A lawful and peaceful revolution.

WRONG.

Over talking/explaining/rambling and pontification distort ALL messages.

Try the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Stupid

You will be amazed at how much more understanding and support you will get.

That's the NWO formula, they do not want understanding.

Judicious and proper use of cognitive distortions prevents an immense amount of "Over talking/explaining/rambling and pontification" because things cannot always be simplified in the language we use.

Most things after being understood, appear simpler.

If this is not true, apply your understanding to simply restate complexity you object to.
 
That's the NWO formula, they do not want understanding.

Judicious and proper use of cognitive distortions prevents an immense amount of "Over talking/explaining/rambling and pontification" because things cannot always be simplified in the language we use.

Most things after being understood, appear simpler.

If this is not true, apply your understanding to simply restate complexity you object to.

Which cognitive distortion am I using by asking you who God is? You want to use that label but everyone knows that when you say God, you're talking about Jesus' Father. Do you believe that the God of Abraham is a lie?
 
That's the NWO formula, they do not want understanding.

Judicious and proper use of cognitive distortions prevents an immense amount of "Over talking/explaining/rambling and pontification" because things cannot always be simplified in the language we use.

Most things after being understood, appear simpler.

If this is not true, apply your understanding to simply restate complexity you object to.

In fact let me be even more clear. There is no basis for moral law other than revealed law. Morals are commands of God. They are "written on our hearts". When we disobey we are punished. When we obey we are blessed. Pretty simple.

If you don't believe in God, then what is the basis of your morals? You can't keep saying "God" created them without defining what God you are talking about. This is not complicated.
 
Which cognitive distortion am I using by asking you who God is?

Well, the term "who" distorts by framing the question as a entity who can be described with a single name eternally recognized. That's a distorted notion leading to huge problems.

Whereas the terms, "what God is" can describe with no alienation over time and does not have to be complete as long as it is applied to an individual
perceptions.
 
Well, the term "who" distorts by framing the question as a entity who can be described with a single name eternally recognized. That's a distorted notion leading to huge problems.

Whereas the terms, "what God is" can describe with no alienation over time and does not have to be complete as long as it is applied to an individual
perceptions.

See, this will not do, friend. I'm being ultra-specific. The "God of the Bible". Who walked with Abraham. Whose image we are made in.

That means he walks and talks and has arms and legs. He walked in the Garden of Eden. He walked by Moses on Mt. Sinai. He is a conscious living breathing entity.

He has very specific names.

Now, you can either say you do believe or you don't believe. Clearly, you don't believe but you are having trouble saying it. Is it because you are worried that here in the temple known as Ron Paul Forums that some lurking Christian isn't going to see you as a leader or something if you disagree that the God of Abraham is the one true God?

God is a "who", not an "it".

He CAN be described by a name eternally recognized.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Everlasting Father

The Everlasting Father is so in tune with people's attempts to deny Him he put "Everlasting" right into one of His eternally recognized names.
 
Most important is that this thread remain on topic.

A lawful and peaceful revolution is in all likelihood the only thing that will preserve our unalienable rights and comprehensively protect our collective futures,

So far there has no coherent opposition to the interpretation of the framing documents as having an intent to empower us to alter or abolish.

Or that obviously the framers intended for us to have the power over government to do so. That extends to a de facto acceptance that our unity provides that power.

Finally, the logic that freedom of speech is ultimately intended to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish is unchallenged with any coherent reasoning.

Therein it is established that the first amendment has a very serious deficiency which is easily related to our current dilemma and political confusion.
 
That is correct because the thread is going off topic. For clarity, a little is okay, but that's it.

Unity needs to work on commonality that can be consciously apprehended and my last post outlines that.

Hahahaha!

Snapping your fingers at me, old man? Where's all that peace and love and understanding? Am I stepping on your toes?

I don't step on toes, I step on necks. Hehe. That's a Chuck Norris quote. But you know what? That whole myth about Chuck Norris? Him being bad ass and all. Guess what? Bruce Lee KICKED HIS EVERLOVIN' ASS.



Don't know why I pointed that out. Oh, yeah I do...anyway, I digress.

....

You see, children? This is the respect I get for being here 8 long years.

Nada enchilada.

Coming in sheeps clothing talking of love and peace and freedom and when they get pressed for integrity they start bossing around.

Another statist coming into the temple to devour the remnant of Jacob.

....

Chris, since, your time has now ended in the temple. Let me recap the general course of events:

Starting on this post from another thread...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-micronation&p=5927188&viewfull=1#post5927188

...I said...

He's Back!

...and then Chris said...

How about you? I know I've asked before, but its good the lurkers see your group

in action.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government

destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter

or abolish?

...and then I said...

You, know. I actually do agree with those two statements.

What's your point?

I prefer 'inalienable' by the way, but tomato tomato.

...and then Chris said...

That makes you educated and capable of critical thinking relating to your

education about the framing documents and their basic intents. Unlike most members here.

You've gained more credibility than you may realize in my opinion, if that matters.

"Unalienable" is more accurate according to legal terms. Your rights cannot be "Liened". I do believe they mean the

same basic things but the legal origins of "unalienable" probably apply more directly because that is exactly the

termed used in the Declaration of Independence.

My point is that covert cognitive infiltrators cannot make that agreement and accept those principles because it

goes directly against their agenda of preventing unity.
Now I know you are a sincere American. There is no

other way to tell in this medium.

...and then I said...

I'm not sure how you know that I'm a sincere American.

The statement I said I agree with is about the framers, not me.

The statement says "do you agree the framers intended". I didn't say I was on their side.

But you seem lonely. I'll be in your club.

So I joined your club. And all you've done since then is try to Lord over me, blasphemed to curry favor (don't know what the hell you were thinking there), simultaneously say I'm the only one who ever "got it" while also accusing me of cognitive infiltration or whatever at the same time when I try to get clarification, and you like so many here won't agree to define simple words like what you mean when you say "God" or "Liberty".

So guess what? As rare as this meeting was. As long as it's been since I tried to work with someone or had faith in someone, I have no attachment to you. You will not deny God, nor will you accept Him. Therefore, you have some spirit in you that claims the realm of spirituality but denies the true source. This is the spirit of the anti-christ.

Not saying you are the anti-christ, as like a specific entity, but you are extremely dangerous from a mystic point of view as far as I'm concerned.

You are not in the temple of your own accord. You are here because the Lord let you in here. And now you are cast out. I don't care if another seeker doesn't come along for 1000 years. I will not bend the laws of God for your serpentine idea of love and peace and understanding. My faith was forged in the fires of affliction, not in some sorcerers hypnotic trance.

I have no doubt that the religion of the beast and the anti-christ will come from some "Native people's" idea of religion. That's why I'm so careful discussing this with you. The God of Abraham saw fit to warn us. This psychobabble you spew is nothing but demonic puppetry that's ultimately for the glory of the Lord.

I mean, seriously, read this as a sane person who has absolutely no spiritual belief or opinions...

Whereas the practices of the first people derived from the creator very directly; via their acceptance of and capacity to work with their unconscious existence; to develop the understanding to create the greater meaning of free speech as a doctrine of civility that supports survival and evolution by nurturing the process of understanding itself, has survived and tries to return.

It is only through that capacity, despite remaining deeply suppressed, that the first people have managed to return the greater meaning of free speech through me, in the hopes that understanding and love can cause a return of a respect for the practice leading to understanding adequate to protect life on this planet.

So Chris is the savior of the world? Do you have any idea the red flags this sets off for a true Christian?

You don't even understand that the God of Abraham made the evil!!! Because the mysteries are blocked for you.

I leave your "club", and I cast you out of the temple. I am the master of this domain. You and your kind have no power here. This place is won for Christ. I will pray to the Spirit to remove whatever evil you have brought here.


For all you Christian lurkers, behold the cleverness we will have to deal with very shortly. This is why it is written....

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

To all the Christians out there...

I did learn something from him. That all of these things concerning us must be done in the light. We must speak openly in the light. If we agree to talk behind closed doors they have their way with us. I encourage any true seekers after the Kingdom of God to click the "Red Pill" link in my signature, and have a look at the Shemitah thread. The time is short and you will learn a lot of important stuff that could not only help you but others understand as well..

Love you guys.

...

Bye, Chris!!! You're going to have to find some water from somewhere else..here's an idea...



Does no one remember? I mean, it doesn't surprise me that the usurpers that walk around here don't see me, but does no one remember the old days? Why am only I standing up to this gobbledy-gook?
 
Last edited:
Actually all I've been trying to do is to keep the thread on topic. Your perceptions are probably tilted from my inability to follow your religious focus, which has almost nothing to do with the topic. Only in that the agreement the lawful and peaceful revolution is based in is commonly held natural law, and that is not religious, it's spiritual.

Our commonality as Americans needs to be unconditionally based in our acceptance of prime constitutional intent as serving us and those we love. Hopefully you can find your way back to that.
 
Last edited:
Actually all I've been trying to do is to keep the thread on topic. Your perceptions are probably tilted from my inability to follow your religious focus, which has almost nothing to do with the topic. Only in that the agreement the lawful and peaceful revolution is based in is commonly held natural law, and that is not religious, thats spiritual.

Our commonality as Americans needs to be unconditionally based in our acceptance of prime constitutional intent as serving us and those we love. Hopefully you can find your way back to that.

Juxtaposition "religious" with "spiritual" to refute me?

Is this intellectual limbo we're playing now?

How low can you go?

I've cast you out. You are unworthy to drink from the fountain.



Do not pass go, do not collect $200

I do think you understand how I feel about animal skin wearing Natives. Educate yourself.



Thanks for the free parking.
 
The deep and lasting beauty of our lawful and peaceful revolution is that we end up with the purpose of free speech serving us.

Since that purpose has never existed in our modern world, even that world where printing presses were common, we really do not know to what extent it can serve us. In this post I detail what leads to states legislations becoming purified by the states citizens grasp of constitutional intent and where the ending of the abridging of free speech can go.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...l-revolution&p=5932141&viewfull=1#post5932141

After that, when 38 states are holding conventions in them, proposing amendments to the constitution. A natural and absolutely priority will establish. That priority will center on constitutional intent. That is the point where "Preparatory Amendment" becomes the only clear set of amendments that DO have constitutional intent.

1) End the abridging of the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech.
2) Secure the vote.
3) Campaign finance reform.

It is pretty clear that Article V has a democratic streak running through it. It is fairly well recognized that some amendments should have states voters determining ratifications, either directly or indirectly through the preliminary legislative evaluations of proposals. Standard existing direct democracy online would be good for this with a concluding official ballot vote to make it official.

Since an Article V convention has not happened in 226 years, when it should have 100 years ago, this is a clear sign that MORE democratic ratification should occur rather than less.

Back to "Preparatory Amendment":
At a point states begin to address HOW to end the abridging of free speech. This really should become sort of a televised debate so that the process of removal of the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" from our written history is appreciated. I mean that is REALLY dark, bad thing to do, because the "Greater Meaning of Free Speech" is a very beautiful thing that absolutely supports human survival. And, since ecosystems potential to support life are measured by the abundance of natural life in them, it supports all living things.

So that televised debate can have some of the original signers of the petition to states legislators speaking, debating HOW to best amend and end the abridging.

I feel that simply revising the 1st Amendment is the obvious way because unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence needs to be included in the 1st Amendment because that is what the purpose of free speech is about, protecting those vital rights.

One thing that is important is to maintain the same spirit of adaptability that the current 1st Amendment has. I feel my draft does that. The bolded portion is key to that.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.


The "the primary methods or systems of it" is the phrase that meets the criteria.

Those systems obviously includes TV and radio, but also the internet, because it is a vital two way medium where the ordinary person can express their opinions.
This would return the usenet to the people as it was funded to be the global village of opinions.

But what sorts those opinions when they count in the millions?

There I have an idea, a very powerful idea. The idea is to develop forum software that allows the public using it to rate their own opinions AND, automatically make the highest rated opinion on a given subject the FIRST opinion seen.

Now, this software not only rates opinions on given topics, it can also be designed to rate the topics according to relative importance within ALL the topics.

This software is fully doable, and an anonymous member took it in 2012 to a major software producer to get an opinion on the concept. The question the software producer was hit with was, "Can this software be written?", then, "Will your company write it". It's concept and basic functions or code requirements are communicated on a 2 page .pdf. The CEO of this company spent about 10 minutes reading, and thinking, then said.
"Yes, we could write this software, but this company is not going to be the company that puts the public in dominance over corporations."

Of course anonymous and myself were stating that as a goal for the software, so we might of shot ourselves in the foot by saying so, but I feel the CEO would have figured that out without it being stated and said the same thing. After all, such intentions and issues with corporations and that organizations like anonymous and others oppose what they are doing is common knowledge.

So that is one contribution I have to the functionality of the "primary methods or systems of" free speech that is very tangible. And, if developed, it will be nothing short of revolutionizing web forums. At the same time, each independent subject on web forums will become a knowledge base upon that subject that will be accessible and for the most part, already be refined when we go to seek the needed information.

When it comes to the BIOLOGICAL purpose of free speech, "That information vital to survival be shared and understood", this forum software proposal will EXCELL! Suddenly, the issue of educating the public and making up for the last 100 years of dumbing down and corporate manipulation sequestering technologies can be well recovered from.

There is a really bright future for humanity if we can agree upon our purposes here, and how to make sure corrupt government NEVER gets in the way again, and is completely subdued to the level of a very informative, perhaps scary soap opera:-) And I do recommend we keep the corruption alive in theatre. We allow it to express itself in a harmless arena, and respect the terrifying potentials which are currently threatening us, just so we do not forget how bad it can get.
 
Last edited:
Wanted to say, I was actually impressed by your mechanic. I first pegged you as an irrational actor. After understanding your litmus test it makes sense. It's very clever, actually. And you did it in the ideal place and it worked. to structure our communication?

Hahahaha!

Snapping your fingers at me, old man? Where's all that peace and love and understanding? Am I stepping on your toes?

I don't step on toes, I step on necks.

I leave your "club", and I cast you out of the temple. I am the master of this domain. You and your kind have no power here. This place is won for Christ. I will pray to the Spirit to remove whatever evil you have brought here.

Bye, Chris!!! You're going to have to find some water from somewhere else..here's an idea...





It really did, didn't it.

What can I say, I work fast.
 
One of the most powerful aspects of the revision of the 1st amendment drafted is the inclusion of purposes that the federal government must support which compliment the prohibitions of the constitution and Bill of a Rights.

The bolded portion is the specific part this post will explain.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.


What this part does;
"with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Is define speech which government must support if it is shown such specific speech seeking support is not found or cannot be made widely known while also vital to the defense or protection of unalienable rights.

There are concepts in our world; which is a product of dynamic coercions extending back thousands of years; which cannot be shared, that must be shared, or our adaptations will not be adequate and our survival not assured.

Our collective agreement, our constitution needs to reflect and empower the ability to share that which IS needed for survival. Some of those adaptations cannot be implemented at the last minute, they require preparation and considerable foresight by the entire public.

Accordingly, "through understanding one another" that absolute of adaptation can be found. Often the discoveries of need require "forgiveness" and "tolerance" to get past unreasonable objections of history to find the "acceptance" and "respect" for the need to change and adapt in certain ways.

The oppressive social elements that would try and control us, therein preventing our adaptation, causing our extinction have endeavored to create unreasonable fears and rejection preventing the "trust" and "friendship" needed to protect the continuity of life which we "love", for perpetuity.

That reasoning is what provides the lawful justification for the economic imposition upon major communication corporations that sees quality documentary type educational productions that are positioned in time and place to be seen by a maximum number of people.

This is already happening with PBS and NPR to a degree, but there is far too much control by non profit type corporations that are created to exclude certain information that might impede the infiltrated governments agenda that is eventually directed at tyranny. Logically, those economic burdens would be removed, and replaced wit more functional burdens.

Curiously, there is nothing inherently bad with corporations. It is the inception and intent of those creating them that cause them to be as destructive and onerous to independence and freedom as they are. Their current operation is at least thrice removed from service to living things. One, profits at any expense to the environment, two empowerment of behaviors that are destructive to the environment. Third, because the PURPOSE of free speech is abridged, the behaviors of one and two can be glorified, promoted and honored without any reason from the peoples of the public having any way to compete.

With the current structure of capitalism, wherein no doctrine of philosophically, lawfully correct direction can be created, assuring our survival AND our evolution into excellence as yet unforeseen or defined, is inhibited if not PROHIBITED because such activity can be made to be seen as limiting profits.
Materialism is promoted as the ultimate experience in life, which is a perspective serving consumerism, profits and environmental destruction.

Since human beings have needs, which are based in materialism, such a fact is easily misrepresented by corporations who ignore the massive spiritual benefits of ACTUALLY protecting the lives of future generations by reasonable sacrifices in our material existences.
 
Last edited:
The key to our lawful revolution lies within restoring the purpose of free speech. With that we can educate ourselves, create an informed opinion and democratically direct our government within the principles of the republic.

However, another prime aspect which needs to be addressed in preparation for Article V is securing the vote.

Something like this would be proposed to be integrated into all states laws by the states ratifying the amendment requiring states to keep voting records in a manner which allows the public to cross check and monitor the tallying of votes. In research I found that the method of voting is not in such question.

One thing is identification. State identification should be adequate.
Voter verification, or addressing reports of non qualified voters needs looking at, such as registering pets to vote, deceased people, etc.

One suggestion that makes sense is that the most secure ballot is one with the selection circled by the voter. OCR software can be created to recognize repeated ballots with the same circle around the voters selections. The punch hole system apparently has been shown to be used in fraud.

The most vocal critics of vote security indicate that the counting and tallying of votes is the weakest area. This proposal addresses that and makes all of the data redundant which allows cross checks by the public.

HERE IS THE COMMON PRACTICE OF TALLYING VOTES:
Each county registrar collects ballots in whatever way they do. The public can usually observe the counts in some way. What I've learned from research, is that critics indicate the initial counting part is not the major problem, I agree. This is a suggested procedure that could create accountability in the tally process after the initial count.

PROCESS:
The county takes the numbers and uploads them along perhaps with a database that may work with a spreadsheet type environment. OR, could be made to so the public could download the database and check it.

Three levels of database are needed; county, state and federal.

If duplicate servers for each state were in other states. So when one county of one state uploads their voter data, all of the other states get copies all at once. A second file formate that cannot be altered is created so that the raw files can be checked against it. This makes it so the public software can be used by the public to check the raw files veracity before they run a check on the county and states files or uses of final digital tallies.

The server access records for uploads are also available to the public from all servers mentioned in this proposal, so they can see counties and states uploading activity. Any changes would be recorded.

Then the state totals the counties votes electronically and uploads their total to the nations servers in another database of the state total votes that is on federal servers, which also have copies of each counties, and states totals.

The federal government has no votes of its own to count and only counts the total votes of the states counties. The FEC uses that database to count the votes.
_________

Some trials in a few states could determine any flaws in this system and perfect it prior to the process becoming law by amendment.
 
There are 3 basics amendments needed to prepare the people for proper participation in Article V. They deal with opening up the peoples information systems for the peoples purposes.

Basically all informations systems are the peoples first. Without this, dark organizations of control contrary to survival and evolution can prolificate within them and people cannot counter the darkness. Even those living in the dark suffer eventually from that. They might not care, but people do.

The 3 amendments first end the abridging of the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech, then secure the vote and reform campaign finance.

Since revision of the 1st amendment us viewed with such great contention, I've written a draft of where I think it should go. The others might best be effected in ways I do not well know of within our systems so I haven't bothered to draft amendments there. Others who know those systems far better will produce the best results.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.


There is also proposed legislation for states created to become compliant. It uses state power over corporate licensure in states to compel broadcast networks to produce qualifying informations.

To qualify, a subject or information must be NOT widely available in its nature, or be so unknown that most people cannot come up with search terms. It also must be something that cannot be promoted within the average persons economic means on a scale justifying its relationship to common interests of defending vital rights.

A petition to a state legislator with a yet to be determined number of signatures which is then carried to a state Supreme Court for the production of a court order to the largest television broadcast corporation to produce a 1/2 hour or 2 hour production at current audience production standards. That is to be broadcast nationally on their network to prime time audiences for a yet to be determined number of times and repetitive schedule OR contingent upon testing of public awareness and understanding of the subject matter.



We enter into the mystical again, IF there is a collective unconscious. Is support the prime intents of the constitution, of Americans conscious AND unconscious the question? If so, the latter will be hard to measure. Your notes on the timing of your composition of post #5 and agreeing with the prime constitutional intent I've set forth is as good a measure of the latter as anything.

We now find again an area of mysticism and conspiracy.

A book titled "The Hundredth Monkey" is missing from our planet. The original was published in 1962 by 23 Japanese biologists with no marketing or publicity. It was replaced by a book of the same name in 1974 written by Ken Keyes. The original was only published in 2 printings of a total of 20k copies. The replacement was published in the millions and heavily publicized. Today people only know of the replacement, not if the original which was SCIENCE documenting dream state communication between primates on a remote South Pacific island.

The replacement marginalized the phenomena by associating it with a politically charged issue relating to nuclear weapons while completely leaving out the science,

I'm sure you will agree that a conspiracy doing such a thing is of the darkest possible intentions.

There is at least one copy left on the planet and I read it. Where it went, I don't know. I read it in 1988 and did not know its full
Importance until 1998. By then the person that compelled me (yes, compelled) to read it had forgotten they ever had it. Memory, it turns out, consistently plays a major role in our evolution. It is basically controlled from the unconscious mind and in the 3rd .pdf of those posted in your 9/11 thread you will find a concept I've developed and graphically positioned called the "resolute barrier" which I believe can or mostly controls our ability to remember things.

The basics I've come to understand from the reading of the original "hundredth monkey" which I returned a few days after to read a second time, realizing how profound the research was are as follows after integrating a number if other aspects into one, whole concept.

There are 2 states. Of consciousness for living things. both are collective AND individual. Mammals have a significantly greater individual existence as groups of different genera.

Humans collective conscious comprises waking state communications of ALL types. Human collective unconscious communications have 2 types. One is individual telepathic emission which may reach many perceivers, not all necessarily need to be present, and the other is dream state communication which may be global or universal depending on the importance of it to life in the universe, to God.

The original book was obviously removed to prevent humanity from being aware of dream state influences upon conscious waking state performance. The design was to influence humanity without it conscious awareness and essentially de evolve its conscious performance and make it more controlled centering material power within specific groups of people for their purposes.

I noticed your timetable of 2 millennia in the Rabbis writings, corresponding to the influence of Christ as well as Jewish events in the later 1960's that may correspond.

There are at least 2 significant scientists that read the original book and incorporate its information in speculative advancement of the potentials. One is Rupert Sheldrake and the other I shall find the name of an edit it in to this paragraph with some specifics after I re find the info.

Accordingly, I have no idea of how many supporters of the 2 prime constitutional intents there are. I have to assume, that naturally, unconsciously, because those intents are developed human social natural law, that a large percentage of the planets human beings are supporters.

The sacred task is to make that support conscious and active socially.

I could not even venture a hues as to how many conscious supporters there are. I would speculate there are very many. Most however are very likely wrestling with their resolute barrier and fears created by the same dark forces using dream state manipulation over time, as well as conscious collective manipulation, misinformation, misleading, corruptive influences etc., that removed the original book.

The prime dream state directive programmed into populations is, Thou shalt not be causal to change." That unconscious directive is socially reinforced in a myriad of different ways with unconscious conditioning of social fears.



I shall be truthful here. You are unique and the first to accept it with the full cognition you exhibit.

I thank God, and you!​

Your cognitive capacities and spiritually positive focus are exceptional so I anticipate some very interesting correlations in the mystical realm related to 9/11 and your interpretations of the a Rabbis writings.




I do believe that there is an unconscious barrier to the support which exists unconsciously here and elsewhere. Since we are both cognitively addressing the constitutions intent as well as what support for it may exist, how it may exist, I can only surmise the barrier is breaking down.

Unconscious social fears assimilated at childhood control us all, with UNDERSTANDING all fears can be properly dealt with.

Your post #5 and the issue of "reputation" as well as the covert infiltrations group impositions of social fear structures invoking individual conditioning is certainly relevant to "how many" conscious supporters there are, or could be.



Was that the salon.com link on cognitive infiltration?

After I understood your "sincere agreement" tactic and tried to work with you, you showed your true colors and I broke our relationship off.

But since you continue attacking me and calling me a fear-monger (hilarious considering you are calling everyone an agent) and a liar and stupid, I want to remind you and everyone else what you said about me here in this thread in post #53 when I gave my assessment of your idea for unity.

This post, specifically the bolded, enlarged, red letters, will be my evidence for you being a liar when you say in some other thread that I am one to curry favor with the mob you have claimed ad infinitum is nothing but agents.
 
There are 3 basic amendments needed to prepare the people for proper participation in Article V. They deal with opening up the peoples information systems for the peoples purposes.

Basically all informations systems are the peoples first. Without this, dark organizations of control contrary to survival and evolution can prolificate within them and people cannot counter the darkness. Even those living in the dark suffer eventually from that. They might not care, but people do.

The 3 amendments first end the abridging of the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech, then secure the vote and reform campaign finance.

Since revision of the 1st amendment us viewed with such great contention, I've written a draft of where I think it should go. The others might best be effected in ways I do not well know of within our systems so I haven't bothered to draft amendments there. Others who know those systems far better will produce the best results.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.


There is also proposed legislation for states created to become compliant. It uses state power over corporate licensure in states to compel broadcast networks to produce qualifying informations.

To qualify, a subject or information must be NOT widely available in its nature, or be so unknown that most people cannot come up with search terms. It also must be something that cannot be promoted within the average persons economic means on a scale justifying its relationship to common interests of defending vital rights.

A petition to a state legislator with a yet to be determined number of signatures which is then carried to a state Supreme Court for the production of a court order to the largest television broadcast corporation to produce a 1/2 hour or 2 hour production at current audience production standards. That is to be broadcast nationally on their network to prime time audiences for a yet to be determined number of times and repetitive schedule OR contingent upon testing of public awareness and understanding of the subject matter.

We enter into the mystical again, IF there is a collective unconscious. Is support the prime intents of the constitution, of Americans conscious AND unconscious the question? If so, the latter will be hard to measure. Your notes on the timing of your composition of post #5 and agreeing with the prime constitutional intent I've set forth is as good a measure of the latter as anything.

We now find again an area of mysticism and conspiracy.

A book titled "The Hundredth Monkey" is missing from our planet. The original was published in 1962 by 23 Japanese biologists with no marketing or publicity. It was replaced by a book of the same name in 1974 written by Ken Keyes. The original was only published in 2 printings of a total of 20k copies. The replacement was published in the millions and heavily publicized. Today people only know of the replacement, not if the original which was SCIENCE documenting dream state communication between primates on a remote South Pacific island.

The replacement marginalized the phenomena by associating it with a politically charged issue relating to nuclear weapons while completely leaving out the science,

I'm sure you will agree that a conspiracy doing such a thing is of the darkest possible intentions.

There is at least one copy left on the planet and I read it. Where it went, I don't know. I read it in 1988 and did not know its full
Importance until 1998. By then the person that compelled me (yes, compelled) to read it had forgotten they ever had it. Memory, it turns out, consistently plays a major role in our evolution. It is basically controlled from the unconscious mind and in the 3rd .pdf of those posted in your 9/11 thread you will find a concept I've developed and graphically positioned called the "resolute barrier" which I believe can or mostly controls our ability to remember things.

The basics I've come to understand from the reading of the original "hundredth monkey" which I returned a few days after to read a second time, realizing how profound the research was are as follows after integrating a number if other aspects into one, whole concept.

There are 2 states. Of consciousness for living things. both are collective AND individual. Mammals have a significantly greater individual existence as groups of different genera.

Humans collective conscious comprises waking state communications of ALL types. Human collective unconscious communications have 2 types. One is individual telepathic emission which may reach many perceivers, not all necessarily need to be present, and the other is dream state communication which may be global or universal depending on the importance of it to life in the universe, to God.

The original book was obviously removed to prevent humanity from being aware of dream state influences upon conscious waking state performance. The design was to influence humanity without it conscious awareness and essentially de evolve its conscious performance and make it more controlled centering material power within specific groups of people for their purposes.

I noticed your timetable of 2 millennia in the Rabbis writings, corresponding to the influence of Christ as well as Jewish events in the later 1960's that may correspond.

There are at least 2 significant scientists that read the original book and incorporate its information in speculative advancement of the potentials. One is Rupert Sheldrake and the other I shall find the name of an edit it in to this paragraph with some specifics after I re find the info.

Accordingly, I have no idea of how many supporters of the 2 prime constitutional intents there are. I have to assume, that naturally, unconsciously, because those intents are developed human social natural law, that a large percentage of the planets human beings are supporters.

The sacred task is to make that support conscious and active socially.

I could not even venture a hues as to how many conscious supporters there are. I would speculate there are very many. Most however are very likely wrestling with their resolute barrier and fears created by the same dark forces using dream state manipulation over time, as well as conscious collective manipulation, misinformation, misleading, corruptive influences etc., that removed the original book.

The prime dream state directive programmed into populations is, Thou shalt not be causal to change." That unconscious directive is socially reinforced in a myriad of different ways with unconscious conditioning of social fears.

I shall be truthful here. You are unique and the first to accept it with the full cognition you exhibit.

I thank God, and you!​

Your cognitive capacities and spiritually positive focus are exceptional so I anticipate some very interesting correlations in the mystical realm related to 9/11 and your interpretations of the a Rabbis writings.


I do believe that there is an unconscious barrier to the support which exists unconsciously here and elsewhere. Since we are both cognitively addressing the constitutions intent as well as what support for it may exist, how it may exist, I can only surmise the barrier is breaking down.

Unconscious social fears assimilated at childhood control us all, with UNDERSTANDING all fears can be properly dealt with.

Your post #5 and the issue of "reputation" as well as the covert infiltrations group impositions of social fear structures invoking individual conditioning is certainly relevant to "how many" conscious supporters there are, or could be.

Was that the salon.com link on cognitive infiltration?

After I understood your "sincere agreement" tactic and tried to work with you, you showed your true colors and I broke our relationship off.

But since you continue attacking me and calling me a fear-monger (hilarious considering you are calling everyone an agent) and a liar and stupid, I want to remind you and everyone else what you said about me here in this thread in post #53 when I gave my assessment of your idea for unity.

This post, specifically the bolded, enlarged, red letters, will be my evidence for you being a liar when you say in some other thread that I am one to curry favor with the mob you have claimed ad infinitum is nothing but agents.

Yep, you are unique, but not quite in the way I'd hoped.

Consistency in what we exhibit is vital to function. Uh, both are lacking in your behavior.

So what revelations have you come up with in your thread about the rabbis writings?

Calling people agents is not fear mongering. It is confrontational. Get your terms straight.

Actually I waited to start posting substance in the threads lawful and peaceful revolution and alter or abolish by the "master of the congress of the court" so I could demonstrate what functionality is rather than having to get involved with your adversarial act related to my non acceptance or outright inability to participate in your religiosity.

I have no way of knowing who is an agent and who is not except for seeking agreement upon something agents would never agree to. If people are doing what agents want done, how do I know they are NOT agents? Of course, some people are just whacked, even if they do agree with the framers relating to their intent to alter or abolish or the purpose of free speech.

But hey, you still are trying to do what the agents want done. So some people are just not predictable. I understand.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DFF
Yep, you are unique, but not quite in the way I'd hoped.

Consistency in what we exhibit is vital to function. Uh, both are lacking in your behavior.

So what revelations have you come up with in your thread about the rabbis writings?

Calling people agents is not fear mongering. It is confrontational. Get your terms straight.

Actually I waited to start posting substance in the threads lawful and peaceful revolution and alter or abolish by the "master of the congress of the court" show I could demonstrate what functionality is rather than having to get involved with your adversarial act related to my non acceptance or outright inability to participate in your religiosity.

I have no way of knowing who is an agent and who is not except for seeking agreement upon something agents would never agree to. If people are doing what agents want done, how do I know they are NOT agents? Of course, some people are just whacked, even if the do agree with the framers relating to their intent to alter or abolish or the purpose of free speech.

But hey, you still are trying to do what the agents want done. So some people are just not predictable. I understand.

...
 
Clearly "Preparatory Amendment is the approach to a lawful and peaceful revolution.

The primary effect of ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech will have resounding effects that will perpetually benefit the people in assuring their unalienable rights are secure.

At each and every moment of significant change where a corrupted media or press would misrepresent, deprive or subvert the truth to the public, they will have a superior watching over them.

If any usurpations of the power of media and the press to do good, to protect unalienable rights with truth, ANY citizen who knows the truth, and it might possibly be just one, can get that truth before the nations people.

A good example can be found in 9/11. A good part of the nation knows that they do not know the truth. What they use instead is a generalization. "Inside job" typifies that generalization. The lack of detail explaining the event brings the assertion into question for any who fearfully, for whatever reason, believe the official version.

There is enough independently verifiable fact in truth which is available, but it cannot be shared with the masses. If it could, the masses would align to learn more. But the information cannot be shared.
 
Last edited:
As I endeavor to define the benefits and needs for preparatory amendment I learn quite a bit about the 2 preparations I advocate, but do not know a great deal about.

Of course I've understood that campaign finance reform is intrinsically related to the PURPOSE of free speech, but I had not expected the convolutions I have found.

A well written paper on citizens united was one of the most straight forward that was found. Here is an excerpt.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-myth-of-campaign-finance-reform

WORSE THAN THE DISEASE

As Madison understood, some people will always try to use government for their private aims. But with the Madisonian restraints on government rent-seeking largely discarded, campaign-finance regulation becomes a futile and misguided effort — one that, as Madison argued, is not only bound to fail, but also bound to make matters worse.

A classic example is the Tillman Act and its ban on corporate *contributions. The law was easily evaded, it turns out, by having corporations make "expenditures" independently of campaigns, or by having executives make personal contributions reimbursed by their companies. And when the Tillman Act was extended to include unions in 1947, unions and corporations formed the first political action committees to collect contributions from members, shareholders, and managers to use for political purposes.

Later, when the Federal Election Campaign Act imposed dramatic contribution limits, parties and donors discovered "soft money" — *unregulated contributions that could not be used directly for candidate advocacy, but could be used for "party-building" *activities. Such party-building *activities soon came to include "issue ads" — thinly veiled attacks on the *opposition, or praise for one's own *candidates — that stopped just short of urging people to vote for or against a candidate (instead typically ending with "Call Congressman John Doe, and tell him to support a better minimum wage for America's workers"). When the McCain-Feingold bill banned soft money, the parties — especially the Democrats — effectively farmed out many of their traditional functions to activist groups such as ACORN and MoveOn. When McCain-Feingold sought to restrain interest-group "issue ads" by prohibiting ads that mention a candidate from appearing within 60 days of an election, groups responded by running ads just outside the 60-day *window. The National Rifle Association responded by launching its own satellite radio station to take advantage of the law's exception for broadcasters. Citizens United began to make movies.

Preventing this type of "circumvention" of the law has been a fixation of the "reform community" from the outset. Yet each effort has led to laws more restrictive of basic rights, more convoluted, and more detached from Madison's insights. Each effort also appears to be self-defeating, since the circumvention argument knows no bounds. As Madison would have appreciated, every time we close off one avenue of political participation, politically active Americans will turn to the next most effective legal means of carrying on their activity. That next most effective means will then become the loophole that must be closed.


Not necessarily contained in that excerpt, is the observation that corporations contributions to camping a made need for regulation to begin with. Whereupon the convolutions began.

My one observation at this point is the clear relationship of the intent of campaign finance regulation and the PURPOSE of free speech.

Rudimentarily, constitutionally, political campaigns must serve the same purpose as the biological root purpose of free speech; to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Or, that the candidate who is most likely to represent the protection and continuity of unalienable rights has opportunity to share and be understood.

I wonder what links and writing upon campaign finance corruption and reform people here can come up with?
 
Last edited:
A 'peaceful' revolution to significantly change the USA regime is impossible. The regime can maintain itself with less than 30% of the population in its corner and its got more than that simply from those for whom the regime is a meal ticket.
 
Back
Top