hedgeless_horseman's Revolutionary Call to Arms
"The greatest danger to the State is independent intellectual criticism."
-Murray N. Rothbard
This ZeroHedge comment, today, by JamaicaJim, caught my eye and started me thinking:
New Gallup Poll – Americans Consider Government A Much Bigger Problem Than Guns
JamaicaJimWed, 01/06/2016 - 08:39 | 7004045
That the US Government is corrupt is not the question. They are.
The questions are;
WHAT CAN THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DO ABOUT IT?
HOW CAN THIS BE STOPPED?
For the life me, I do not have those answers.
THAT is the issue; what can someone do?
In the movie, Wayne's World, Garth and Wayne are lying on the hood of the Mirth Mobile and staring up at the stars. Garth whistles the theme to Star Trek, then he says, "Sometimes I wish I could boldly go where no man has gone, but I'll probably stay here in Aurora." Many of us are like Garth, wishing to be bold, and maybe even revolutionary.
But the State isn't very worried. They know that we are far too comfortable, and also too afraid. That we will probably stay right where we are.
But some of us may sense that ours is a false comfort, like the turkey in the days before the holiday.
In today’s keynote luncheon at RIMS 2010, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, best-selling author of The Black Swan, told the story of a turkey who is fed by the farmer every morning for 1,000 days. Eventually the turkey comes to expect that every visit from the farmer means more good food. After all, that’s all that has ever happened so the turkey figures that’s all that can and will ever happen. But then Day 1,001 arrives. It’s two days before Thanksgiving and when the farmer shows up, he is not bearing food, but an ax. The turkey learns very quickly that its expectations were catastrophically off the mark. And now Mr. Turkey is dinner.
For those of us that don't want to be a turkey, and that seek a way out of our false comfort...that want to be bold and revolutionary...we must also find a way to overcome our fear. FEAR. False Evidence Appearing Real. The best way I know to overcome fear is with knowledge. Knowledge allows us to see false evidence as false. Knowledge also allows us to be bold, and to take action, rather than be timid, staying right where we are. Knowledge enables us to be revolutionary.
"A battle of wits was to be fought, and the Boy in Blue was unarmed to-night."
-Abby Buchanan Longstreet
If we want to be a bold, fearless, and an effective revolutionary, then we need to arm ourselves to-night and train for the fight. To that end, please, allow me to suggest this sequential course of action.
hedgeless_horseman's Revolutionary Call to Arms:
- Read Propaganda, by Edward Bernays.
- Read Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury.
- Get rid of your television. Preferably, take it to the dump and destroy it in an extreme and violent fashion.
- Read Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
- Make a commitment to not use mind-altering substances for 90 days. If you fail, go to an AA meeting and restart the 90 days.
- Read The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve - 5th Edition, by G. Edward Griffin.
- Visit a coin dealer and buy some gold or silver Canadian Maple Leafs.
- Read 1984, by George Orwell.
- Make your very own set of Fallacy Flash Cards from the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
- Hold three fallacious posters accountable on www.zerohedge.com by citing their fallacy.
- Read The Law, by Frédéric Bastiat.
- Make a list of your natural rights.
- Read The Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights.
- Read Animal Farm, by George Orwell.
- Research your two senators and one congressman at https://www.opensecrets.org/ Make a list of their 10 biggest donors, and send the list to your "representative" in an email or letter.
- Read War is a Racket, by Smedley D. Butler.
- Read On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, by Dave Grossman.
- Watch the online video of the TED Talk, A radical experiment in empathy, by Sam Richards.
- Read Anatomy of the State, by Murray Rothbard.
- Be a volunteer judge at a high school debate.
I pray that many may find the strength and courage to complete this revolutionary training, and to go boldly where no man has gone.
Peace!
(38 votes)
»
- hedgeless_horseman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Read the Constitution? What in blazes does the document establishing America's 1789 military coup have to do with real freedom?
Oh, so you're more of a supporter of totalitarian monarchy then? Buffoon.
Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.
......and your unenlightened point is (rhetorical question); oh and that means I do not require you to answer.....in fact I insist on it!
Ha, you just described every so called "Western Democray".
I believe that was the entire point of his post...
Put it this way, the mafia have nothing on our governments, it's just a question of perceived legality!
More under-reported real news your governments (Mafiosi) would rather you did not see, because they helped facilitate it......
http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2016/01/1000-depraved-migrants-ra...
Read a list of the Accounting changes that have gone into place since 2008 and then sit down and write a process or methodology of how you can correctly value a public company after those change.
Allocate a few hours to the task; when you realize that it cannot be done, post your findings and methodology back here.
Define the universe. Give three examples.
The Universe is a holographic program in a singularity which is Energy based.
Both Space and Time are constructs of the program and are manifested through the resistance of Energy Transmission
Dimensionality is illusory as is demonstrated by the understanding of the Mass(Energy)/ Space Time Lorentzian Contractions. It exists within the singularity and may be exclusively restricted to the singularity.
Since the Speed of the Transmission of Energy, 'c', is constant, any speed less than 'c' introduces Spatial Dimension in the direction of the retardation of speed, and Mass, (which is just an Energy Field slowed down),
Quite curiouly, INERTIA, which, when written in the Russian, but with Latin letter equivalents, is ENERGIA, which is pronounced IN-ER-GHIA. (That was extremely revealing when I learned it. It allowed me a connection which I had not understood.)
The manifestation of the Spatial and Inertial phenomena is illusory and can only be experienced by one inside of the singularity.
Outside of the frame of reference of the singularity the phenomena, may, or may not exist. That is an indeterminate.
Examples of the Universe are as follows...
Physical "reality" which is illusion.
Time which is also illusion.
But that which is mostreal is conciousness as the singularity is self aware. You, personally, are a living proof of that.
Any source info on this? Curious.
Oh...Einstein for beginning...
The following are most important for understanding
E = mc2 which is the Energy-Mass EQUIVALENCE statement. They are one and the same.
m = mo/(1 - v2/c2)1/2 This is the Mass Accretion Lorentz relation where 'm' is a mass, 'v' is a speed less than the Light speed, 'c', and 'mo' is some arbitraty "mass measuured at rest" since there are no preferred frames of reference.
.
x = xo(1 - v2/c2)1/2 This is the Lorentzian Distance Contraction, where 'x' is distance, 'v' is a speed less than the Light speed, 'c', and 'xo' is some arbitraty "distance measuured at rest" since there are no preferred frames of reference.
(Actually I believe that the singularity is "the preferred" and we are approaching the Physics ass backwards as you shall see.)
t = to(1 - v2/c2)1/2 This is the Lorentzian Time Contraction, where 't' is the measurement of time taken, 'v' is a speed that is less than the Light speed 'c', and 'to' is some arbitrary "time measured at rest"
Now let's have some real fun.
Can we create something...from nothing?
We can!!! But you have to understand this trick. (Actually the Energy has been there for all of time. You are just transforming it into Space and Time..and Mass.)
So let's have some fun.
The first question which we want to consider is if Mass, which is a property of Matter, but is not Matter itself, can exist at Light Speed.
Since we know that
m = mo/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
then it follows that
limit( v -> c ) m = limit( v -> c ) mo/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Thus
m = INFINTY when v = c as the numerator remains the same and the denominator decreases in value.***
(***For instance 1 divided by 1/10th is Ten.. One divided by 1/10,000 is Ten Thousand, One divided by 1/10,000,000 is Ten Million. Each of the fractions in the denominator is smaller and smaller while the value of the fraction, increases without bounds.)
No Mass cannot exist at Light Speed as it will take an infinte amount of Energy to maintain that Speed. And there are real limits.
Understanding that we then can consider the next conditions.
Since we know that
x = xo(1 - v2/c2)1/2
then it follows that
limit( v -> c ) x = limit( v -> c ) xo(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Thus
limit( v -> c ) xo(1 - v2/c2)1/2 = 0, when v = c
Likewise since we know that
t = to(1 - v2/c2)1/2
then it follows that
limit( v -> c ) t = limit(v -> c ) to(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Thus
limit(v -> c ) to(1 - v2/c2)1/2 = 0, when v = c
Hopefully that is clear.
When approaching the Speed of Light you lose the 'x' dimension in the direction of travel. So at the Speed of Light that Distance no longer exists. There is absolutely no distance traveled.
This is how Special Relativistic Physics, in advanced High School courses and Introductory University Physics courses in College is traditionally presented.
It is an "old hat lecture". I have done this repeatedly.
But I never got the opportunity to do this.
SO LET's DO THIS BACKWARDS...
So let's suppose that we are in the singularity traveling anywhere and everywhere, at once, as there are no distances and there is no time taken to travel everywere and anywhere, at once, and we want to create...oh...let's say...a Universe.
Gee...How would I, little ol' me, God Almighty. create something from nothing? (Forgive me Father...)
Let me start by denoting c* = c.
I am all energy. I am the Light after all. And I think that I will slow some of myself down.
Well Nothing is Zero.
So lets start with nothing...start with a big fat ZERO...and define it this way...
0 = (1 - c*2/c2)1/2 which is THE UNIQUE WAY OF DENOTING ZERO Equation. (The statements are equal since I defined c* = c, as c* is my initial speed.)
Now, of course, I can multiply both sides of that equation by t0 which yields
0 = to(1 - c*2/c2)1/2
And I can slow this down and allow c* to approach an arbitrary 'v', a v < c by taking a Limit.
limit(c* -> v )0 = limit(c* -> v ) to(1 - c*2/c2)1/2
And
limit(c* -> v ) to(1 - c*2/c2)1/2 = to(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Therefore
limit(c* -> v )0 = to(1 - v2/c2)1/2
And since t = to(1 - v2/c2)1/2 as written above
I have created t from NOTHING, from a ZERO, by allowing my speed to be decreased from c* to v.
So now I have a Universe with time. Hmmm...Well I need some Space...And that means I need distance.
So likewise I can multiply both sides of THE UNIQUE WAY OF DENOTING ZERO Equation by xo which yields
0 = xo(1 - c*2/c2)1/2
And I can slow this down and allow c* to approach an arbitrary 'v', a v < c by taking a Limit.
limit(c* -> v )0 = limit(c* -> v ) xo(1 - c*2/c2)1/2
And
limit(c* -> v ) xo(1 - c*2/c2)1/2 = xo(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Therefore
limit(c* -> v )0 = xo(1 - v2/c2)1/2
And since x = xo(1 - v2/c2)1/2 as written above
I have created x from NOTHING, from a ZERO, by allowing my speed to be decreased from c* to v.
So now I have a Universe with time and space. Hmmm...Well I need some things to fill it with...So now I need some matter and that will require some Mass....
And I can go through with the Math for that....I may have already lost you...
This has taken an hour to write.
BUT THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE.
I can create SOMETHING from NOTHING.
And that is how I think that God Almighty did the trick. He is the greatest Mathematician.
Thank you for taking the time to lay that out! Let me digest!
I think you're going to need a bucket to puke in.
You are most welcome.
Who downvoted this, I counteracted one of them. The question I have is, what defines the observer, time has to be "observed" in order to be time, and yet the passage of time is relative to the observer's speed and the gravity/acceleration of the observer. I can't get away from the conclusion that there is an absolute frame of reference. ie. a tree falling in a forest does actually make a sound.
So you are also posting as TheEndIsNear?
Oooops.
Read my response to your post.
No, I post only as myself.
Tom, you are my hero. I love reading your stuff! Keep it up brother!
Blah blah blah.....
God......
WTF?
Quantum fluctuations in a void.
Poof....
Who knows, but I doubt some invisible dude in the 'sky' had anything to do with it.
If he did, where the fuck did he come from?
Can't have it both ways.
If the universe is too complex to have come about by fluke, then any creator would have the same problem only more so.
No being could ever create something more complex than itself.
Go ahead, bash out some more mathematical gobbledygook, the above argument still stands.
Time is an illusion in this maniestation. It only exists as Energy was slowed down.
That which is outside of the Singularity has always been.
Posing a question of origin of that which is DEFINED as ETERNAL makes about as much sense as asking what is South of the South Pole. Nothing can be South of the South Pole as all directions are North...by definition.
The South Pole is simply the point on a Globe where every direction is North.
Likewise that which is ETERNAL has no beginning nor end. It cannot as time does not exist outside of the program.
You claim to be logical and yet you do not argue against the Mathematics presented?
Actually you cannot as that is the language used to code this manifestation in which both you and I exist.
Mathematics is not "gobbledygook". It is the language of rational thinking, the language of logic..
And it threatens you so.
Why does logic cause you so much discomfort?
"Mathematics is not "gobbledygook". It is the language of rational thinking, the language of logic.."
No, mathematics is not gobbledygook, but it can be abused as you have done by sneaking in little lies. You logic is self contradictory. I too happen to belief that the universe has always existed and is eternal, but if that is the case then it could not have been created by a "god" or anything else; ie, if it has has always existed then it obviously could not have had a "creation" or starting point.
You start by citing the equivalence of energy and mass (E = mc2) but then erroneously state that "No Mass cannot exist at Light Speed as it will take an infinte amount of Energy to maintain that Speed." Note: Since you used a double negative I assume you meant to say "No Mass can exist at Light Speed as it will take an infinte amount of Energy to maintain that Speed."". That is false. It would require an infinite amount of energy for a non zero mass to achieve light speed if such a thing were possible (it is not), but no additional energy would be necessary to maintain that speed (Newton's First Law).
You then spend a lot of time on the Lorentz equations for mass, distance, and time, all the while pretending that a non-zero rest mass could be accelerated to the speed of light (it can't because it would require infinite energy), all the while ignoring the fact that the photon has a zero rest mass, and then proceed to state: "I am all energy. I am the Light after all. And I think that I will slow some of myself down."
Just how pray tell do you expect to do that? What are you going to push against? If it required an infinite amount of energy (an impossibility) to speed you up to the speed of light, then it would also require an infinite amount of energy to slow you down.
None of this is necessary to refute your arguments however. It is sufficient to simply point out that the quantum of light is the photon, and that the photon is a form of electromagnetic radiation that exhibits electromagnetic wave-particle duality. A photon's energy is NOT infinite. A photon's energy is determined by it's frequency or inversely its wavelength, and is finite. See Photon.
I used a double negative by accident. Your assumption is correct. Thanks for the correction.
But the Mass Accretion Equation has nothing to do with acceleration., a change of velocity with respect to a change in time.
Since E = mc2, and since
m = mo/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Then multiplying both sides by c2 yields/
mc2 = moc2/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Therefore
E = moc2/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Because E = mc2
It follows that
limit (v -> c) E = limit (v -> c) moc2/(1 - v2/c2)1/2
Thus
limit (v -> c) E = INFINITY
Now where is any dv/dt, an acceleration, implied?
Thus it takes INFINITE ENERGY for a Mass to MAINTAIN LIGHT SPEED.
As for the "consumption of Energy" to slow down massless photons?
It takes no Energy whatsoever.
Actually the Universe does have a finite number of Photons.
I have not suggested that One Photon created the Universe. That is an outright Strawman Argument..
And as for Classical Newtoinan Physics...That must be abandoned in the Quantum Universe as those Laws do not apply.
That is the reason behind the Grand Unified Theory which is currently being developed.
Hope that this leads you to some clarity.
I erroneously believed that the reader would understand that if you multiply INFINITY by a constant, in this case c2, that the product will still be INFINITY when I developed the "Mass Accretion" argument.
I also erroneously believed that the reader would understand that the division between Classical and Modern Physics is vast and that reconciliation of the two schools of thought were wide. (These debates are 80 years old and still without resolution.)
I was mistaken about that.
I hope that you get a chance to read this.
Thank you for the points. I will remember to remind the reader that Classical Newtonian Physics does not apply in the Quantum Universe.
I assumed that the reader knew what I take for granted.
Your post is so full of total bullshit that it doesn't deserve a reply. You obviously have no background in either math or physics and should try taking some classes in those subjects if you truly have an interest in them to understand the fallacies of your false assertions and assumptions. The Lorentz equations have no term in them relating to acceleration and they only apply to relative velocity, but it most certainly does require force to accelerate a mass at rest to a desired velocity, and the greater the desired velocity the greater the force and time (Energy = Force*Time) that is required. That is in fact what particle accelerators do and is why they require massive amounts of energy to accelerate particles with non-zero rest mass to speeds even remotely approaching that of light.
You have a habit of making oblique and baseless statements preceded by "It follows that". For example, you claim: "limit (v -> c) E = INFINITY" which is obviously false since neither c nor E are infinite, and then you somehow conclude: "Thus it takes INFINITE ENERGY for a Mass to MAINTAIN LIGHT SPEED." Any first year physics student would recognize this as total bullshit. It is simply not possible to accelerate a non-zero rest mass to the speed of light because it would require an infinite amount of energy, which is a physical impossibility. Particle accelerators can approach the speed of light, but can never actually achieve it because it would require limitless energy. A photon can be accelerated to the speed of light because it has a rest mass of zero. If your assertion were true, a flashlight or light bulb would require an infinite amount of energy!!!
Your post above is filled with baseless assumptions and false statements such as this: "'As for the "consumption of Energy" to slow down massless photons? It takes no Energy whatsoever.'
In your ignorance you do not seem to realize that although photons have a rest mass of zero, when they travel at the speed of light they do indeed possess energy and momentum which depends upon their wavelength or frequency as I stated above. This can be verified by referring to any elementary physics text or to Wikipedia (see Photon). If it takes no energy whatsoever to slow down or stop a photon, why then is it that photovoltaic panels are able to generate energy by absorbing photons of light? The energy of the photons traveling at the speed of light are transformed into a finite amount of electrical energy by photovoltaic panels -- or do you claim that photovoltaic panels do not work?
You like to toss around terms like "Grand Unified Theory" and "Quantum Universe" just to sound educated and pull the wool over the eyes of those with no background in science, but all you do is make it quite obvious that you are nothing more than a charlatan and a fool. I will not bother to read or respond to anymore of your baseless hand-waving dross.
My hope is that I've dissuaded others who might have been deceived by your false assertions and lies to refer to some basic texts on the subject or even Wikipedia before swallowing the tripe you peddle as truth, like the snake oil salesman that you are.
Actually I taught Physics at both Arizona State University and Northen Ariona University.
If I haven't any background in Math or Physics then I would not have been employed in that capacity.
The Mathematics which I have demonstrated is sound.
Of course you will not respond as it exposes you and your lack of understanding.
I see no Mathematics in any of your responses.
You make a baseless claim tounderstand Newtonian Physics and yet do not even counter with the most basic principle
F = ma
It is sad that you find my presentation as such a threat to your precious atheism, your Blind Faith Religion.
But face it...You haven't a basic understanding of that which you write.
You may have had an indroductory course. But you haven't understanding.
Of course you may feel free not to read nor respond. And that demonstrates that you cannot attack the Math which I have presented.
To me this is old hat as I have presented this in a classroom repeatedly.
I have studied Special Relativity extensively as it is necessary for an understanding of Cosmology.
But instead of defense I will ask you a simple question concrening the oscillation of a Mass at the end of a Spring.
There are many other Physicists here posting. Isn't it funny that they will not engage? Why have they not come to your rescue?
With that you have heard of Hooke's Law, right? (This is an exercise in a Freshman University Physics class.)
It can be expressed as follows...
m[d2x/dt2] - kx = 0
As it is an example of Simple Harmonic Motion there are two possible solutions for x that are intuitive.
x = A sin(wt)
or
x = A cos(wt)
So with that, solve for w...and show your work.
Demonstrate your ability and impress us all...
Your credibility is on the line...not mine.
Show me at least that...
(BTW...Just to let yu now...The odds are that in a General Population the odds thatsomeone will be able to give the correct answer is one out of fifty. The odds here on ZH are just a smidgeon getter than that and I'd estimate them to be 1 out of 40.. That means that I have the odds heavily in my favor, at 39 out of 40 that you are incapable of giving me the correct answer.)
experience it. turn your own light around onto its source. time doesnt exist any more than you are your body. its not something you will experience immediately, however - it takes work.
You say that as though there's only one....
Anything outside of the manifested Universe cannot be empirically demonstrated and is mere speculation.
It is as much of Blind Faith as RELIGION. and any scientist who claims otherwise is irrational to make that claim, It is irrational to claim that you know that which you cannot know.
It is unfortunate for those of us within the Singularity to be limited by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
That is the reason, in my initial RESPONSE that I make it quite CLEAR that I cannot know what is outside of the Singularity. It may, or it may not. (I do not remember the exact number of times I used those phrases in my intial response. Yes...It was a RESPONSE to a question.)
But what I do know about the singularity can be used to extrapolate real measurements of the phenomena of Space Time, Mass and Energy. Those have a well defined and empirically validated set of rules, a code which can be read by the clever.
I can draw inferences as the code is set. I can run the code directionally as it is a functional code. It is reversable as they are equivalence statements. I have done just that in the latter post on this thread concerning this topic.
My assertions are based upon validared empirical evidence.
What are your assertions of a Multiverse based upon? Blind faith, perchance?
If that is the case then you are no better off than the religionist, which you despise as a direct result that you cannot accept your own irrationality.
There is no Multiverse that you can know. That is irresponsible speculation originating from mediocrity and greed for money garnered by selling popular books to the INNUMERATE...Royalties...yes. It certainly is not science and will not muster any serious peer review.
But you can empirically know this Universe...if you choose to.
Read the Obamacare Law.
Nobody else has.
Not much, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step...
Although I am in complete agreement with you on principle. What we have today is nothing more than the natural outgrowth of Federalism. No amount of Constitution's, separations of power, etc., can ever hope to resist the creeping massive onward push of a centralized system, period. A 'loose Confederation of Independent States' was and still is, a much better idea to thwart Tyranny.
The Founders planned to have two branches of government rein in one rogue branch. What we have now is three branches colluding to increase the power and control of all.
Can I bring a RICO suit against the US Government?
Repet - the Constitution is as close to freedom as anybody got world wide in modern history.
Must be why folks world wide wanna shack up here - that, and all the free shit they can score.
The Constitution created the most powerful and destructive government in world history.
The Articles of Confederation allowed people a hell of a lot more freedom.
Oh Really! Well their Swiss have been around a lot longer than the USA and I also notice that they are armed to the teeth. If I recall, the Republican terrorists were born pissing on the Constitution in 1861, killing what remained of real liberty by 1865 by enslaving formerly free men. The US Constitution didn't last 100 years. This is virtual constitutional gummint.
The Swiss are so fucking owned by the World Bank, IMF, and lib-tardisim it ain't even funny.
They're gonna be busy with their newly imported Free Shit Army for a long time to come.
All the guns in the world are not enough of an equalizer.
The pen is mightier than the sword.
Inter arma enim silent leges.
I like your list. I would add a couple of books, such as Ron Paul's Manifesto and at least one of Edwin Vieira's works (e.g., thirteen words, constitutional homeland security, sword and sovereignty, etc).
Aye, and add this also:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
What woke one up is the statement in there from whoever wrote this saying, "they would use terrorism to attain all their goals." Read that in the early nineties and even then it appeared plain as day what was to come and more so, who was behind it. Sad darn part of it all is, being right is not always a fun thing.
Go back to the framers and the things they wrote during the convention. Start with both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. In a lot of areas the Anti-Federalist understood the real world a bit better. The tree of liberty is going to be fertilized again......
The exercise of doing items 11, 12 , and 13, in that order, can be fairly profound for the average American mind.
In the sense that one will see how The Constitution violates the contents of steps 11 and 12?
Read the Anti-Federalist papers, Federalist papers, and Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution is a problem, not a solution.
Reading the Bill of Rights is useful, but reading the Constitution is a superficial exercise, unless one is equipped with the proper background and context. One really needs to study the 4 generations leading up to the Revolutionary War, and also study common law, ecclesiastical law, maritime law, and commercial law, and then finally should study the Bible and be well-versed on Western Christianity. I believe only then is the proper context established to understanding just what the Constitution is and means to you as an American. Then there is the deeper esoteric level and the influence that the Freemasons exerted in fomenting the creation of America.
Here is a big clue: America was intended to be God's Kingdom on earth, but it can only be inhabited by godly men. The godly are the true sovereigns, and they are the beneficiaries of the public trust, while all the rest (the godless heathens, the majority) are the security who pay for the upkeep of God's Kingdom (they are the strangers who are taxed, because they are strangers to God).
So how you get the understanding to go from the first paragraph above to the second is by becoming a student. Then the teacher will arrive.
-Chumblez.
Sure, but sometimes we must aim for center mass to best assure a hit.
Peace, brother!
Great list and call to arms!
I would add:
I would also add "Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau.
The Republic by Plato at spot 10.5 to the reading list.
I agree with Jefferson. Plato is the enemy. Aristotle is the friend.
natural laws / Mark Passio, good basis...
Get an old Blackstone on common law, which is no longer followed since it doesn't make the lawyers nearly as rich......
Back when I was dating an aspiring lawyer who looked hotter than Jacqueline Kennedy in her prime... (sigh)... I actually read the damn thing...
Standard Disclaimer: I don't mind sharing because if this hasn't happened to you once in your life, you are obviously not doing it right.
I remember one night at a bed and breakfast after some rough and tumble sex, I felt a strange pain across my upper back. So I went into the bathroom, popped on the light, only to see rivulets of blood running down my back where her nails had pierced my skin. True story.