When is the time when enough is enough? A look at Armed Revolution in Modern USA

My view sees the biggest problem we discontents have is communication. With big brother listening to everything, how can we stay in touch with each other when/if we do challenge TPTB?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Laws are natural and cannot be invented. Legislation is not law but merely evidence of law. Laws are self explanatory, and when legislation requires explanation, (which is almost always explained as being for your own good), this is the first sign that such legislation is not law. If something is for your own good, it requires no explanation.

The concept of law applied to human-beings cannot be seen as natural as we are less and less submissive to "nature".
What you call natural, I call basic common-sense.
And what you would qualify as law in the animal world, is not. It's a vision "a posteriori" of what we see as a coherent set of behaviors dictated by:
What they CAN (possible due to their genectic material/their body qualities) do and what other member of that species (or other species) ALLOW them to do and they reaction to it (choice).
Yes, animals think.
Thus, laws are indeed created (see "law of the fittest") as they are no law to be discovered in "nature" but the laws of physics which are not choice-dependent.

Legislation is not evidence of law, it is merely an extension (for the worse I agree) of the first set of rules we choose to guide our lives.

Laws are not transmited through the genome, so we have to learn/understand them. As of it, laws ALWAYS require explanation as there are reasons for them to be chosen/selected.
Even common-sense (what SEEMS to be fair/just) evolve with society and human understanding of ourselves. See ethics/moral.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Project_USA]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Project_USA]

reply to post by MrWendal


Violence like this without an actual plan of what comes after the violence may lead to even more tyranny or never ending instability.

My sig advocates a solution worth fighting for, but the idea is that we don't begin by fighting for it, but rather when the State fights our peaceful attempts then they have chose their poison, which is fine because in the end we know what to do after the violence.

reply to post by Project_USA

The concept of law applied to human-beings cannot be seen as natural as we are less and less submissive to "nature".

Law is not a concept, it is a reality, and humanity is no less subject to reality today then they were thousands of years ago. The law of gravity works the same today as it did thousands of years ago.

What you call natural, I call basic common-sense.

That gravity exists, is basic common sense. No one needed Sir Isaac Newton to write out a mathematical equation to know that gravity existed. We do not benefit from gravity because Newton legislated it.

Thus, laws are indeed created (see "law of the fittest") as they are no law to be discovered in "nature" but the laws of physics which are not choice-dependent.

Your use of the word thus is presumptuous, and presumes you have made a logical argument, first by presuming I would "qualify law", and secondly by you have presumed that what others do by right, (whether it be a human or any other species), they do so because some other being ALLOWED it to happen. You have the right to be the effect of things if you choose, but you do not have the right to enforce your world of effect on me. We can both be cause if we choose, or I can be cause and you can remain effect, if you choose to remain effect, no one has ALLOWED this, you have simply chosen to be effect.

That there are efforts to build ant-gravity devices only underscores humanities choice to be cause in a universe that comes with laws. Those anti-gravity devices that ultimately succeed will do so by adhering to the law of gravity. Thus, it is important to understand the law of gravity fully, in order to abide by its law, but in doing so, we do not necessarily have to be the effect of gravity, and can be cause over it. We can either be the effect of law, or because of law, be cause and use law to our advantage, that advantage being survival.

Legislation is not evidence of law, it is merely an extension (for the worse I agree) of the first set of rules we choose to guide our lives.

Legislation can only function as evidence of law, and when people attempt to dismiss law as nothing more than merely rules, then it should never come as any surprise that legislation is then used to abrogate and derogate the rights of individuals. Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property. When legislation abrogates and derogates these rights, that legislation is not law, merely legislation. Laws do not exist because they were legislated. They simply exist.

Laws are not transmited through the genome, so we have to learn/understand them. As of it, laws ALWAYS require explanation as there are reasons for them to be chosen/selected. Even common-sense (what SEEMS to be fair/just) evolve with society and human understanding of ourselves. See ethics/moral.

No one needs explanation why gravity exists, we understand it inherently. We understand it is the force that keeps us grounded. No one with an average intelligence or better needs explanation why time is relative, we inherently understand that an hour with someone of whose company we enjoy goes by much faster than an hour with someone of whose company we abhor. No one needed Newton and Einstein to explain this to them, and all these two scientists did is to find the mathematical equations that describe gravity and relativity. In describing the mathematical properties of gravity and relativity, this allows us to better understand how they function, but it does not mean they were invented by these two scientists.

No one with an average intelligence or better needs it explained to them why murder, theft, or rape is wrong, and legislation does not invent the reality that murder, theft, and rape is wrong, it merely codifies into statutes a legal basis by which justice can be established. When someone is murdered, there is an absence of justice. Where the legislation regarding murder cannot prevent murder, it can put justice back in where it is absent. This is the only true purpose of legislative acts, to maintain justice and domestic tranquility, both of which the balance has been upset by legislative acts that have absolutely nothing to do with law.

reply to post by MrWendal


I have read a pile of threads with the same idea. I believe most agree we seem to be moving to the stage where the only way legislators will listen is when they are threatened in some fashion. No surprise here.

My question is, what does this armed rebellion target? It sounds simple enough but I never hear it addressed. Does one go out a shoot the first mailman they see? Do they burn down the local city hall? Do they burn down their state capitol building?

When the Federal building was bombed in OK, no one cared about the message. Why? The bomb blew up little kids and regular people just doing everyday jobs. When that guy flew his plane into the IRS building, it had a little more resonance but not much.

If we want to be honest, shooting politicians won't change much. They are a dime a dozen and easily replaced back into the same flawed system. Do we blow up K Street and all the lobbyists? They seem to write the laws anyway. This is my problem with armed rebellion. It needs a target and no one seems to have identified an appropriate target to fix what ails us.

When I was in Iraq, control of population and government was an ugly picture. It did not take but a few sociopaths to terrorize any given area. Their aim was never positive, it was always for personal gain. The only barrier were those local government reps working hand in hand with the local elders. It was not perfect but it seemed to help. We do not have that in this country. There are no village elders and no one cares if their community is getting raped by our versions of sociopaths (corporations, non-representative governments, etc).

Look at the oil spill. Who do we go threaten to shoot? Everyone on the board of directors of BP? The MMS porn surfers who dropped the ball and screwed the public? Congress and the President who care about nothing but their campaign cash? That is a lot of people and not worthy of being sent to prison for.

I fear if there was some form of rebellion, it would immediately be labeled as terrorist activity regardless of the justness of the cause. That seems to be the mentality of those in power. All it would do is unleash a larger avalanche of restrictive laws and we would lose more rights.

TPTB's center of gravity is money. If that were all of sudden rendered useless, they would cease to have any control. Instead of shooting people, I would focus here. Perhaps if people started to disengage from our current monetary boondoggle, the "rebellion" might start gaining traction.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by 23refugee
How odd that you've chosen to quote the term "redneck" used in that context in a thread dedicated to uniting the common man against a tyrannical government.
Weren't the rednecks responsible for the largest armed uprising against the federal government, the common people who gave their lives fighting against a military weilded by the coporate elite?

Yes, the "rednecks" gave their lives. But they were fighting FOR a landed, wealthy elite who wanted to keep things as they were.

Re-read your history, hoss. He's referring to the Battle of Blair Mountain, where "rednecks" originated. Once you're up on that, come back and explain precisely how the Rednecks "were fighting FOR a landed, wealthy elite".

If you think you can twist it far enough out of shape to try to make that point, this ought to be an interesting conversation.

I'm not all all sure where you got that quaint notion that "slavery" had anything to do with it at all. Stuck on Civil War or something?

[edit on 2010/7/2 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Jimerton
My view sees the biggest problem we discontents have is communication. With big brother listening to everything, how can we stay in touch with each other when/if we do challenge TPTB?

Quite easily actually. Check out a hand cranked ham or CB radio that transmits. Work out a cipher with whoever you will be communicating with before hand and you can have encrypted convo's right over the airwaves. Just remember, at that point, the less you say the better. keep it short and sweet. Have codes for pre-determined meeting places during certain times and you are ready to rock, even without power.

Probably looks something like this

store.prepared.pro...

Red Fox to Grey Squirrel, The Eagle has flown the nest!

~Druidae

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Druidae]

Originally posted by Dr. Livingston
Tell me then, how would we fight against an Apache war rig? .............So tell me ATS peoples how would we succeed? hmmm?

1) A shovel
2) a 5 or 6 foot length of 4" pipe
3) 1/2 pound of gunpowder
4) a 10 or 15' length of chain
5) a tin can, and enough concrete to fill it
6) bait
7) determination to do or die.

If you can't figure out what to do with that, I've wasted my time listing it.

Originally posted by Druidae

Red Fox to Grey Squirrel, The Eagle has flown the nest!

~Druidae

I heard that exact phrase once before, about 30 years ago or so. Do I know you?

Giant asteroid restarting evolution is the only thing that will change the direction humanity is going unfortunately.

Or perhaps some sort of massive lift in emotional intelligence so everybody just gets disgusted with the current system and wants a new one. By everyone, I include the current secret society members.

And I dont mean a New World Order with one World Government, because the corruption will be devastating and nobody will report about it, leading almost exactly to the scenario in the movie 1984 where people live in a slave society.

You know, the constitution was based on a very nice idea. The idea that leaders would be afraid of the people, and the people could get rid of them if they wanted. Its the way its supposed to be.

Today we have leaders who do what they are told to do by corporations and indirectly by secret societies. People dont matter. Politicians dont matter. Elections dont matter.

We already have a world government really, its just not official.


[edit on 3-7-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Druidae

Red Fox to Grey Squirrel, The Eagle has flown the nest!

~Druidae

I heard that exact phrase once before, about 30 years ago or so. Do I know you?

greatest memory ever

im suprised noone has mentioned the far more likely scenario that will unite the merican people.

A solar flair big enough to disrupt earths technology, not because all the satelites will be down (which they will) not because it would get pretty chaotic. Its because you take away the sole "right" of freely being distracted by TV and the internet your going to have alot of heavy pissed off individuals, front line infantry with a hell of a shield.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

Laws are natural and cannot be invented.

i'm not sure if i can ever agree with this statement. if laws were natural, why are so many laws anti-nature when you start looking at them in the context of all the other laws?

how many laws are there? is it natural to not be permitted to know the number of laws that truly exist within one's own lifetime? (rhetorical questions i ponder)

Legislation is not law but merely evidence of law. Laws are self explanatory, and when legislation requires explanation, (which is almost always explained as being for your own good), this is the first sign that such legislation is not law. If something is for your own good, it requires no explanation.

thank you for taking the time to explain some stuff and share what you know. but i have found instances where the laws are simply contradictory to one another & by all appearances seem detrimental to what they are suppose to be according to the intentionality behind them as i was taught to believe, or williing mistlead to believe.

case and point? the united states air forces core values, in the context of committing acts of war. the core values of the usaf and war do not mix well.

even what we are taught in the first few years of grammar/elementary school isn't entirely lawfully true. we are taught (by law) to read only from left to right, but this is only a spec of what literacy can be.

eden [reversed/phonetically] nude
*yep, they were allegedly nude in edun.

stood [mirror] boots
*yep, boots have been known to have stood.

effort [reversed/spelled dif] trophy
*yep, a trophy is proof of an effort.

my point is that the laws that reinforce us creating these encryptions may be detrimental to all three things you listed.

who is benifitting by the laws that reinforce the projection of the future events into our languages? doesn't seem that we are.

just some thoughts,
ET

p.s.
i also believe we are indoctrinated into a manipulative system at a very early age to deal with extremely ancient problems. re-inforced by laws, or rather the individuals perception of what those laws truly mean.
thanks jean paul,
john paul

[edit on 3-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]

www.liveleak.com...

the albanians recently said ènough`.

I too believe that an uprising of sorts is inevitable. The only thing that could potentially prevent it would be for the ruling types to actually start listening to the ruled, heed their concerns, and act to correct those concerns. I don't see that happening at all. In fact, all indicators are that it's going in precisely the opposite direction, and accelerating.

This is a crying shame. I mean literally a CRYING shame. People will die, and they will never know if there was any good reason for it at all. Friends, family, YOURS, not just "the other guys". Others won't literally die right then, but will be ruined for life. THOSE will envy the dead. Conflict is not a movie, where the hero always wins and goes back home to rest peacefully on his laurels. It's a bloody, muddy, nasty, messy business that leaves one asking the question of why it ever got to the point that it was forced upon him at all. He'll wake up suddenly in the middle of the night, make sure he still has all his arms and legs intact, and wonder why he got to keep those things, while some of those closest to him didn't.

He'll feel guilty that he got to live at all, when so many others didn't. He'll ask himself for the umpteenth time WHY? and if he's pretty sure no one is looking, he'll probably shed a tear or two.

It's not a glorious quest, all flag waving and patriotism. It's not a romantic lark. It's a bloody nasty, body part collecting job, and for all that, it's sometimes necessary - because one jackass just couldn't leave another jackass alone in peace, and every one else got sucked in to it.

These things usually start small - a mob here, a mob there, no direction, just mindless destruction. TPTB (whoever they are in that place, at that time) just can't have that, and they crack down - but that only makes more converts, and a bigger mob. More bigger mobs. Next thing you know, news agencies in foreign countries are reporting on YOUR 'local unrest'. That's right, the whole time you were saying "it can't happen HERE", it WAS happening.

The spark is an event, sometimes not even a very big one. That spark is thrown onto a tinder pile of discontent and deprivation, and it take hold. It smolders. It bursts into flame here and there, and the flame spreads. We've already got the tinder pile of discontent, and the deprivation portion is rapidly creeping up on us.

After a period of mob action, and governmental failures to contain it (because they CAN'T, without addressing the root cause - cracking down makes more converts) Knots form in the mobs. At first, they're just small, hard knots, but knots with a DIRECTION, a common cause. Knots also form in the other side, the governmental faction. Those knots are called "targets" and serve only as a focus point for their opposite numbers. They actually help the rebellious to coalesce and form up, by providing a VISIBLE target for the perceived "common cause". I say "perceived", because at some point, you realize that all these folks who are now cooperating with one another would have just as soon killed each other off just a few months prior.

These "knots" collect around 'leaders", folks with a plan. It might not be your ideal plan, but if it keeps you alive, that's where you head. After a while, these groups start co-operating, if not merging. You ain't got a plan right now? No problem. Someone will show up with a plan just when everyone is tired of all the chaos. Then it's game on, in earnest.

I don't want to hear this foolishness about "butbutbut... they've got STUFF!" There has yet to be ANY piece of technology developed that is foolproof and can't be defeated. NONE. That's what keeps repairmen in business. All one has to do, even if it's in working order, is find the weakest point and hammer the hell out of it. The attacker has to fight SMART, as well as hard, if he expects to survive at all. I once spent 3 day hiding from helicopters flying search patterns with FLIR pods, and STILL gained my objective. Don't tell me it CAN'T be done.

It CAN be done. Has been in the past, and doubtless will be again in the future. More than CAN be, it's inevitable if some key players don't wise up, and the rest of us (at least the ones who survive) will be left holding the bag and having to live with ourselves in the aftermath. Doesn't matter a bit whether you think it's possible or not. When the tide comes, you'll get swept in, the same as everyone else, whether you like it or not. The Universe doesn't care what you believe to be possible, or what you want.

One last thing. I see a lot of "the corporations this" and "the corporations that". "Corporations have taken over my government, and are ruling us all!"

Boo-frakkin'-hoo. Cry me a river. YOU agitated, poked and prodded, tweaked and teased, all the time clamoring for MORE government. BIGGER government. "Government has to do something about this" and "government has to do something about THAT!" until you got your giant mega tentacled government.

Now you want to whine because it got taken over by corporations, and your friendly little Frankenstein is now in operation under the remote control of your "oppressors"? Well! Who begged for it to have that much power in the first place? What could the corporations do with it if you hadn't grown it to the point where it can squash YOUR liberty like a bug? YOU are the jackasses that just couldn't leave the other jackasses alone in peace. You just HAD to control them, and now you have the temerity to whine on the internet because the monster YOU built has been turned against you?

Again. cry me a river. Boo-frakkin'-hoo. Now we ALL gotta live with the world you made.

Here's a hanky.

Originally posted by Hack28

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Druidae

Red Fox to Grey Squirrel, The Eagle has flown the nest!

~Druidae

I heard that exact phrase once before, about 30 years ago or so. Do I know you?

greatest memory ever

Little things stick with you, and big things you try to blot out. That particular instance was memorable.

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher


John Paul,

Thank you for engaging in this debate, and before addressing some of your questions and concerns, I would first address any concerns some might have that our side bar of debate might be off topic. I would suggest that in a thread discussing the inevitability of revolution, the law is very much on topic.

I believe you are equating legislation and rules with law. Laws are universal and apply to everyone, everywhere. Laws are not contradictory, but legislation and rules certainly can be.

It is important to make the clear distinction between laws, and rules. Rules are guidelines created to mark boundaries within a game. Laws are not guidelines, and the law of gravity is no more a guide line, a mere suggestion, of how all things behave, than is the law of individual rights. Both laws are universal, and a man can just as easily disregard the law of gravity as he would disregard the law of individual rights. That disregard for the law in no way diminishes the law, and instead diminishes the man who would disregard it.

Rules, on the other hand, can and should be challenged when they are working against you. Laws do not work against you. Rules often times do. I have come to develop my understanding of rules that work against you and what one must do when faced with such rules, and I call this understanding the Captain Kirk Principle.

In The Wrath of Khan, under a set of dire circumstances where a young cadet is frantic in her belief that they are doomed, Captain Kirk finally relents and tells this young cadet how it was that he managed to beat the computer simulation of the no-win scenario in his own years as a cadet. He explained to her that he simply re-programmed the computer so that he could win.

"You cheated?"

She asked in disbelief.

"No, I didn't cheat. I changed the rules"

He answered.

It has been years since I have seen that movie, so I am paraphrasing the lines, but this was the crux of it. Kirk understood that as an officer and captain of a starfleet ship that his primary concern was to protect his crew and ship, so he did what was necessary to do so in a scenario where no chance of survival was the game. He rightly understood that such a rule was contradictory to the game of command, and so he acted according to his mandate as a starfleet commander, and changed the rules so that his crew may survive.

Survival is the key, and when rules are thrust upon people, clearly diminishing the chance for survival, those rules are arbitrary rules that have been put in place to rig the game so only a privileged few can win. Winning is not contingent upon privilege, it is contingent upon besting your opponents. If rules work against you so that by playing the game your only option is to lose, then the only option is to change the rules.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


yeahh your right about what kirk said its funny i just watched that movie 2 nights ago it was on tv by chance and its funny that khans wrath was the obliteration of any life connected to what kirk stood for wrath usually described to express GODs anger and Khan being ghengis the king of the mongols but it also tied in the GENESIS project the moral out of pure evil and absolute destruction came pure good and the begining of creation perhpas thats what going full circle is
do they not say its the best of times its the worst of times
i for one find most entertianment be it movies or programes funny they call television "programs" being a subliminal form of comunication or programing if you watch something once you ssee it for its entertainment value then as your awareness grows and you see something again its kinda uncanny the hidden truths or messages you can find or begin to notice

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


so in conclusion i do belive we are faced with a similar task as kirk as a race our existance is preprogramed to a final conclusion where we cant win and i do belive we as a race or at leaste enough of us will awaken and change the rules so we can win so we can change the preprogramed pre written pre prophecised ending
in fact are we not doing it now for i do belive it is as simple as elevating conciousness "AWARENESS" for i belive our conciousness and awareness radiates through the "FORCE" and our cries for TRUTH and JUSTICE will be and in fact are being heard QUESTION EVRYTHING ACCEPT NOTHING BUT THAT ,THAT IS THE TRUTH

Grownups are here now, & talking
Each others’ logics we are stalking
If you don’t care, keep on walking…

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher

 

John Paul,

Thank you for engaging in this debate, and before addressing some of your questions and concerns, I would first address any concerns some might have that our side bar of debate might be off topic. I would suggest that in a thread discussing the inevitability of revolution, the law is very much on topic.

Jean Paul,
I thank you as well. The insights you offer into aspects of this thread’s subject matter is more extensive than mine, and I find your recalcitrant magniloquence to be very articulate and a refreshing thing to witness on ATS.

At a glance the word “debate” is somewhat misleading to me, however. I would equate this exchange of words as more akin to a mutual agreement dedicated to denying ignorance (in this case mine) and a fruitful dialogue in which we are sharing information to aid ourselves, and fellow ATSers, in a deliberate attempt to reveal previously misunderstood truisms concerning the laws’ causes and effects, while attempting to justify why or why not a “revolution” is in order.

For those about to communicate, I, (ET), salute thee.

…, I would first address any concerns some might have that our side bar of debate might be off topic. I would suggest that in a thread discussing the inevitability of revolution, the law is very much on topic.

Perhaps my contribution can be perceived at a glance as being “off topic”, but addressing the effects of the causes of the laws we are discussing concerning the possible justification of “revolution” is not too far off topic, in my opinion.

Let the revolution begin with words, then if that fails we can start overthrowing governments and participate in the culling of our fellow life on earth.

I believe you are equating legislation and rules with law. Laws are universal and apply to everyone, everywhere. Laws are not contradictory, but legislation and rules certainly can be.

Indeed. And for your efforts to enlighten me on the differences and relationships between them, I thank you. But, I would venture to say we are denying certain universal truths when making the laws we make, or passively permit others to install. But some more points I would like to make concerning this are….

Law is not singular. And, when asked (by a goddaughter or niece) how many laws there are, what does an uncle and/or godfather say? She may as well be asking me what the highest number is, or what the last redundancies to the pi ratio are at the end of the other side of that decimal point.

Indeed, I must concede and admit some level of ignorance concerning the coalition of laws, rules, and legislation, and their involvement and relationships with each other. Sir, you may indeed be correct in your observations.

It is important to make the clear distinction between laws, and rules. Rules are guidelines created to mark boundaries within a game. …***SNIP***…That disregard for the law in no way diminishes the law, and instead diminishes the man who would disregard it.

I would voice the possibility that the man has already been diminished, as has quality of life, if the man is not permitted to know the number of laws that exist, nor be capable of learning them within one’s own lifetime. The laws serve to deter growth, and endure stagnation, and/or social engineering and population control. Wars are invented by laws, even when both sides are fighting to preserve the laws they are not permitted by the laws of nature to live long enough to learn. Having said this your first sentence in the above quote sounds like Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to me. And as I rely on what I internally have integrated to form my own opinion on such issues, and as I compare my opinion to the environments that surround me, I still question what the “standard” is at age 38. While comfortably admitting that your perspectives and your observations offer me insight into previously misunderstood information.

Sometimes ignorance is deniable, but ignorance that is engaged can be fun when learning and serving a coalition that denies ignorance, even if the ignorance that is denied is my own. I feel no need to be a about it, rather to induce the empathies required to embrace the ideologies that have provided others with such levels of consciousness as to share without fear, hate, or prejudice their opinions and factually based truisms that brought the information to light and propelled such endeavors, before we embrace revolution in a covert or overt fashion.

Concerning the vast number of mandatory expectations placed upon the youth of numerous nations and their uncanny inane relations….
It is like taking a bunch of 3 months old and forcing them to play monopoly, and slapping them in the face when they break the rules. Maybe not a fair comparison since children in wars get more than just slapped in the face.

Rules, on the other hand, can and should be challenged when they are working against you. Laws do not work against you. Rules often times do. I have come to develop my understanding of rules that work against you and what one must do when faced with such rules, and I call this understanding the Captain Kirk Principle.

I reserve questions concerning your interpretations of rules and of laws.

May I be so bold as to offer a deviation from accepted logic, and present a piece of evidence that may or may not have a pertinent quality about it concerning the realms of what is either imagined or real & what can be or can’t be discussed when attempting to either resolve or instigate revolutions?

Science Fiction is an interesting thing that does not always coincide with our current understandings of universal law. If we are willing to spend as much as we spend for the constitution of the tree of knowledge (laws), then why are we not permitted to pick the fruit from the tree we are used to fertilize?

…and I call this understanding the Captain Kirk Principle.

And I call the following examples of anagrams the effect that is caused by the laws:

I’m Star Trek Capt.
No law states I cannot turn that “m” upside down and re-arrange the letters. They were cards dealt to me, and I can hold them in my hands however I so choose:
Patrick Stewart

Is this a truism that was encoded & encrypted into his name that turned out to be true well after he was born? Or was this a result of the subconscious realms’ interpretation of the laws?

briefly off topic to produce items that coincide with the effects of law

A few more examples of how the laws must be interacting within us:

Mainland Abuse
Usama bin Laden

Is this consistent with our current understanding of history? Have our laws encrypted and encoded future events into the names of our family?

Christopher O’deil Reeve
Horse River Helicoptered.

Yep, he fell off his horse (*Eastern Star) near a River bank & had to be Helicoptered away due to paralization.

Here is one more example of what (I believe) laws can produce at the expense of rational thought in entire civilizations (anyone with a $1 bill can view it):

Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordos Seclorum
On Apes' Code: Voluminous Instructors
Moron, A Superconductives Solutions
These have been examples of the results of what laws produce in the field of the governmental governing the mental in their garden.
Back to “realities” accepted norms according to the laws

It has been years since I have seen that movie, so I am paraphrasing the lines, but this was the crux of it. Kirk understood that as an officer and captain of a starfleet ship that his primary concern was to protect his crew and ship, so he did what was necessary to do so in a scenario where no chance of survival was the game. He rightly understood that such a rule was contradictory to the game of command, and so he acted according to his mandate as a starfleet commander, and changed the rules so that his crew may survive.

Survival is the key, and when rules are thrust upon people, clearly diminishing the chance for survival, those rules are arbitrary rules that have been put in place to rig the game so only a privileged few can win. Winning is not contingent upon privilege, it is contingent upon besting your opponents. If rules work against you so that by playing the game your only option is to lose, then the only option is to change the rules.

I think every ATSer can benefit from reading Jean Paul Zodeaux’s above quote and applying it to the subject matter being discussed in this thread.

Your contribution and analytical commentary is well stated JPZ.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
… I would suggest that in a thread discussing the inevitability of revolution, the law is very much on topic.

I am willing to consider the ramifications of the inevitability of revolution from as many outlets/inlets as I can currently perceive, and the possibilities of what tools we have at our disposal when such considerations are addressed. Law may be very much on topic. Laws may be more than the topics they address.

Once again, Jean Paul Zodeaux, your contributions to the ATS community do not disappoint. Thank you for sharing your perspectives on such fundamental issues and their relationships to the subject matter being discussed in this thread.

Sometimes in peace, and sometimes in pieces,
ET