything, complete, all inclusive, and plainly it's a physical/ material/energy domain and abstraction and imagination is the action of matter within it, which can be true or false, inconsistent or consistent, it does not matter which. Objective thought is always imaginations recorded in recallable memory, and that is how every communication is constructed, voiced and interpreted and repied to.
And I do not suppose that we're meant to understand why it is this way, but we can delineate what we don't understand in very great detail. But we must not mistake that detail and complexity of grasp of it for an understanding. There is no primary understanding in objective thoughts, there is just the abstracted appearance of understandings.
When we objectively converse you will interpret what you think I mean, and when you reply to it, I will interpret what I think you mean, but our objective definitions will always vary to some unknown degree, therefore communication NEVER OCCURS at any point in any conversation.
Only interpretation is possible in conversations so conveyance of the real meaning of anything I say in objective description always fails to convey to some unknown and constantly varying extent. I can say the exact same thing twice and you will end up with two variable interpreted meanings of what I said.
So meaning comes from the listener and not from the speaker. So every conversation is you interpreting via your own knowledge, so you are not hearing my meaning at all, you are hearing yours.
So we have a resulting illusion of 'communication' in which I mutually manipulate concepts in words to seem like we properly and fully understand each others conversational meaning.
We are doing it right now, and we can do it pretty well sometimes, but it is our own indirect interpretation, and not a direct communication.
But the objective mind (i.e. subjective mind) that creates the personal boundaries and defined bounds as concepts and their logical linkage, is never satisfied with that, and almost no one even realizes that t is what really constitutes abstract conversing. Conversation is interpretation. And this is 99.999% of the problem the objective mind and human interactions have. Namely, the complete absence of actual communication. At best we can only use the same definitions to swap the same concepts and terms, which means the novel is impossible.
But if I or or you have a unique experience that exceeds the capacity to define, then communication then completely fails, even if the unique experience is entirely physically real. So you then have no way of knowing what it really is. I can describe with metaphors and prose but you will still have no idea what it is, so anything genuinely unique is thus impossible to convey by a conversation.
But besides this the problems we 'discuss' in detail are actually all ARTIFICIAL, and you know I only use that word with the greatest of reticence. But in this case it's the correct usage. We're cognitively injecting something entirely foreign and imaginary and unreal into 'existence' then festering over it's interpreted products and ramifications, continuously, and more-or-less pointlessly fret.
That's what we're doing all the time when we think of problems 'objectively'.
And the hopeless banality and truth of that is way too much for the thinker of this pure abstraction nonsense, that is thought, to bear.
Even if we can reason it out and see this is so we still can't face that the self-aggrandized tool of the human thinker is in fact a fake mind, an arbitrary subjective construct with no capacity to see or converse directly or in any novel way to anyone else. We either think the same objects and definitions or else we cant anymore pretend to 'understand', when all we have ever understood is what we were taught to define, and how to link and relink definitions, to appear to "make rational sense". To make it seem like we are clever an not just good with snappy connections of complex definitions, where any word can have several definitions, depending on usage.
It's all game the thinker fake-mind plays to seem very smart, but it has nothing new it can tell anyone and not way to convey it. And when you read that all you have is your personal interpretation from your own knowledge of the alphabetic symbol arrangement I put on the screen in front of your eye scan.
So instead the objective thinker invents a cocoon of complex distractions and fictions to avoid itself all of the time, at all costs, for to face its own true activity directly would be to lose one's mind and identity, and that could be debilitating and perhaps non-survivable, or so we profoundly and instantly FEAR. And of course it's just the other way around.
And to write the above I must use the inventive artifice of finite, a MOTHER-OF-ALL-FICTION to construct an objective logically reasoned statement of the problem.
Naturally I don't expect a fake mechanism of verbiage and symbol to ever 'solve' the entirely artificial 'problems' of the imaginary fake-mind, the educated mind, and of course as I've already pointed-out, it's too much for most people to bear. To instantly grasp that there's no objective truth at all. That it also is complete fiction, based on the very same mother-of-all fictions and delusions inventing physical limits and boundaries around 'objects', within the skull.
None of it exists. But in the cranium of the trenchant user of the finite-based defined construction it has its own wicked and indisputable and compelling, as well as logically-consistent 'reality', that's so difficult to escape from, and totally easy to abandon in an instant.
In the case of Honestann she can only think the way she does if she presumes limits and boundaries are absolute and real, and that distinctions between fiction and real does exist. She hasn't realized yet they don't and that would be shattering for most people (but I know how pragmatic and thoroughly accepting she is of new information and analysis).
I said above the words, "Although logic clearly works only where definitions are exact and consistent, and where subjective extension to continuous linkage with everything is mentally absent" But on the contrary the actual mind of a human being only works at a non-fake level when subjective extension and continuity is mentally present.
I am not kidding here nor being in any way metaphysical, I'm being 100% literal and entirely direct, speaking of the actual mind of every man and woman alive today.
And thus totally unintelligible to the finite-based fake-mind interpretive process.
I doubt any of this fits comfortably with Honestann's mental conception of how her R&D team's artificial-mind could operate but I would suggest (in advance) that her team's production(s) will generate a limited partial entirely finite-based version of the human mind, and not the reproduction of a more-adaptive and faster true human mind, because a part of the human mind does operate with no regard to inventing its own finite - without objective definition.
And this not imaginary, Ann, quite the contrary, it's the only thing that isn't imaginary in all of human perception.
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with metaphysics or any such thing, it's entirely physical and apparently a normal part of the organism - and is rarely apparent or obvious (nor developed) in most people. Some people are tall, some short, some sexy, some ugly, and some have this and some not so much.
All I know for 100% is that we all have this non-finite based mind already. There is no healthy human being who does not already have the innate capacity to some degree, right now. For most it goes completely unnoticed or undiscovered and is completely non-communicable in symbols to another.
Consequently it is rendered entirely personal (but not due to any lack of trying to convey it).
I think it is this aspect of the mind that original produced the word and objective ill defined meaning of "sacred", i.e. the mind operation of a physical human, that is literally minus finite and is thus 'sacred' and rendered a seemingly 'divine' secret, but only because it can not be talked about and conveyed in any sensible way via the finite-based symbolic defined constructs and associated interpretive mechanism of the listeners or readers.
It is my view that this entirely real and incomprehensible feature of the actual human mind is probably (apparently) present in a small segment of the population, and this lead to rare verbal and oral 'descriptions' (interpretations) of it that were then entirely contorted and misunderstood by the finite-based mind, and the finite-based mind over time then turned these alleged 'teachings' into a revered scripture of "holy" men, and 'religion' and 'spiritualism' and 'mysticism' inevitably developed and it generally degenerated from there.
All of which I reject as nonsense.
This is part of the human mind. It is a part of that mind because this mind is the direct product of this infinity, and is its real and most poignant and crucial operation and processing mode, the sudden unexpected absence of the finite-based mind.
That has been called 'enlightenment', or else receiving a 'holy spirit', and many other totally silly verbal conceptual rationalizations, but nevertheless there is no escaping that infinity has both life and mind from physicality, and I will categorically say that thought is not the actual mind of man and woman. And for this reason the mystique and undertones of that were probably unavoidable through historical times. And despite my own scientific training and indeed due to it, I have no hesitation in suggesting we need to recognize this exists, it is a part of humanity, and it is novel for some, but incomprehensible for most.
Who can objectively accept that?
Thus it isn't.
But I will state that we have a brain with at least two main operating modes possible, and these can operate simultaneously, a finite-based though process and an actual-based direct mind which like the actual existence that made it, has no boundary, and can not be described, conveyed and understood by anyone not experiencing it.
It does not think, it is DIRECT, there is no interpretation layer, no definition layer, no logical object sorting or connection, no analysis or 'processing'. Concepts of value and utility are utterly irrelevant, its process is without words and it needs nothing.
It is literally us.
It is a part of life, like a pleasant walk, tasty food, a broken leg, or an orgasm with a beautiful partner or the perfect sunset. It is the core of us, the moderator that keeps the finite-based abstraction process in check, in its rightful place as a survival tool of the actual mind, and the boss and controller of nothing at all.
So I'm reduced to necessarily using this finite-based fake called 'thought', to describe this common higher capacity of your mind's potential operating modes which you already possess and express to some degree, in order to make an argument that this is real, that you will simply interpret from you knowledge as nonsense.
So of course it's going to sound like nonsense, particularly as I have no way at all of proving any of it (not that I care to). So I say this as a CAUTION to you to point out that the finite process no matter how clear and careful you are with it, is intrinsically a process based on the mother of all illusions and delusions - the invention of 'finite' where there is none at all.
And to more specifically point-out that even if you are not explicitly aware of this, right now you already have a capacity of mind that is far beyond the potential of the alleged superior and quite well developed thinking process you use now. RM and Honestann both have a natural talent for thinking that both have honed further in life.
And I would say that you should expect this and not be surprised by the discovery of the total reality of what I've tried to put in some sort of words above.
And you should also understand that humans have a lot more going for them than thinking, which we all agree they mostly do surprisingly poorly and only occasionally very clearly.
Most of your analysis of the present predicament(s) does not take this into account and nor can it, and thus the analysis is rendered more or less irrelevant as you may discover yourself. And this this losing of your mind (it assuming its real role and station) is the one thing that the thinker fears above all else, but for the thinker to assume its correct role as a tool of the actual mind and nothing more, then the mind must be lost and that actual mind's operation demolish it in literally a instant.
That is the only way the actual 'mode' of the human mind can finally (and most shockingly and suddenly) kick-in, all of its own volition, to reveal in the most startling way that it was there all along waiting for 'you', and your precious clever analytical mind to shut up and shutdown for a bit.
It is the ACTUAL MIND that we can develop to but we have become preoccupied with the finite-based tool-set instead, and it is driving us mad in our attempt to not be driven mad bu it, when the real answer is in fact to lose that mind and its problems, which is the option that mind is least likely to embrace at any point.
Hence the bind we are in.
Who said life was easy, eh?
Well development isn't easy or automatic either, like child birth its painful and traumatic and possibly fatal, and it takes unlimited determination and total commitment of being to get that first breath, that can then take you to something completely unexpected.
"But I will state that we have a brain with at least two main operating modes possible, and these can operate simultaneously, a finite-based though process and an actual-based direct mind which like the actual existence that made it, has no boundary, and can not be described, conveyed and understood by anyone not experiencing it."
In modern neurobiology it has been demonstrated that individual connections within the brain are constantly being removed or recreated, largely dependent upon how they are used. This synaptic "pruning" has been shown to be continuous even into old age. The brain is plastic and constantly in flux. So how is it possible to have a rational objective absolute come from the musings of such a cacophonous organ?
The rational part of the brain likes fixed delineations and reference points. Therefore when faced with a complex mathamatical problem, the area of most activity occurs in this part. The emotional brain on the other hand is extremely fast and can change states thousands of time faster than the rational part. The goal in my opinion is to link the two together rather than jumping from one to another. Some problems in life cannot be dealt with a rationally thought out solution. It takes the participation of the " irrational" emotion brain to unlock the secret. A union of the two opens the door to wisdom.
The world is not just a sequence of events along linear time as the rational brain tells us. It is really a kaleidoscope of millions of events occurring at one point of time. Essentially, we are sitting in a room with a thousands of TVs playing imparting information and we, due to our own inadequencies, can only view one at a time serially. When our capacity of receiving so much input is exceeded, we then move to judgement. We edit out the info selectively based on what we have accepted during our indoctrinization ( childhood). Once whittled down to an acceptable level and properly judged as agreeable, we feel safe. This is a dangerous state. The port cullis has slammed shut and all contrary ideas will be deflected . Growth arrests though this is rarely acknowledged by the individual.
I agree with your assessment that Objectivity is an illusion and a construct. That we are admonished as jurors to treat evidence presentated as objective fact has always caused an inner chuckle the four times I served on a jury. I did my best to keep my biases in check but how could I be completely objective? My life experiences and judgements would clearly play a part in my decision.
However, I do not agree there is no absolute Truth. Yes, truth is impossible to be fully realized as humans. However, I believe there is Spiritual Truth. I have been fortunate to have witnessed slight glimmers of God that has shown me there is more to the tangible physical reality that we experience and take such comfort. Yes, I must readily admit this was a personal experience and,therefore, anecdotal and Subjective. I am saddened and frustrated I cannot share that experience with anyone because it would have no meaning for them. You have shown clearly the adequacy of words to share knowledge and experience. The response is just a mirror of Self and communication is not ever achievable in the pure sense. One is left with silly words as " enlightenment" which imparts an altogether different connotation. The logical conclusion is we are, in essence, completely alone.
Miffed;-)
The rationalising mode is a single-channel linear processor with zero multi-tasking capacity, it can only switch between tasks, and usually is distracted from doing things thoroughly and completely when it does more then on task via switching focus, and thus becomes increasingly error-prone and faulty.
The effect of time as an instant is to say that material dynamics alone are 'time' in a 'space' (or 'fundamental field') and thus time has no meaning and conceptually is not needed, except as a marker of dynamic changes, when you measure change in something.
Measurement is objective, the very act of defining objects, the measurements are always less than infinity so the measurer is thus creating objective finite and objective time, where there is none at all.
Thus time 'travel' is codswallop, and if you look up the work dimension in an early 20th century dictionary (and I checked this out when trying to figure why on earth science theorists were effectively insisting dimensions literally exist materially - which of course they don't) it will say that, "A dimension is a measurement".
Thus dimensions are an artifact of the act of the objective measurer, and thus a detritus of the mother-of-all illusions and delusions. Which is of course necessary, given 'Time' is asserted to be one of the 'fundamental' physical dimensions which it plainly thus can not be. 'Dimensions' in space were invented as a reference-frame for measurements and navigation, just as 2D 'dimensions' allowed measurement and navigation in Latitude and Longitude, but on a sphere. But isn't a sphere 3D? Nope, but if you wanted to navigate through a sphere precisely your abstract reference needs 3D axis measurement. And if the sphere also rotates as you move in it, you'll also need to include this dynamic movement as 'Time', thus a '4th dimension' of measurement is needed to show of where you are. And we necessarily need to also include 'when' we are when where, with respect to the rotation rate (24 hours) of the sphere, to precisely project where and when we will be, on this course and speed.
And it's that simple, there are no dimensions in space, of any kind, there are only dimensions in the skull to humans, and only since we began navigating with naval-level precision. So how did that abstraction then get promoted out of all proportion to existence, into this cosmological delusion monster of time and stuff? Because cosmology began life as pure theory, pure abstraction, and no one wants to subsequently admit the cosmologists went a bit bonkers for the past 120 years. lol :D (yes Honestann, I do feel your pain babe)
And from this simple abstraction the cosmic 'string' theorists went totally spastic and asserted that dimensions were real and fundamental cosmological objective units of a finite-based 'infinity'.
Please, make it stop!! ... Is it not completely hilarious? They're such complete frickin' drop-kicks! lol :D
Don't you love what we've done to undermine ourselves with all this mental junk? lol :D
Fortunately new observation capacity still moves things ahead anyway despite the ludicrous theoretical phantoms no one has ever observed.
Yes, that is so when the reference point is viewing others 'objectively', the persona we interact with is an objective product so we are indeed rendered solitary, and the communication is always interpretive, so we really only speak and listen to ourselves when conversing with another. It's and intriguing trick we play, and difficult to grasp. Actual is personal also and also not personal at all, but certainly not communicable to another. This for me was maybe the hardest thing to get my head around when reasoning the situation out objectively, that the discovery of this is intrinsically a inviolate secret. That alone seems so peculiar and unfortunate, at first, because you want people to see this too, and even your closest can not.
No fair! lol
I've got to go do stuff, have fun miffed.
Thanks Element, you've given me a lot to cogitate and that is always a good thing. I will miss you and hope to see you here again some day. Best wishes always from just a simple person who knows she doesn't have all the answers as well as knows she couldn't control her destiny even if she did.
Humbly yours,
Miffed;-)
Well thought through reply, Element!
I liked these two passages best: "if we don't mentally create the mother-of-all-fictions, namely 'finite', within an actual infinite space, then we can not think at all." & "to write the above I must use the inventive artifice of finite, a MOTHER-OF-ALL-FICTION to construct an objective logically reasoned statement of the problem."
That is why I say that SUBTRACTION is the fundamental process.
Of course, that fundamental concept is paradoxical: "that is literally minus finite and is thus 'sacred' and rendered a seemingly 'divine' secret, but only because it can not be talked about and conveyed in any sensible way via the finite-based symbolic defined constructs and associated interpretive mechanism of the listeners or readers."
What appears to me to be an astonishing social fact is that there has been some real progress in science and technology. However, most of that was accomplished by a tiny percentage of the population, while the rest never truly understood that, but rather, latched on to the newly developed tools to continue to do the same old stupid things, only more so! The most important feature of the current "civilization" is more and more fantastic special effects enabled by science and technology, still serving the purposes of telling the same old stupid social stories. I.e., the biggest bullies' bullshit socials stories pumped up to globalized electronic frauds, backed by the force of atomic bombs. However, the subtraction is never absolute, and so, the processes of robbery are never finished!
I surely hope you are right, Element, and I sort of believe you must be, no matter how impossibly paradoxical it is to try to "explain" that there are still flows of energy which we can not catch in any finite frame of reference, and yet are still there! As you attempted to express it: "mind is the direct product of this infinity."
Well given the inescapable fact that (ha, so silly using words to speak in absolute terms) every finite-based communication is really always an interpretation where the listener is referencing their own memories for the definition they feels fits-best and strings together to make the most rational 'sense' from the utterances and symbols presented to it, then clearly a fake-mind that can only do that, i.e. swap around the definitions and knowledge that it already has, has no residual capacity for anything novel or new to emerge from it.
So when the new and novel does emerge, as it does, it is logically not coming via the finite-manufacturing 'mind' of the 'thinker' at all, it is coming from that small fragment of humanity that have this mix in their personal makeup that gives them some level of occasional sourcing of the truly novel from the DIRECT and ACTUAL MIND.
The problem is this new ACTUAL brain mode does not last more than a few minutes (at least for me), it loses energy and slowly drops back to the thinker again. My guess is it's a bit like how an adrenal gland can put out a sudden surge that has a huge and immediate effect on the organism's fight or flight, and then it fades back to a normal level as that gland is being depleted. The human brain likewise seems to have a capacity limit to that 'mode'. And frankly, you rarely experience its full effect, most of the time it's far more subtle but still detectable.
That mode is where novel insight comes from.
The rest of 'smart' and 'cleverness' and high-IQ is all the fake-mind claiming extra cleverness via being the fastest and snappiest regurgitator of what's already in its memory, and how it can rearrange it on the fly, in seemingly clever and pseudo-'novel' ways. Then it claims this pseudo-novel process is true creative cleverness, when it's anything but. I did say the objective mind mode is a pretty darned pathetic item but that's where the sense of 'ego' and 'achievement' originates from in 99.999% of people. lols
But all of the memory that's engaged in that trick is mere objective definition of stuff that has already past and gone, and it was never actually real and objective anyway, mere abstraction representation within memory and not even objects, and thus is totally lacking in any creative aspect or capacity.
Nevertheless, every one has actual-mind to some degree but it is usually the small subset of inventive and most original 'thinkers' who actually exhibit it, simply due to their particular natural tendencies or mixture (and not via thinking at all, although they are often extremely well-developed at thinking as well, but not necessarily) who are glimpsing the effect of actual mind's impact and reverberations on the finite-based objective mind.
Actual mind has a way of triggering sudden rearrangement of the memorized definitions and energizes (for want of a much better word) generation of new definitions as required, to make verbal 'sense' of it and thus communicate novel ideas, that had first to be put into symbol and verbiage to try and get other people to interpret new meanings accurately in discussions.
That usually does not work though in practice, as 'normal' or "objective-only" people will not listen or learn, they are profoundly egocentric and extremely distracted by their fake mind's tinderbox of endless insane irrelevant utter trivia and drivel, that they like to parade around as new ideas and 'science' and stuff (did I say how hopelessly pathetic it all is in actual perspective, yet?).
So a working demonstration of a new principle or new technology even, or a novel experimental approach is what's needed to make the 'normal' regurgitating-mind to finally shutup and sit-up and pay attention to something new.
And in an age where big-science and big-apparatus and big-budget and money-grubbing regurgitating idiots dominates, then the genuinely novel creative person does not fit and is rapidly targeted for weeding-out. And frankly they will leave anyway.
The result is what we get - 'pathetic mode'. lol :D
My point though is not about that crap at all. It is to say to you (and Ann) that this ACTUAL mind is part of us. Objective opinion on that baseless claim is valid to the normal mind, and quite silly to the person who has encountered this routinely, but what can one do about that? Nothing but to say there's more, that the objective mind, as impressive as it's works are is NOTHING whatsoever, and never would have gotten this far, or anywhere near it, without the actual mind dragging its' sorry pathetic ass along, kicking and screaming all the way.
And to say a person can go entirely direct while fully alert and just walking along, doing nothing in particular, and at any moment it emerges, all by itself. And it instantly demolishes the toolbox-mind, the pseudo-mind in an instant as it comes into play for the first time, as you instantly see exactly what objective thought is, in the most tremendous relief, and literally how it operates, and it is absolutely pitiful and completely inadequate and only accurate within the strictures of its own self-imposed finite-based limitation.
But within that limitation it is extremely effective, compelling, logically, technically and mechanically, to aide and extend survival opportunities.
Beyond that it is rather useless and feeble, but we insist on trying apply it to tasks it can not address, and which are entirely beyond its limited scope and applicability. Hence what it often comes up with is wrong/nuts/daft, but appears otherwise entirely logical, viable and more-or-less 'correct'.
So I might struggle to put all the above into words, for another, and it looks decidedly weird and incomprehensible to most, I'm sure, but for me it instantly became the reference basis for normal operating perception.
The actual-mind demolishes the fake-mind. It did that in me many years ago now, and I would say it's the only thing in life that really matters to me, ever since. All birth, life, death, family, activity and the rigmarole of it all is dwarfed to almost insignificant nothings by the actual mind's startling unexpected discovery within yourself.
It is the only reason why I bother to point any one towards it and try to explain it 'rationally' and 'objectively' in plain English terms like this. There is nothing in it for me, except to be thought quite nuts. I'm OK with that though, as I don't reference with respect to what a finite-based mind 'thinks' of any of this and obviously I'm not interested in maintaining any semblance of credibility within some silly peer group. lol
I have no idea if anyone will ever be assisted to themselves, by such convoluted word-play, but maybe it can do something so that at least some may realize there's more to humans and to the mind, and to life and existence. That our lives and 'future' has much more going for it than we 'think' right now, or ever suspected through the mere constructions of thought in the interpretive memory-machine of the fake and quite dead (and often nuts and irrational) finite-based mind.
As for an 'artificial' consciousness which replicates the finite-based interpretative mind, good luck with that one, it would be equally susceptible to GIGO and delusion-creation, as every other finite-based organic 'tool mind', that we see all around us now, it would maybe just be more dangerous and unrelentingly adamant about its set of facts and conclusions. So you could never trust its output beyond the analytical and technical domains, but that's also pretty crucial right now. My supposition though is that people would then try to use it for what it can't do at all, but they would look at its logic and assume it can do it ... until it completely screws up.
But what would be really interesting is if it could via material existence alone, and not via programing or processing or parameter setting, go ACTUAL also? Now that would be genuinely staggeringly amazing and useful.
But I suspect actual mind is tied to organism and beyond mechanical replication but who knows, the matter of even an artificial mind would still be part of and inculcated within infinity. I don't know how actual-mind can be, as I don't know how it works and don't understand it in any respect and can't use objective analysis on it, so I can't see how anyone could ever grasp how to make one that operates at the flick of a switch.
But I have no doubt a finite-based pseudo-mind can be replicated and operate at the flick of a switch and will function based on the same mother-of-all that's fake.
And 99.999% of humanity would accept that it's the perfect mind, rather than a pseudo-mind, a trifling pathetic inadequate side-show and dismal shadow of the actual mind which they already possess and have never encountered.
This is why I've said to you that swapping the deck-chairs around in the external domain is not going to resolve things when the developmental issue is on the inside, and is so impaired that we can't leave it go any longer, and expect good and happy things to ensue. The human mind is in a state of arrested development and that arresting factor is the routine objective thought process, which is remedial, malformed and tragically incomplete, thus driving us to desperation and violent external reactions.
We are the cerebral equivalent of a fully-equipped healthy bird-of-prey that's fully satisfied with the limitations of walking to its perch on a distant mountain summit thank you very much.
If we're so concerned with honesty and truth then why are we so apparently mortified to face this and instead want to make and take every objective excuse possible, to not fly instead? ... Walkies!
{Sorry for poking fun at the whole situation that humans are cognitively in, it is serious but it all seems a bit hilarious to me these days when spelt-out in plain terms. :-) }
Your kinds of sets of beliefs are only useful for your kind of lifestyle. ...typical reactionary revolutionary...
I rarely talk about my beliefs, which is why people hate what I write. What I talk about is reality, which is why people hate what I write. Your attempt to avoid reality with nonsensical statements like the above only demonstrate your need to run off into the land of arbitrary abstract babblings that make you feel good. And as you clearly know, there is little if anything typical about me or my comments, and I am not a revolutionary, I am an avoider.
YOU are the reactionary revolutionary, you explicitly say you want to take over the control of the fictions, and be in control of the violence. I do not. It appears you can't see that everything you accuse me of is actually what you are guilty of. I wonder why?
Their systems of legalized lies, or FICTIONS, are existing things, which have their own inherent energy, which enables them to operate.
Of course everything is something, even fictions. A fiction is a mental-unit without referrent. The fiction is real... as a fiction, as a mental-unit. So, for example, the mental-unit we call "Santa Claus" is indeed a REAL FICTION in the sense that it is a REAL mental-unit in REAL brains. Nonetheless, I'm afraid I must reveal to you that this very real "Santa Claus" mental-unit does not refer to a real old man in a real white beard wearing a real red suit in a real toy factory at the north pole. Sorry, no such referrent... which makes the "Santa Claus" mental-unit a fiction.
Look, I'm sorry you're insane, and I'm sorry the rest of the world is insane too. I really am. It isn't entirely your or their fault, since the first 16 to 20 years of your lives is incessant claims that endless fictions are real. You can't tell the difference between real and fiction, even when someone clearly points out the difference, and I'm sorry about that. Go ahead and believe any nonsense other humans AND YOU YOURSELF invent to justify harming others... because that is precisely what you advocate, just like them.
I rejected god at age 4 because the notion that the universe was created (at all) is absurd, and especially that some old dude humanoid created the universe is worse than absurd. These were not the only reasons, but were sufficient. All mysticism is FALSE. On the other hand, mysterious is very cool, because it means something that I don't understand yet, which means fertile ground for exploration.
You call my ideas "superficial". You are completely mistaken. What they are is... fundamental. Someday maybe you'll understand how fundamentally different "superficial" and "fundamental" are... though I doubt it.
If you regard energy as a form of spirit, you are insane. I intend to stop answering any message from you that is not a direct reply to me, because I've communicated enough to know you are incapable of rational thought.
You say "everything is spiritual"... which proves you have everything backwards, just like most insane, wacko mystics. This too proves you are beyond hope.
So-called matter is a cyclic or AC configuration of [electromagnetic] energy. How exactly this configuration remains so stable is a very interesting question, but doesn't change the fact. I suppose this isn't too different from your "super-concentrated energy" characterization, so I won't complain too much about that.
The huge problem with the current predators-DBA-government is that they are better (in the sense of "more effective") organized crime than the previous generations of predators-DBA-government. Therefore, if you were to achieve "even better organized crime" to create a new generation of predators-DBA-government, that just means human life on earth is even worse. Therefore, you are just another predator on a huge power-trip, and therefore the enemy of every honest, ethical, productive, benevolent individual on earth.
Your so-called "series of intellectual scientific revolutions" sounds EXACTLY like what commies and other intellectual frauds claim to attempt to co-opt prestige from science.
The discovery of electromagnetic radiation requires only a simple lens, a prism, and a slit. This is NOT "mathematical physics" but pure observation with simple equipment (observational physics if you wish). To be sure, additional work was done in the field thereafter, and you can call that "mathematical physics" if you want.
I've spent my life as a scientist, engineer, inventor and product developer, so I know science better than you do (and better than almost all scientists too, because I understand the philosophy upon which valid science depends). So you don't have sufficiently advanced knowledge or understanding to lecture me about science or metaphysics. I've invented, designed and implemented a great many of those "gadgets" and devices and systems, all by myself.
-----
I think we should declare a truce. Through our exchanges I have learned that you are too far gone for anything I say to help you. And I think from your perspective might be the same towards me. So from now on I won't pollute your messages if you don't pollute mine. I am NOT here to have arguments. I am here to offer insights to the few individuals who might benefit from my insights. You are free to continue with your delusions.
"... a REAL FICTION in the sense that it is a REAL mental-unit in REAL brains ..."
YES! And, every Christmas season an army of fake Santa Clauses appear on the streets.
Similarly, the ideal of "Liberty" or "Democracy" may be a fiction, but nevertheless, IF that ideal can motivate and organize an army, or a revolutionary group to believe in that ideal, then that idea is REAL, in the sense that that fighting force fights better due to their belief in that idea.
I find you personally practical, perhaps, but barely "realistic" since you seem to deny that organized gangs, from the police and army on down, are organized by their beliefs in systems of lies, which therefore are IMPORTANT, especially because they specialize in using violence to back up their beliefs.
Warfare was the oldest and best developed social science, and warfare depended more on human organization than anything else, especially since the specialization of labour to make better weapons was part of that process. The mental conditioning that makes soldiers is an extremely important part of what they do. Such fighters are selected and trained, from boot camp on, to be able to function in their roles. That is all being done quite scientifically these days. However, it was tested and proven by the history of countless battles and wars throughout history.
Those organized gangs of killers are NOT going to miraculously disband and disappear. IF there is local social chaos, then one of the first things necessary is to recreate a local government, to try to protect against the other lower level organized crime gangs, or local warlord groups, that would then reappear, as soon as they had the opportunity to do so. In such circumstances, your individualism would not work well, since an isolated individual can not fight as effectively against even a small group.
Right now, you seem cruising on automatic, being able to still take for granted the sovereign law systems around you, which set up some rule of law. Those fictions still dominate your life, because they still dominate the lives of most of the people around you.
People fighting for ideals in the past were why there are some legal rights and freedoms built into the currently established legal systems. The current legal fictions are good in theory, given that everyone has some power to rob and to kill. Groups of people work through ways to have rules about that, and to enforce those rules. The paradoxical problems arise because nobody guards the guardians, and so, eventually, the sovereign ends up being unstable and insane ... like is now increasingly the case.
However, working towards a sane and stable sovereign, with a democratic rule of law, is still the best legal theory. It is tragic that the ruling classes have succeeded in dumbing down the masses of people so much that those people have become incompetent citizens. Their ancestors fought for their rights and freedoms, which they are allowing to be destroyed, bit by bit, such as the erosion in the freedom of the press worried about in this article above.
One of the most important things in the future is whether or not "freedom of press" on the Internet will be able to survive in anything like the form it is now. Personally, I doubt it. Therefore, honestann, I think that you are practically right that avoiding the unstable and insane abuse of sovereign powers is maybe the only thing which might be actually done. At present, the ideal rule of law is already almost totally destroyed. Too many people are political idiots. Therefore, I do feel somewhat foolish to continue to promote the notions that better organized crime is the path towards a better future, because there IS, and MUST BE, some form of government.
Relatively better government is relatively better combined money/murder systems, or better debt controls, backed by better death controls. Those are all essentially DE FACTO. There are chronic political problems inherent in the nature of life, which civilizations became expedient sets of solutions for. Those problems never disappear, as long as any human beings exist. There IS government, and there MUST BE government, because human beings ARE able to rob and to kill, and indeed, MUST rob and kill to live in the context of there being other human beings that also do that. Governments are the dynamic equilibria between different systems of organized lies, operating robberies.
It does not matter whether one thinks what those doing that say is bullshit, nevertheless, their lies organize their behavior. Furthermore, the only way to cope with that is to deal with it on its own terms. As long as there are any human beings surviving, there will continue to be politics, and some form of warfare, as well as domestic forms of coercions, which will continue to be politics by other means. Attempting to get away from that may be personally nice, and at present perhaps more practical, but it has no theoretical merit whatsoever.
IF there is going to be any better future for human beings, especially after the development of weapons of mass destruction, then better murder systems, with a better ideology of militarism, is vitally necessary to that. Of course, in the real world, that will simply be still DE FACTO. Right now, it seems extremely improbable that human beings will understand the sciences that made weapons of mass destruction enough to cope with those powers. Right now, it looks like we will probably destroy ourselves instead, which is why avoiding governments, and denouncing them, etc., makes the most practical sense at the present time. However, that still has no theoretical merit whatsoever. The only ideas that have better theoretical merit are to fact that facts that human civilizations DO operate according to the principles and methods of organized crime, which currently manifest on the highest levels as governments dominated by banksters, and then, PERHAPS making a greater use of information, with a higher consciousness about that, so that there could be better organized crime, in order to resolve the chronic political problems better.
In my view, honestann, your claims to "understand science" better than I appear to be to be bogus. I still regard your theoretical view of politics as being ridiculously unrealistic, although that may be paradoxically practical, during the phase of history that we appear to be end, namely, the decline and fall of an empire. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE, AND BACK UP THEIR BELIEFS WITH VIOLENCE! ... However, since you and I only communicate through electronic bits, we have nothing else to fight over than that abstract flow of information. We both still live inside the worlds that the biggest bullies built over thousands of years. We both can count on their systems continuing to exist for a while longer. If, or when, those systems get mad enough to destroy themselves, then it will become more imperative to create new governments. My views regard that as theoretically necessary. You appear to deny that categorically.
Oh well ...
I find you personally practical, perhaps, but barely"realistic" since you seem to deny that organized gangs, from the police and army on down, are organized by their beliefs in systems of lies, which therefore are IMPORTANT, especially because they specialize in using violence to back up their beliefs.
Are you out of your freaking mind? Of course the ideas are IMPORTANT... but what is MOST IMPORTANT about ANY freaking idea is what? Answer: To know whether the idea is REAL or FICTION.
The whole reason it is crucially important to know whether an idea is FICTION or NOT is... so you (and everyone) knows whether to take the idea seriously and ACT UPON IT... OR NOT.
I have NEVER claimed that ideas that are fiction cannot have huge effects. Exactly the OPPOSITE. Why do you think I keep pointing out which ideas are real and which are fiction? Answer: Because PEOPLE TAKE ACTIONS BASED ON IDEAS THEY CONSIDER NON-FICTION.
JUST LOOK. [Hundreds of] millions of people take all sorts of actions on the basis of fictions like "god" and "government"... because they believe those ideas are non-fiction. Millions of freaking people spend years thousands of miles away killing people... because they believe their country is real, their leaders are real, and all sorts of other fictions are real.
And IT IS YOU who claim IT DOES NOT MATTER whether people act upon fictions as if they were real, or actual reality. IT DOES MATTER. And it matters because actions taken on the basis of NONSENSE are almost always destructive.
WAKE UP. You are an adult. Stop pretending that fiction and non-fiction are identical, just because some people take actions on the basis of fictions. Sheesh!
-----
As I stated elsewhere, packs of animal predators in the wild take organized actions to get better results. No need to be human. And indeed, of course human beings can also organize their actions to get better results. Nonetheless, all that exists are the individual non-human or human animals involved, and their actions. Period. No magic happens, and no separate entity is created. A freaking forest is nothing more than the individual trees. Period.
Furthermore, whether a pack of human predators assign themselves a name or not does NOT change whether they exist, or the consequences of their actions.
-----
Of course organized gangs of animals predators will simply "go away". That is entirely beside the point. What is not beside the point? The answer is clear. If you have weapons and a bunch of non-human or human predators come after you... you will probably defend yourself. However, if you are INSANE and believe the fictions you and most morons promote, all a predator needs to do is dress up in a freaking uniform and stick a badge on their uniform, then most people will lie down and let ANYTHING be done to themselves, and make NO EFFORT to defend themselves. And they do this ENTIRELY because they believe the fiction called "government" is non-fiction. THIS IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT HUMANS UNDERSTAND WHETHER ANY IDEA IS FICTION OR NOT.
-----
Right now, you seem cruising on automatic, being able to still take for granted the sovereign law systems around you, which set up some rule of law. Those fictions still dominate your life, because they still dominate the lives of most of the people around you.
YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF READING SIMPLE ENGLISH... or your super-short-term memory is utterly and completely gone. I have said endless times that all the following are pure, unadulterated fiction: governments, corporations, authorities, countries, nations, states, officials, laws, regulations, etc. So how can you possibly claim the following (quoted from above)?
So how can you claim that I "take the sovereign law systems around me for granted"... when I say again and again and again that they DO NOT EXIST, that THEY ARE FICTION, that they are pure delusion.
And the second part of your claim quoted above is also pure nonsense that you KNOW is pure nonsense, because you have read dozens of times that I live 125km from the nearest human being, see nobody for months at a time, have zero interactions with any agent of any government, that I refuse to be governed. Plus... there are no people around me... unless you refer to people hundreds of kilometers away... but they have no impact on me whatsoever.
So I'm afraid I must conclude that... you're just freaking nuts.
-----
The term "legal theory" is fiction and fraud. The notion "legal" is pure fiction, and nothing but a Sith Mind Trick to convince morons they must comply with the dictates of predators like you.
-----
You say the fact that "nobody guards the guardians" is a problem. !!!!! NO FREAKING KIDDING !!!!! But that is an unavoidable consequence of accepting the notion of [powerful, large scale] guardians (which is what humans believe "governments" are).
The only solution to that problem is... what? For humans to recognize that "government" is a fiction, and provide for their own self-defense (and everything else they need).
You need to come to understand... government cannot be fixed. If you believe the ideas that underlie the USA are so great, you should already realize by this very example that the "best government (or "legal theory") in the history of mankind has led to the most egregious, destructive pack of predators in the history of mankind. So the quality of the "foundation" doesn't matter. A pack of predators is always a pack of predators, and NO WORDS ON PAPER will stop predators from behaving like predators, or from co-opting any "system" that ever gains any power. Can't happen... and you have a great example.
-----
You claim there "is" and "must be" government. Then you should just LOVE my posts about the American continents before gringo arrived. What existed WAS about as perfect system of liberty as can exist... AND... is completely allows moron sheeple-chimps to "have a government" if they want.
That is what the native americans had... each "tribe" (effectively, a "settlement") had its own form of "government" (its own "rules"). So whether you or they call it "government" it had very similar features.
... HOWEVER ...
Each tribe had different rules, and different ways of doing things, and any individual or family could move to another tribe that had rules that more suited them.
... OR ...
Any individual or family could move to the frontier AKA "no mans land" that was everywhere between tribes... and not be subject to ANY rules or rulers... except the common sense behavior that is natural for animals of the same species (don't harm each other and don't steal their stuff).
In other words, liberty INCLUDES the freedom to join a "tribe" AKA "nation" ruled by a "government" (or "ruler").
... BUT ...
And this is a huge and utterly crucial but... everyone must be free to move to other completely independent jurisdictions... AND... be free to move to the "frontier", where they have no benefits of others living near them, but also no obligations to anyone.
THIS is the problem with ALL modern forms of "society" and "nations"... they attempt to FORCE EVERYONE to be subject to their predatory scam, and leave NOWHERE for individuals to escape them.
-----
So my suggestion is... if you are open to something perhaps slightly practical... is to advocate for this kind of "tribe system". This provides ALL environments to satisfy ALL people... but keeps the scale of each from becoming overwhelming (like a whole-continent tribe invariably is). Also, the fact that "members" can leave (without needing to go thousands of miles) will tend to make the various tribes compete for the best place to live, rather than make life endlessly worse (which works fine when your prey is more-or-less stuck where they are).
-----
You really do need to recognize that humans do NOT need to rob and kill. However, I agree that some humans will have to kill... to defend themselves, which is fine.
-----
You are utterly locked up inside your fictional world. You actually talk about my "theoretical views of politics"... when I point out endlessly that POLITICS is FICTION. I can't have a theory of politics... because politics is fiction, and I do not have theories about fictions.
-----
Of course there are people who are willing to back up their insane beliefs with violence! What do you think believers in religions and governments have done for thousands of years? And they will continue to take actions THEY WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS TAKE ON THEIR OWN AS A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL as long as predators-DBA-governments exist, hand them weapons and paychecks to go lie, cheat, steal and abuse.
In closing, all I can say is... note my comments about "tribe systems". You get to have what you want (fake governments of sorts... and in fact a huge variety of them since every little tribe/village/settlement is one to some degree)... but you also get some advantages like limited size and scope, and you get inherent restraints on the predators-in-charge due to the need to compete for members to join and freedom to leave, and I and people like me get... "no mans land" where we can exist entirely without ANY form of arbitrary, fraudulent coercion.
They you and every utopian can create your own crazy scheme... and enjoy/bare/suffer the consequences of that scheme. Some may work pretty well... but I'm still living in the frontier. I refuse to have any part of your crazy schemes. Humans are vastly too insane for my tastes, and I refuse to be governed.
"A freaking forest is nothing more than the individual trees. Period."
Yes, well that one sentence symbolizes all the ways in which we disagree.
A forest is fractally like one big tree. The ecology of the forest as a whole is much, much greater than the individual trees. The same attitude applies to human societies.
You want to believe that societies are nothing but individuals, honestann, however I see human societies as much more than merely collections of individuals. I regard the "individual" as mostly being another one of your "FICTIONS." Human lives alternate generations. Human lives are actually necessarily both sexes. Human beings are one life form, packaged in two bodies. Sexual politics is one of the most basic politics. Human beings can not live without plants. Animals and plants are actually one life form too. I see us all totally interconnected, whether we like it or not. I see all the separations as relative illusions.
You have physically positioned yourself where you are more able to live consistently with your beliefs. That is totally impossible for everyone, and is still only relatively possible for you too.
It may well turn our to be too true that "government can not be fixed." After it, is currently is based on electronic frauds, backed by the threat of the force of atomic weapons. Therefore, right now it still looks like our actual governments have become suicidal criminal insanities.
However, I continue to believe that the only theoretical solutions are better governments. I think that takes better human ecologies. Since you take the attitude that the "forest" ecology is NOT greater than the individual trees, you seem to also believe that human ecology is not greater than the individual humans.
I think that the opposite is the case. A lot of the "fictions" that you denounce still are things, which have their own energy of organization. I believe that human animals are inherently political, and must have politics, which means that they must develop some kind of "government." Hence, I believe we need better government. Of course, I see no reasonable chance of that actually happening.
The currently established money/murder systems are quite insane, since they were almost totally based on the history of warfare being paradoxically based on successful deceits. Since those enforced frauds are so deeply entrenched, it is hard to actually imagine how human beings can develop better death controls. But nevertheless, that is necessarily the only theoretical solution to the chronic political problems which are inherent in the nature of life.
Since you do not admit there is a human ecology greater than individual human beings, then, of course, you would not recognize the death controls at the center of that ecology. I assert that they are there, and they must be there. I propose that we need intellectual scientific revolutions, in order to enable better death controls, done by better government, which proposal is made imperative by the existence of weapons of mass destruction.
That we may destroy civilization too totally instead seems more probable now. However, what I am saying still makes the most theoretical sense, even if it may well be practically impossible in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, what you are proposing, honestann, has no theoretical merit, other than to justify and rationalize your own personal life style, which is obviously impossible for billions of other people to actually do.
You really are a commie at heart. You claim "individuals are fictions". I can assure you this. If NASA sent me to Mars with enough equipment to establish a self-sufficient life, and then something seriously nasty happened on earth that killed every human... or even every living organism... I would not die on Mars, and I would not cease to exist. I would live out my normal lifespan, perhaps with a slightly greater sense of peace.
-----
However, I do not AT ALL deny that emergent properties exist. Of course they do. If I disassemble my airplane, for instance, none of those individual parts can "fly", and neither can the whole collection of parts. When they are assembled properly, however, the "flying machine" property emerges.
Furthermore, you could claim "human reproduction" is something one human alone cannot do... though I'm not sure that's true any more, and certainly will not be true sooner or later.
However, a great many people, including you, take the FACT that "emergent properties" do exist... and go completely off-their-rocker wacko overboard with this notion and invent all sorts of crazy ideas.
Which means... this topic (emergent properties) requires care and HONESTY whenever you want to understand something that may or may not involve this phenomenon.
Oh, and BTW, the "ecology" is not part of the tree... or the forest. And you can see this is true very simply. If we go out and plant 1000 trees in a big field tomorrow afternoon, the forest exists LONG, LONG, LONG before the processes you call the "ecology" happen. You see, beings with human-level+ consciousness MUST perform these kinds of simple little "mind-experiments" to figure out these issues, otherwise their thought processes fly off the rails and go all sorts of invalid places... which is the main problem with human beings.
-----
You see us as "totally interconnected". That is stupid, and you know it. What is true is... everything in the universe [at least seems to] have some "connection" with everything else in the universe. However, some infinitesimal connection is VASTLY short of "totally interconnected". This is another mistake people make, by careless exaggeration (or wishful thinking, or something).
The "separations" are NOT illusions. The "separations" are what I point to above. To first order (the simplest form), the bonds that hold each atom together are vastly stronger than the bonds that hold adjacent atoms together, which are super-duper-hyper-astronomically stronger than the other "bonds" (or "influences") that exist between atoms half way across the universe.
This is the utterly REAL and VALID basis for "separation". However, I would agree that some people (morons on the other end of the spectrum) imagine all sorts of nonsense... like "the separation between earth and the sun is complete" (which makes one wonder why the earth keeps going around the sun, eh?), and "space is empty" (which makes one wonder how light from every star in the universe gets to every other star in the universe... without flooding every cubic angstrom of "empty space" with electromagnetic wavefronts (quantuum morons notwithstanding).
Just because certain ideas have some basis... doesn't mean you should exaggerate the idea, or try to extrapolate that idea to infinity. Be honest, and stay real.
-----
Sigh... organization is not energy or identical to energy, organization is configuration. However, it is true that... say... certain organizations of certain atoms have more available chemical energy than other organizations of those same atoms, so this again appears like you're taking something with a grain of truth and going completely over-the-top with it --- which invalidates your conclusions. You take insights... then turn them against yourself by not limiting yourself to the facts of the matter.
-----
Humans are not political. Again you chose the wrong concept, then go crazy with it. Humans can and usually do interact with each other, and one can consider how individuals should interact with each other. But this applies to two people, or maybe a few people at most, so this is a study of "human interaction", NOT "politics". You have read my "theory of ethics" several times, I'm sure, and recall that my ethics is exactly and precisely "causality applied to human actions" (including interactions). That is NOT politics, but IS all humans need.
-----
I agree that a few types of human interactions can have properties that single humans do not. So you're wrong to claim that I believe emergent properties cannot happen in certain configurations and behaviors of humans. They can. However, they are very few, very limited, and NONE of them that I have noticed are any basis to justify nonsensical beliefs like those called "politics".
HOWEVER... even if we spend a week writing down ALL these emergent properties that are POSSIBLE to human beings, that DOES NOT mean individual human beings cannot do everything they need to survive and prosper for his or her lifetime [and beyond once we finish our project, or if you happen to be a world class clone expert].
-----
You claim that what I propose has no theoretical merit. The only problem is, I doubt you can even state what I propose. Can you?
Also, be careful with "theoretical merit". Just because we are not smart enough to figure out a theory to explain some aspect of reality.... does NOT mean that aspect of reality doesn't exist, or doesn't work. Endless things and processes can be completely real and completely practical... even while you have no theory to describe, explain or even identify it.
This is, of course, the classic "humans have everything backwards" problem again. Like the notion that "the laws of physics is what makes atoms and planets behave as they do". Which is completely stupid and completely wrong... first because there ARE no laws of physics, and in fact no laws of any kind control physics or anything else in reality. Everything in reality behaves the way it behaves because of its nature... because it IS a certain configuration of the fundamental field. Everything we see is a configuration of that fundamental field (not including the actions of those things). What PASSES FOR so-called "laws" of physics are DESCRIPTIONS. And thus, these so-called "theories" do not control anything, but merely (at best) DESCRIBE them. Which is why the universe held together and functioned before any humans existed to write theories.
-----
I have proposed a number of ideas, all of which work in a very limited scale, and none of which are magic.
For example, it is clear that human beings CAN live in space. Why? Because they already have (for months at a time without supplies and without access to the materials in comets and asteroids). ALL the systems required to live in space exist. We don't need theories about that, we can buy the freaking equipment off the freaking shelf, and it works whether we have or know the theories of every piece of equipment or not. But like ALL my ideas (which you call "theories"), this one works only in very limited scale. That is not the same as "it doesn't work".
And ditto for my other ideas, like humans can become 100% inorganic, and then become literally immortal. That will work fine. We have already designed and implemented the most difficult part, and no obvious barriers exist to complete the other parts once our inorganic conscious entities perform all processes of consciousness faster than humans.
But if you're saying I don't have a workable idea or theory for the entire human race... you are correct. Not because I don't have ideas that don't work in theory, but because IN PRACTICE the predators-that-be have vastly too much control and domination of the human population to have any chance whatsoever to repair the insanity in human consciousness (in more than a few dozen individuals at best).
OTOH, you have no workable ideas at all, not in any scale or scope.
At tax payers expense? Yeah, I know, you were making a point.
But how many tax payer funded organizations have you worked with or collaborated with that provided you opportunities to develop the means to pay your costs of 'independence'? How much of the large-scale apparatus and data and understanding and opportunities would exist without it? Would there have been a successful moonshot in 1969 without the state and a cold-war between states? Or since? The space flight apacity today is were it is because of that effort, and private capacity was built up by Govt contractors along the way to the point that private space flight is becoming viable, sans a govt contract.
And keep in mind your aircraft is reliant on 95 RON fuel that you have admitted you can not manufacture, at this point, so you are subject to what people hundreds of kilometers away are doing. You're also reliant on parts and servicing and 3 quarts of professionally manufactured engine oil (API SJ SAE 10W-50) for that Rotax 912 iS(c). If you cut your tire up landing on a rock you'll need people hundreds of km away to provide the support or replacement kit and services. If your carbon fiber prop or airframe leading edge suffers an impact from bird-strike at say 135 kts you will definitely need a fiber professional to inspect and probably repair the subsurface delamination. Carbon fiber is about the worst material in the world for suffering localized severe impact damage, and serious stuctural implications result from even light to moderate impacts. It's a strong material, yes, it resists fatigue, yes, but it's very brittle when hit suddenly or energetically, in small impact areas. You usually can't see the damage unless you look directly under the impact area (often very difficult to do by yourself). Repairs require fiber and epoxy resin, and that requires a large efficient chemical industry and a global distribution system, as does affordable viable fuel supply networks into remote areas. If a Dynon PFD fails or the backup battery ages and degrades you'll need to replace it. Same for the fuel filters. If a generator fails, its mounted internally in an oil bath, so you'll need an accredited mechanic and an electrician or at least direct replacements. Otherwise your current context and mode of transportation and operating would require significant re-evaluation and reorganization.
You are not actually independent, you are currently technologically dependent and if you wish to continue to use your aircraft (and I can't see why you wouldn't) you require that other people operate industries as they do in the roles they currently hold, to produce what you wish to consume and as you are one of the fictional 'consumers'. (sorry, I'm just having some fun there ... lol :D )
And those are all regulated industries, where govt sets and monitors standards, via statutory fictional agencies. We've discussed all this before and you agreed then that you would have to make serious lifestyle and sustainability changes if everyone took your advice and abandoned all govt and other non-real things that have real expressions, and major real-life effects that you're not immune to.
I also pointed out that if I broke my leg, I'd be in hospital in under an hour, whereas a broken leg could be fatal for you (and I sure hope not). Well two weeks ago I had a toothache and on the way to a nearby dentist, I happened to walk past a closer govt dental clinic, so without even an appointment, and because I was in pain, only 1.5 hours later I left with zero pain and had an amazingly rapid recovery, because they were careful to not create a secondary issue. The relief was tremendous and the service and treatment were outstanding at all levels, and incredibly fast and efficient. I was surprised, and it was 100% govt run and they were also training young dentists in that public environment as feeder training, on behalf of the private sector.
I highly value having such services on hand at any time within my home community, and want that to continue uninterrupted into the future. Is everyone so wrong to want to organize a govt health service that way? The benefits of such services would become far more obvious if they suddenly ceased to be, as you never know or appreciate what you've got until its gone, and you can't get it back easily, nor soon.
I would suggest that if you were a mother, especially if you were not married you would realize the crucial nature such services provide for families. I recently watched a mother being asked what the secret to being a good mother was and the answer was simple, "just love them, that's all it takes, everything else flows on from there." Well let's assume every parent actually did that, could not just loving your children incorporate making sure they would have adequate efficient professional health services, at any time, and a well-regulated stable community?
And as you already know, I grew up in a rough frontier type lifestyle and used to dig holes in the ground with shovel to do the business, and used an almost dry river and a bucket for showers. I've lived in canvas tents for a time and we ate whatever dad shot that day. He also had an aircraft and we were a bit nomadic for a few years.
But you can't keep doing that, life changes, circumstances change, what was once doable ceases to be viable or acceptable for life's other purposes and roles. Wider organization is often preferable, and more beneficial, and convenient at those times, and the truth is that almost every private organization on earth is in numerous ways and at some level govt regulated.
It is unquestionable that highly organized regulated communities can and do work very well and agreeably in most locales where it is done right and maintained to a high adn economically viable standard. People in Africa and the ME are flocking to western countries because the organizational efficiency and services are so much better (and thus degrading and damaging their viability). And many people that come from such places are absolutely stunned to find you can openly criticize the govt and not end up dead by morning. They're amazed to see a Prime Minister appear on television and be verbally torn to shreds live to air, and no one is even executed or tortured, jailed or beaten!
Most of the time people vote in a govt (I don't vote) with as little free-hand to enact changes as possible because if you have a system that largely works OK, for the fictional 'community', you then don't want wackos suddenly changing everything for mere idealist reasons. It's far easier and faster to damage and destroy it than to build it back. See Greece and USSA.
Humanity are indeed going to continue to organize intensively and some sort of govt is going to set standards and law, so claiming this is all 'fiction' and discounting it is hardly useful for 99.999% of people in highly organized countries. Every person with a wallet knows the 'cash' it holds (if any) is a pure abstraction which provides access to resources. So when you're 'paid' you're being paid a ration of access.
With 7.2 billion people on earth and growing at 1.14% per year, I do not see this changing, even if every person on earth nodded and agreed readily with you that it's all 'fiction', like the 'cash', and they're indeed operating in abstractions, to both give and obtain resources and services.
What of it?
You still want their 95 RON ULP and they'd still be willing to supply it to you, if you can coughed-up the entirely fictional currency whose only 'value' for you is to get you access to what purist realities can not get you anytime soon. You use fictional cash and digits for access rights and settlement, right?
Look, EVERY WORD is itself a literal abstraction, a pure fiction, but you still use words constantly even just to think within and maintain an analytical dialogue, or to use numbers logically or any other symbolism, and you do it quite formidably too and better than most. :D
So make no mistake Ann, you are as much inculcated in the fiction as everyone else, you just have not recognized how far down the rabbit hole you still are, your analytical puritanism (for want of a less offensive word) and mental discipline has allowed you to trick yourself to the point that you're more-or-less unaware of your own endless and constant entrainment in a convoluted fiction of your own thinking mind's innate process.
What w e all have to face and need to understand is that almost any sharp mind can observe and take a series of rational explicable (to them) positions that make perfect sense and argue those position with clarity and compelling creative cleverness and be completely convincing to many, and to themselves as well, and still be completely deluded from the outset due to the nature of the thought process itself.
Don't ya just love how the thinker invariably does this to everyone on earth? :D
All the best babe.
I am very libertarian, however I just don't see it as practical to get 330 million Americans on board with libertarianism. Additionally, "pushing" libertarianism on people is in opposition to libertarianism--they must come to it on their own.
No, most of those 330 million Americans, to some degree, know what the Constitution is and that it is supposed to be the "law of the land."
The Constitution is our, the American people's, common ground.
The Four Rs
Rejection: Quit paying, quit obeying, quit playing
Revolution: It is inevitable, so prepare, as they are.
Retribution: The guilty must answer for their crimes against the American people and the Constitution.
Restoration: Restore the American people, country and Constitutional republic.
!!!!! BE CAREFUL !!!!!
-----
I agree that humans are clueless fools, and most cannot or will not overcome the 16 to 24 years of brainwashing imposed upon them by parents, teachers, relatives, friends and media.
For 16 to 24 years they were told be everyone around them that "government exists". Actually, it was probably never even stated that way, because that might imply the statement was debatable.
No, what actually happened was, everyone simply presumes government exists without ever saying what government supposedly is, or how government comes to exist. And so kids absorb notions like "government" and "corporation" and "nation" and "authority" and "official" and "law" without ever wondering whether or not these terms are fictions like "SantaClaus" and "ToothFairy".
I still remember how this works. When I was four, I decided there is no god. At that point, I had never heard anyone even mention the possibility that god doesn't exist, and I had never even heard the term "atheist". Being rather naive still (at age 4), I literally thought I was the only human being on the planet who did not believe god exists. I still vaguely remember how incredibly surreal it felt to believe something nobody else did (I thought).
But the point is still the same... it shows how the vast majority of human beings are led to simply assume a great many terms are non-fiction (refer-to real existents) that are in fact fictions (do not refer-to real existents). These fictions are jammed into young consciousness so intensively and repetitively before these young consciousness learn to think for themselves... that the assumptions these terms are non-fiction are firmly habituated, and usually never questioned again.
I say BE CAREFUL for the following reason, which has NOTHING to do with convincing others of anything. What matters most, by an astronomically huge margin, is that you are able to operate your own consciousness properly. When you accept and communicate with terms as if they are non-fiction when in fact they are fiction, you destroy your own consciousness.
To paraphrase Star Wars, "Once you start down the dark path, forever it will consume you"... where "dark path" means the path of treating fictional terms as if they were non-fiction.
If you assume a term to be non-fiction that is in fact fiction, EVERY THOUGHT PROCESS THAT FOLLOWS IS DEFECTIVE AND HARMFUL. And the further you go, the more completely screwed-up your ideas and consciousness become.
I am a world class expert in the field of human-level+ consciousness, and I've thought about this issue intensively. The only effective way to discuss any topic is... honestly and sanely. To assume that blatant fictions are real is not honest, and is in fact insane in the most fundamental way possible (inability to distinguish what exists from what does not exist). To adopt any such positions means you are a liar, your entire argument is a fraud, and is totally fallacious.
Is that really how you want to proceed?
Also, in fact, it is easier to show people what is real and true than to convince them that your made up nonsense is better than other made up nonsense, especially when those other piles of made up nonsense are supported by trillions of dollars of promotion!
Sure, I know that perhaps 300 million out of 330 million people know about the constitution, and have some vague notion of what the constitution is. That's true.
However, at least as many of them know what the American continents are, and know what a contract is, and probably tend to agree that contracts only apply to the people who sign at the bottom.
And so, to explain the REAL SITUATION is just as easy as trying to explain the utterly fraudulent predatory fiction you are currently inclined to advocate.
Also, you have the first 3 Rs completely correct. Nothing fictional or fraudulent about those. Reject fiction, reject taxation, reject bogus rules and regulations, reject control. Get ready to defend yourself from the predators and their apologists when "the revolution" comes. And the retribution you refer-to is also necessary, and along with revolution is actually just "self-defense".
So... I'm totally with you on the first 3/4 of your plan.
But listen up. Why do you want to kill me, or advocate others kill me? I am peaceful, harm nobody, don't pollute, etc. I am honest, ethical, productive and benevolent.
But I refuse to let you or anyone else govern me. Why should I? So you or your fellow advocates, employees or hired thugs of some replacement fiction will have to kill me for not obeying. Why advocate fictions? Why advocate predatory behavior? That fiction called "government" is nothing but a fraud created to justify harming honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings who refuse to obey your arbitrary rules, pay protection money for unwanted services (and to kill others the fictional leaders deem "criminals" or "terrorists" or "bad countries").
And think about your response to me.
Do you really feel honorable to say, "Gee, I think it is more difficult to explain or sell the truth, so I will lie, cheat, steal, defraud, impose and harm others in ways I prefer instead of those the current predators prefer".
Do you really feel okay doing that? Because that is precisely what you said.
PS: What I propose is not libertarianism. What I propose is honesty and reality.
There is no "division". The FACT is that GW is himself ignoring the law of the land at the same time he espouses it. it is ON PURPOSE THAT OBAMA HAS BEEN INSTALLED AS AN ILLEGAL POTUS--- and the reason is for the dissolution of the US Constitution and US Citizen sovereignty.When there is no legal executor of the laws then there is no law. The US has been infiltrated by enemies of the state, and GW thinks it is a "technicality".
You'll be told by the Federal government what our founding fathers meant and like it, or you'll be prosecuted as an enemy of the State. The Constitution meant to constrain the government is no longer in force.
This statement is Patriot Act approved.
"The truth shall set you free."
"Democracy is not a suicide pact." Move along...
"...buy a web site for five dollars..."
FAAAAAAA!
Stunning image!
The eye that wasn't weeping should have been black and blue or hanging out from it's orbit.