Integrity
Integrity can be defined as consistency between reality, ideas and behaviour. Consistency with reality is not telling a child that daddy is “sick” when he is in fact drunk. Consistency with behaviour is not slapping a child for hitting another child. The value of this kind of integrity is also well understood by many, even if imperfectly practiced, and we will not deal with it much here either.
It is consistency with ideas that causes the most problems for families – and the most long-term suffering for children throughout their lives.
When you were a child, you were told over and over that certain actions were either good or bad. Telling the truth was good; stealing was bad. Hitting your brother was bad; helping your grandmother was good. Being on time was good; failing to complete chores was bad.
Implicit in all these instructions – moral instructions – was the premise that your parents knew what was right and what was wrong; what was good, and what was bad.
Do you think that was really true? Do you think that your parents knew what was right and wrong when you were a child?
When we tell a child that something is wrong – not just incorrect, but morally wrong – there are really only two possibilities. The first is that we actually know what is right and wrong in general, and we are applying our universal knowledge of right and wrong to a specific action committed by the child.
This is how it is always portrayed to the child. It is almost always the most dangerous lie in the world.
The second possibility is that we are telling our child that his actions are “wrong” for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with morality whatsoever.
For instance, we might tell a child that stealing is wrong because:
1. We are embarrassed at our child’s actions.
2. We are afraid of being judged a poor parent.
3. We are afraid that our child’s theft will be discovered.
4. We are simply repeating what was told to us.
5. We enjoy humiliating our child.
6. Correcting our child on “ethics” makes us feel morally superior.
7. We want our child to avoid behaviour that we were punished for as children.
... and so on
Assuming they are not terrified, most children, on first receiving moral instructions, will generally respond by asking “why?” Why is stealing wrong? Why is lying wrong? Why is bullying wrong? Why is hitting wrong?
These are all perfectly valid questions, akin to asking why the sky is blue. The problem arises in the fact that parents have no rational answers, but endlessly pretend that they do.
When a child asks us why something is wrong, we are put in a terrible bind. If we say that we do not know why lying is universally wrong, we believe we will lose our moral authority in the eyes of our children. If we say that we do know why lying is wrong, then we retain our moral authority, but only by lying to our children.
Since the fall of religion, we have lost our way in terms of ethics. As an atheist, I do not mourn the loss of the illusions of gods and devils, but I am alarmed at the fact that we have not yet admitted that the fall of religion has not provided us an objective and rational moral compass. By failing to admit to the fact that we do not know what we are doing ethically, we are perpetrating a grave moral error on our children.
Basically, we are lying to them about being good.
We tell them that certain things they do are right or wrong – yet we do not tell them that we do not know why those things are right or wrong. If our child asks us why lying is wrong, we can say that it causes people pain – but so does dentistry – or we can say “you don’t like it when someone lies to you” – which would be an incentive to not get caught, not to refrain from lying – and so on. Every answer we come up with leads to more questions and inconsistencies. What do we do then?
Why, then, we must bully them.
This does not mean hitting them or yelling at them – though sadly all too often this is the case – because as parents we have a near-infinity of passive-aggressive tactics such as sighing, acting exasperated, changing the subject, offering them a cookie, taking them for a walk, claiming to be “too busy,” distracting or rejecting them in a million and one ways.
These kinds of innocent questions about morality represent a kind of horror for parents. As parents, we must retain our moral authority over our children – but as citizens of modernity, we have no rational basis for that moral authority. Thus we are forced to lie to our children about being good, and about our knowledge of goodness, which transforms virtue from a rational discipline into a fearful fairy tale.
In the past, when religious mythology was dominant, when children asked “Where does the world come from?” parents could reply that God made it. Despite the superstitious ignorance of those who even now make the same claim, most modern parents provide the scientific and rational explanation of where the world came from, or at least send their children to the Web, an encyclopaedia, or the library.
There was a time, though, when the question of where the world came from was very difficult to answer. When religious explanations were becoming less and less credible, but scientific explanations had not become completely established, parents had to say – if they wanted to speak with integrity – “I don’t know where the world came from.”
By openly expressing their lack of certainty, parents not only acted with honesty and integrity, but also stimulated their children to pursue a truth that was admittedly absent from their world.
Alas, we suffer similar difficulties today, but about a far more important topic. The religious basis for ethics has fallen away from us, and we lack any credible or accepted theory to replace it. For a time, patriotism and allegiance to culture had some power to convince children that their elders knew something objective about ethics, but as government and military corruption have become increasingly evident, allegiance to a country, a state or a military ethos has become an increasingly fragile basis for ethical absolutes. Even our cherished theories about the virtues of democracy have come under increasing pressure, as gargantuan governments continue to separate themselves from the wishes of their citizens and act in a virtual “state of nature.”
Religious explanations of virtue have failed not just because we no longer believe in God, but also because it is now completely self-evident that when most people refer to “truth,” they are really referring to culture.[...]
Too Harsh?
I have often been accused of being too harsh on parents. “Parents do the best they can under difficult circumstances; you cannot judge the practical instructions of parents according to some abstract and absolute philosophical standard. My parents were not philosophers – they were simply telling me the truth that they believed, that they thought was accurate.”
The wonderful thing about applying philosophical concepts to our own lives is that theories are very easy to test. Discussing a philosophical theory about the causes of the decline of the Roman Empire is a largely theoretical exercise, since we cannot go back in time and test it.
Theories about our families, however, are very easy to test, assuming that we have access to the relevant family members.
It is my firm belief that most human beings are absolutely brilliant. I have come to this conclusion after decades of studying philosophy and having the most amazing conversations with countless people. I am now certain that parents know exactly what they are doing – and a relatively simple test can prove this to the satisfaction of any rational person.
A Practical Exercise
Sit down with your parents and ask them what the capital of Madagascar is – or some other piece of trivia that they are unlikely to know. They will very likely smile, shake their heads and say, “I don’t know.” They will not avoid the question. They will be more than happy to help you look it up. It will be a trivial fact-finding interaction.
After you have established what the capital of Madagascar is, ask them: “What is goodness?”
I absolutely guarantee you that there will be an instant chill in the room – there will be an enormous amount of tension, and your parents – and probably you – will feel a very strong desire to change the subject, or drop the question.
Why is that? Why is it that when you ask your parents to explain what goodness is, the tension in the room spikes dramatically?
Well, for the same reason that Socrates was introduced to a grim libation called hemlock.
There is terror in the face of the question “What is goodness?” because authority figures claim the right to tell us what to do based on their superior knowledge. If we decide to learn karate, we submit ourselves to the judgment and instruction of somebody who is an expert in karate. If we become ill, we submit our judgment to a doctor, an expert in the field. In other words, when we lack knowledge, we defer to those who claim greater knowledge.
Our parents claimed the right to instruct us on good and bad based on their great knowledge of ethics, not based on their power as parents. Our fathers did not say to us: “Obey me or I will beat you.” Although that terrible sentence might have come out of their mouths at some point, the basis of their ethics was that we owed them obedience as a just debt, and thus could be punished for failing to provide it. “Honour thy father and thy mother” is a staple of moral instruction the world over, both religious and secular. However, the honour that we are supposed to bestow upon our parents must be based upon their superior knowledge and practice of virtue – otherwise the word “honour” would make no sense. If we were thrown in jail, we would obey the prison guards because they held power over us, not because we “honoured” them. If a mugger presses a knife to our ribs, we hand him our wallet – obey his wishes – not because we honour him, but because he has the power to harm us.
By using the word “honour,” parents are claiming that we owe them allegiance due to their superior knowledge and practice of virtue.
Currently, the foundational “ethic” of the family – the entire basis for the authority of adults – is that parents know right from wrong, and children do not. Metaphorically, the parents are the doctors, and the children are the patients. Parents claim the authority to tell their children what to do for the same reason that doctors claim the authority to tell their patients what to do – the superior knowledge of the former, and the relative ignorance of the latter.
If you are unwell, and put yourself in the care of a doctor, and follow his instructions, but find that you do not get better – but in fact seem to get worse – it would be wise to sit down with that doctor and review his abilities – particularly if you cannot change physicians for some reason. Since following his instructions is making you worse, you must ask: “Why should I follow your instructions?”
It would be logical to begin by asking the doctor to confirm his actual credentials. Then, you might continue by asking what his definition of health is, to make sure that you were both on the same page. Then, you would continue to drill down to more specific questions about the nature of your illness, the nature of his knowledge of the human body, and his understanding of your ailments and the methodology by which he came up with your cure.
This is the conversation that you must have with your parents regarding the nature of virtue and their knowledge of it. Your parents were the moral doctors of your being while you were growing up – if, as an adult, you are happy and healthy, full of joy and engaged in deep and meaningful relationships, it is still worthwhile to examine the knowledge of your parents, since you may have children in time, and will yourself become a “doctor” to them.
If, however, you are not happy and fulfilled as an adult, then it is essential that you examine your parents’ ethical knowledge. If your health regimen has been established by a quack who has no idea what he is doing, you will never be healthy as long as you follow his instructions, since one can never randomly arrive at the truth.
If a madman passes himself off as a doctor, when a patient asks for his credentials, he will smile, spread his hands, and say, “Well of course I don’t have any!” His openness about his lack of knowledge and credentials establishes his relative innocence.
However, when the patient asks for a doctor’s credentials, if the doctor evades the question, or becomes hostile, or dismissive, then clearly the “doctor” is fully aware of what he is doing at some level. A man who commits a murder in a police station may claim insanity; a man who murders in secret and then hides the body has the capacity for rationality, if not virtue, and thus cannot claim to be mad.
The fact that your parents will do almost anything to avoid the question “What is goodness?” is the most revealing piece of knowledge that you can possess. It is the fact that blows the cage of culture wide open. It is the horrifying knowledge that will set you free.
You will not just benefit from examining your parents. You can also sit down with your priest, and examine him with regards to the nature of the existence of God (this is a useful conversation to have with religious parents as well). If you are persistent, and do your research in advance, you will very quickly discover that your priest also has no certain knowledge about the existence of God – and will become very uncomfortable and/or aggressive if you persist, which you should.
Is it wrong for a priest to say that he only believes in God because he “has a feeling”? In terms of truth, not exactly – in terms of integrity, absolutely.
The fundamental problem is not that the priest claims the emotional irrationality of “faith” as his justification for his belief in God, but rather that the existence of God was presented to you as an objective fact, and also that you were not allowed the same criteria for “knowledge.”
These two facets of the falsehoods you were told as a child are essential to your liberation as an adult.
Fiction as Facts
[...]A counterfeiter necessarily respects the value of real money, since he does not spend his time and energies creating exact replicas of Monopoly banknotes. The counterfeiter wishes to accurately reproduce real money because he knows that real money has value – he wishes his reproduction to be as accurate as possible because he knows that his fake money does not have value.
Similarly, parents present their opinions as facts because they know that objective facts have more power and validity than mere opinion. A “doctor” who fakes his own credentials does so because he knows credentials have the power to create credibility.
Recognizing the power of truth – and using that power to reinforce lies – is abominably corrupt. A man who presents his opinions as facts does so because he recognizes the value of facts. Using the credibility of “truth” to make falsehoods more plausible simultaneously affirms and denies the value of honesty and integrity. It is a fundamental logical contradiction in theory, and almost unbearably hypocritical in practice.
Thus it always happens that when grown children begin to examine their elders, they rapidly discover that those elders do not in fact know what they claimed to know – but knew enough about the value of the truth to present their subjective opinions as objective knowledge. This hypocritical crime far outstrips the abuses of mere counterfeiting, or the faking of credentials, because adults can protect themselves against false currency and fake diplomas.
Children have no such defences.[...]
Is Ignorance Hypocrisy?
The argument is often made that parents are not aware of all the complexities of their own hypocrisies, and thus are not morally responsible for their inconsistencies.
Fortunately, there is no need for us to rely on mere theory to establish the truth of this proposition.
If I tell you to take Highway 101 to get to your destination, and it turns out that this takes you in the exact opposite direction, what would be a rational response if I were truly ignorant of the fact that I was giving you really bad directions?
Well, I would first insist that they were the correct directions, since I genuinely believe that they are. However, when you sat me down with a map and pointed out exactly why my directions were so bad, I would see the truth, apologize profusely, and openly promise never to give out bad directions again – and buy a whole bunch of maps to boot, and spend some significant amount of time studying them.
However, if I got angry the moment that you brought up that I had sent you in the wrong direction, and refused to look at any maps, and refused to admit that I was wrong, and kept changing the subject, and kept distracting you with emotional tricks, and got more and more upset, and refused to tell you how I came up with my directions – and ended up storming out of the room, you may be unsure of many things, but you would not be unsure of one thing at least.
You would no longer imagine that I was ever interested in giving good directions.
In the realm of the parent-child relationship, this realization comes as a profound and terrible shock. This realization lands like a nuclear blast over a shantytown, radiating out in waves of destruction, smashing down the assumptions you have about all of your existing relationships.
The moment you realize that your parents, priests, teachers, politicians – your elders in general – only used morality to control you, to subjugate you – as a tool of abuse – your life will never be the same again.
The terrifying fact that your elders knew the power of virtue, but used that power to control, corrupt, bully and exploit you, reveals the genuine sadism that lies at the core of culture – it reveals the awful “cult” in culture.
A doctor who fakes his credentials is bad enough – how would any sane person judge a doctor who studies the human body not to heal it, but to more effectively cause pain?
A fraud is still better than a sadist.
What can we say, then, about parents and other authority figures who know all there is to know about the power and effectiveness of using moral arguments to control the actions and thoughts of children – who respect the power of virtue – and then use that power to destroy any capacity for moral integrity in their children?
In movies, terrorists almost invariably kidnap the wife or child of the hero in order to enforce his compliance with their wishes. His virtues – love and loyalty – are thus turned into the service of evil. The better he is, the worse he must act. The more he loves virtue, the more he is controlled by evil.
And thus do the best become the worst.
And thus are children raised.
And this was your instruction.
[...]
The Contradictory Appeal
When your father says, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” he is invoking both a principle and a person. The principle is that all mothers and fathers are honourable, and so deserving of respect. The person that he is invoking is himself and your mother specifically – thy mother and father.
Logically, this makes no sense.
Saying, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” is like saying, “Honour all the women who are my wife.” If I must honour all women, then I will automatically honour your wife, since she is a woman. If I must honour your wife, then there is no point saying that I must honour her as a woman, because that would involve honouring all women again. It’s one or the other.
If you must honour the category “father” and “mother,” then you must respect all mothers and fathers equally. Showing preference for your own parents would be unjust.
If you must show preference for your own mother and father, then the category of “mother” and “father” is irrelevant. It must be for some other reason, then, that you should honour these particular individuals.
If you should bestow honour upon your mother and father as individuals, and for no objective principle, then what is really being demanded is not honour, but obedience towards individuals in the guise of honour as a principle.
This basic logical contradiction, while complicated to discuss syllogistically, is something that every child instinctually understands. When our mother demands that we respect her, do we not feel contempt, frustration and despair? Demanding respect is like demanding love, or hijacking an aircraft. It is commanding a destination, rather than respecting the free choices of individuals.
We cannot imagine someone hijacking an aircraft on its way to Vladivostok and demanding, “Take me to Vladivostok!” People hijack planes because the plane is not going where they want to go.
[...]
The Open Cage…
I’d like you to imagine a man standing in the middle of a large meadow. You spend some time watching this man, and it doesn’t take you very long to notice that he paces back and forth in a small square, about 10 feet on either side. That’s all. Just 10 feet.
After a few hours of watching him do this, you walk up to him. When you reach forward to shake his hand, however, your fingers are burned by a strong electrical shock from an invisible barrier.
Startled – and hurt – you cry out. The man looks up.
“What’s the matter?” he asks.
“I just ran into this invisible wall which gave me a hell of a shock!” you cry.
He frowns. “I didn’t see anything.”
You blink. “Really? You’ve never heard or seen or felt this invisible barrier?”
He shakes his head slowly. “What invisible barrier?”
“The one that surrounds you – the one that keeps you penned in this little 10 foot square!”
“What little 10 foot square?” he demands. “There’s no little 10 foot square! I can go wherever the hell I want!”
“No you can’t!”
“Who the hell are you to tell me where I can and cannot go? I decide that!”
“I’m not telling you where you can and cannot go – I’m just telling you what you are actually doing!”
“What on earth are you talking about?”
“Well, I’ve been watching you for the past few hours, and you’re standing in the middle of this great big meadow, and yet all you do is pace back and forth 10 feet.”
“I can go anywhere I damn well please!” the man repeats angrily.
“You say that, but all you do is pace around and around in a little 10 foot square! If you can go anywhere you please, why don’t you just try taking one extra step?”
“I have no idea what you’re talking about,” he growls. “Now get the hell off my damn property!”
“Wait – I can show you!” You reach down and pick up some grass. You throw it towards the man. A few feet away from his face, the blades of grass burst into flame and evaporate. You do this several times, proving definitively that there is in fact an invisible force field that surrounds him, roughly 10 feet by 10 feet.
“Do you see?” you ask eagerly. “Do you see that you are in an invisible cage?”
“Get the hell off my property, you madman!” he cries, shaking with rage.
“But you must know that you are in an invisible cage,” you cry out. “You must know that, because you never try to go outside these walls. You must have at one time tried to break free of this cage, and were burned by the electric shock, which is why you never take more than a few steps before turning around! Don’t you see?”
He pulls out a gun, screams that he has a principle of shooting trespassers, and, quite sensibly, you run away.
This is the great paradox of attempting to teach people what they already know. Everybody claims complete freedom, but paces back and forth, trapped in a little square. Everyone is surrounded by the invisible cages of culture and mythology, and denies it completely. The evidence of these cages is very clear, because people always turn back just before they hit them. But then they deny that these cages exist.
Everybody acts as if they are perfectly free, and perfectly enslaved at the same time. Nobody admits to being in a prison, but everyone shuffles around in an invisible 10 x 10 cell.
In the same way, everyone tells you that they are free, but in fact everyone is trapped in little tiny cells of allowable conversation. Everybody tells you they love you, but strenuously avoids talking about what love is, or what about you they love.
Everyone tells you to be good, but they have no idea what goodness is – and will savage you for even having the temerity to ask the question.
Everybody talks about the truth, but the real truth is that nobody can talk about the truth – what it is, how it is defined, how it is verified, and its value.
Responsibility
If the man in the meadow were put into his cage when he was a toddler, he would have discovered the limits of his confinement – painfully – when he was very young. It is entirely conceivable that he would end up just avoiding his invisible prison bars, to retain his illusion of freedom, and repress the pain of imprisonment. If you cannot escape your prison, then you might as well imagine that you’re free.
The man is not responsible for being put in the cage when he was a toddler, and he is not responsible for his resulting repression, and he is not responsible for not testing the bars of his cage, but instead turning away before he touches them.
There are two things, however, that he is responsible for.
The first thing that he is responsible for denying is clear and tangible evidence that contradicts his belief. There are two primary pieces of evidence: the grass that bursts into flame, and the fact that although he says he is free, he never takes more than a few steps in any direction before turning around.
The second thing that he is responsible for is shutting down the conversation when it makes him uncomfortable.
The essence of wisdom is learning the value of “staying in the conversation,” even when it makes you uncomfortable.
Especially when it makes you uncomfortable.
[Source: http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/09/11/book-on-truth-the-tyranny-of-illusion.aspx ]
Transmutation of Oxygen into Sulphur
In the building of saltpeter, or potassium nitrate, the nitrogen of the air took a major part. How was the oxygen of the atmosphere affected by the interplanetary discharges?
It has been observed since ancient times that lightnings are attended by an odor of sulphur. In the twelfth book of the Odyssey, Homer says:
“Zeus thundered and hurled his bolt upon the ship, and she quivered from stem to stern, smitten by the bolt of Zeus, and was filled with sulphurous smoke.”
Again, in the Iliad: “When beneath the blast of father Zeus an oak falleth uprooted, and a dread reek of brimstone ariseth therefrom,—then verily courage no longer possesseth him that looketh thereon. . .”
And: “[Zeus] thundered horribly and let loose the shimmering lightning and dashed it to the ground in front of the horses of Diomedes, and a ghastly blaze of flaming sulphur shot up, and the horses, terrified, both cringed away against the chariot.”
The same observation is put into a scientific prose by Pliny: “Lightning and thunder are attended with a strong smell of sulphur, and the light produced by them is of a sulphurous complexion.” The second part of Pliny’s sentence is also correct: pioneer work on electrical discharges in modern times was produced using globes of sulphur in rotation. Sulphur is one of the best insulators and static electricity, when accumulated on it, discharges in electrical sparks toward objects brought close to it.
Electrical discharges produced without the help of sulphur are also accompanied by the smell of it. This odor was referred to by Benjamin Franklin who, comparing lightning and electricity, wrote to the Royal Society in London that both phenomena are attended by a sulphurous smell. This he mentioned among twelve other properties which suggested that lightning is an electrical discharge. No importance was attributed by him or by anyone else since to this sulphurous smell. The smell of ozone is different from the smell of vaporized sulphur or sulphurous compounds, and the supposition that the ancients were unable to distinguish between the two disregards the fact that besides the smell of ozone a sulphurous smell follows an electric discharge.
This suggests to me that sulphur is actually produced from the air by the passage of an electrical discharge. The quantity of sulphur must be detectable in a careful laboratory experiment.
Quite possibly the detection of sulphur produced by a strong electrical discharge, by means other than smell, has already been fulfilled. A very strong discharge of electricity passing through the air formed solid sulphur. The bolt of electricity that fell upon the plain of the Pentapolis was of a magnitude sufficient to cause a transmutation of elements on a great scale. It rained “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” The overturned plain became full of sulphurous deposits—"the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt [probably potash], and burning” —and when later in another great upheaval the plain became covered by the Dead Sea, sulphurous springs continued to flow into the valley of the Jordan and into the Dead Sea from submerged strata and from the springs on the shores.
At the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the seventh century before the present era, when every fifteen years Mars was approaching dangerously close to the Earth, Isaiah prophesied “the day of the Lord’s vengeance,” in which day “the streams [of Idumea] shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.” A curse upon man and his land was that “brimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation.” “Upon the wicked he shall rain pitch, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest.” This eschatological vision was alive with Ezekiel in the days of the Babylonian Exile. He spoke about “an overflowing rain, and great hailstones [meteorites], fire and brimstone.”
These stories of sulphur raining from the sky and the fearful expectations built upon them could be taken as fictions of an imaginative mind, were not the smell of sulphur an indication of its presence in the air following the passage of a discharge, and were not also the presence of sulphur deposits around the Dead Sea, thrust in deep below the ocean level, a substantiation of the story of the cataclysm.
Is the atomic source of sulphur generated by a discharge in oxygen, or does the nitrogen of the air participate also in the building of sulphur? It seems more probable that two atoms of oxygen are smashed into one atom of sulphur. If the atomic weight of sulphur obtained by electrical discharge will be found to be more than 32 (that of sulphur is 32.06) it might be due to the presence of some atoms of oxygen of the atomic weight 17. This heavy oxygen is the product of a nitrogen atom transmuted by the bombardment of alpha particles. We must reckon with the possibility that a proton from broken atoms of oxygen or ozone or nitrogen enters the new combination, or that electrons which cause the perturbation are able by themselves to change the atomic weight of the elements.
[Source: Immanuel Velikovsky - In the Beginning ]
It has been observed since ancient times that lightnings are attended by an odor of sulphur. In the twelfth book of the Odyssey, Homer says:
“Zeus thundered and hurled his bolt upon the ship, and she quivered from stem to stern, smitten by the bolt of Zeus, and was filled with sulphurous smoke.”
Again, in the Iliad: “When beneath the blast of father Zeus an oak falleth uprooted, and a dread reek of brimstone ariseth therefrom,—then verily courage no longer possesseth him that looketh thereon. . .”
And: “[Zeus] thundered horribly and let loose the shimmering lightning and dashed it to the ground in front of the horses of Diomedes, and a ghastly blaze of flaming sulphur shot up, and the horses, terrified, both cringed away against the chariot.”
The same observation is put into a scientific prose by Pliny: “Lightning and thunder are attended with a strong smell of sulphur, and the light produced by them is of a sulphurous complexion.” The second part of Pliny’s sentence is also correct: pioneer work on electrical discharges in modern times was produced using globes of sulphur in rotation. Sulphur is one of the best insulators and static electricity, when accumulated on it, discharges in electrical sparks toward objects brought close to it.
Electrical discharges produced without the help of sulphur are also accompanied by the smell of it. This odor was referred to by Benjamin Franklin who, comparing lightning and electricity, wrote to the Royal Society in London that both phenomena are attended by a sulphurous smell. This he mentioned among twelve other properties which suggested that lightning is an electrical discharge. No importance was attributed by him or by anyone else since to this sulphurous smell. The smell of ozone is different from the smell of vaporized sulphur or sulphurous compounds, and the supposition that the ancients were unable to distinguish between the two disregards the fact that besides the smell of ozone a sulphurous smell follows an electric discharge.
This suggests to me that sulphur is actually produced from the air by the passage of an electrical discharge. The quantity of sulphur must be detectable in a careful laboratory experiment.
Quite possibly the detection of sulphur produced by a strong electrical discharge, by means other than smell, has already been fulfilled. A very strong discharge of electricity passing through the air formed solid sulphur. The bolt of electricity that fell upon the plain of the Pentapolis was of a magnitude sufficient to cause a transmutation of elements on a great scale. It rained “brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” The overturned plain became full of sulphurous deposits—"the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt [probably potash], and burning” —and when later in another great upheaval the plain became covered by the Dead Sea, sulphurous springs continued to flow into the valley of the Jordan and into the Dead Sea from submerged strata and from the springs on the shores.
At the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the seventh century before the present era, when every fifteen years Mars was approaching dangerously close to the Earth, Isaiah prophesied “the day of the Lord’s vengeance,” in which day “the streams [of Idumea] shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.” A curse upon man and his land was that “brimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation.” “Upon the wicked he shall rain pitch, fire and brimstone, and a horrible tempest.” This eschatological vision was alive with Ezekiel in the days of the Babylonian Exile. He spoke about “an overflowing rain, and great hailstones [meteorites], fire and brimstone.”
These stories of sulphur raining from the sky and the fearful expectations built upon them could be taken as fictions of an imaginative mind, were not the smell of sulphur an indication of its presence in the air following the passage of a discharge, and were not also the presence of sulphur deposits around the Dead Sea, thrust in deep below the ocean level, a substantiation of the story of the cataclysm.
Is the atomic source of sulphur generated by a discharge in oxygen, or does the nitrogen of the air participate also in the building of sulphur? It seems more probable that two atoms of oxygen are smashed into one atom of sulphur. If the atomic weight of sulphur obtained by electrical discharge will be found to be more than 32 (that of sulphur is 32.06) it might be due to the presence of some atoms of oxygen of the atomic weight 17. This heavy oxygen is the product of a nitrogen atom transmuted by the bombardment of alpha particles. We must reckon with the possibility that a proton from broken atoms of oxygen or ozone or nitrogen enters the new combination, or that electrons which cause the perturbation are able by themselves to change the atomic weight of the elements.
[Source: Immanuel Velikovsky - In the Beginning ]
monoatomic elements
Transition Group Elements
— Description —
There is a group of elements found in the middle of the periodic table known as the "transition group elements":
1) One category of these is called the precious elements:
Silver, and the "light platinum group" ( palladium, rhodium, and ruthenium). These are called 3d transition group elements.
Gold, and the "heavy platinum group" ( platinum, iridium, and osmium). These are called 4d transition, group elements.
2) Another category of these are the non precious elements:
Copper, cobalt and nickel. These are called 2d transition group elements.
These elements are known as "transition group elements". They are in an uncertain state as regards their positive or negative electro-charge behavior, hence the name "transition". Their valence. electron orbitals are always half filled or half empty. (Electrons in the outer shells of an atom are referred to as valence electrons. Different orbital states for electrons can hold only certain numbers of electrons. ) Elements with fewer electrons in the outer shells tend to be electro-positive, and those with more electrons in the outer shells tend to be electro-negative.
These transition elements possess a unique property in that the electrons in the Partially filled outer orbitals can interchange under the right conditions with electrons in the partially filled inner orbitals (d). This is the underlying basis of catalytic reactions. (A catalytic reaction is a chemical reaction that occurs much more rapidly than normal without the catalyst itself participating in the reaction.)
Transition Group Elements
Atom Clustering and The Monoatomic State
Most atoms cluster in groups of at least two or more atoms. However, the transition group elements, because of their unique properties, can be found already existing, or can be created and are able to remain, in a stable single atom state. This is achieved by having no nearest neighbor closer than four angstroms and, therefore, by not being able to chemically bind with other atoms. This is called a "monoatomic" state.
In this state, these atoms interact in two dimensions, in a unique continuous linear movement between a strong repulsive force when close enough to each other, and a strong attractive force when moved apart at a certain distance. Only when the repulsive force is overcome, will these atoms aggregate to form a metallic union.
In metals, during the process of going from a many atom state to a monoatomic state, there is a disaggregation of the metal-metal bonds and a loss of the properties characteristically assigned to the description of a metal. Different transition elements have different critical atom cluster size which determine their metal characteristics and behavior. These characteristic physical properties are lost at different rates depending on the element involved. (For example, the critical cluster size for rhodium is five atoms; for iridium it is nine atoms.
Two or more atoms, up to thirty-three, of the same transition group element, when clustered together, are called "metal-metal" bonded. In these cluster sizes, they can not be called truly metallic. It takes a twelve atom cluster before they become electrically conductive. It takes thirteen atoms for their true metallic properties to begin to appear. It takes a cluster of thirty-three atoms before they become fully metallic, and will grow all by themselves. At thirty-three form a "face center cubic", a first basic growth structure of three dimensions solidly formed like a cube. In all these quasi metallic and fully metallic states, the atoms interact in three dimensions. In the monoatomic state, they are referred to as non-metallic and they interact in two dimensions.
In the monoatomic state, these elements have unique and consistent behavior. This is their true elemental state.
Transition Group Elements
Superdeformed Nuclei, High Spin Low Energy in the Monoatomic State:
In the monoatomic state, the atoms of the transition group elements lose their chemical reactivity and change the configuration of the nucleus. This change in nuclear configuration seems to cause the electrical change that pacifies the chemical effect. It may be considered as the mono-atom internally compensating for the highly reactive chemical state.
The nuclear configuration changes because there is a correlation between the nuclear orbitals and the electron orbitals as to how full they are. In the nucleus, totally filled orbitals (harmonic) exclude the partially filled orbitals (anharmonic) by pushing them away. The nucleus almost divides into one filled, and one half filled. This is known as the "liquid drop" theory.
This condition is unique to these atoms. The newly shaped nucleus is called "superdeformed". Nuclear physicists have recently confirmed that these atoms will change their proton and neutron configurations when they have no nearest neighbor to di-pole and di-pole react with. They can observe one atom at a time in linear accelerators.
A normal nucleus is shaped non spherically (deformed) at a vertical (length) to horizontal (width) ratio of 1.3 to 1. It is very stable and is held together by the strong force. It takes one million electron volts to knock a proton out of the nucleus!
The nucleons of these monoatomic elements adjust their positions in the nucleus, such that the ratio of their length to width becomes 2 to 1. These "soft" nuclei (those having a number of protons within a certain range and half filled orbitals) deform more easily than normal nuclei. 0nly ten electron volts are needed to cause a superdeformed nucleus to break apart, and this can be done with a mere DC arc! (See discussion of gamma emission below.)
The presence of a superdeformed nucleus is directly correlated to a change in its spin state; it passes from a low spin state to a high spin state. It has been found that the nuclei of these elements have a higher total energy in a low spin state (their internal temperature is higher) than when they are in a high spin state (their internal temperature is lower). This causes the mono-atom to seek the high spin state because that state has the total lowest energy. Furthermore, this high spin state will continue to exist until such time as a nearest neighbor atom is able to transfer energy into the nucleus and convert it back to the higher energy low spin state. (This is called "pinning" in the superconducting industry.)
[...]
David Hudson's Discoveries
David Hudson discovered that the monoatomic state can exist naturally and remain in a stable state in the transitional group elements. (ORME) He also discovered that in this state, the atoms can join to become a many atom resonance coupled system of quantum oscillators, resonating in two dimensions, indeed perfect superconductors, at room temperature. (S-ORME)
Hudson discovered that the precious elements, in the group of transitional elements, could be found in a monoatomic form in certain ores and that by a chemical method, he could separate them out from these ores. The high spin low energy state is stable and naturally maintained. it needs no external manmade manipulation. The internal temperature of the atom is measured to be almost zero degrees Kelvin .(approximately three degrees). This is a naturally cold state. It is, in fact, a perfect superconductor.
Hudson also discovered that he could prepare these mono-atoms from commercial metallic forms of the transitional group elements as well, and maintain them in this state by removing the chemical and crystalline energy. This is achieved by providing another element that is highly reactive and which has a chemical affinity for the transition element. When they react, they form a compound of the two elements. Through a process of replacement chemistry, hydrogen is exchanged for the reactive metal. The hydrogen transition metal compound is chemically removed from the solution and the hydrogen is thermally annealed from the sample. It is inherent in these precious elements to convert to the high spin state if this particular sequence is followed. This process is permanent and does not have to be continuously applied. It is also infinitely less expensive than the traditional refrigeration process.
[Source: http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/hudson.htm]
SUPERDEFORMATION OF NUCLEI [“New Radioactivities,” Walter Greiner and Aurel Sandulescu, Scientific American, March 1990, pages 58-67]:
“An atomic nucleus can spontaneously restructure itself, occasionally ejecting rare clusters of protons and neutrons.” These clusters can be any number of nucleons, e.g. 14 or 24; but the emission of a cluster of nucleons other than say an alpha particle (a He nucleus composed of two protons and two neutrons) is much rarer than alpha emission. “The structure of the nucleus arises from two types of interactions: strong and electromagnetic. As a result of the strong interaction, or nuclear force, protons bind to neutrons and to each other. The nuclear force binds nucleons very tightly but acts over a very short range. To separate two neutrons that are one fermi [10-15 meter] apart, for instance, requires an energy of about one million electron volts [1 Mev]. On the other hand, only about 10 electron volts is needed to dissociate two nucleons that are 10 fermis apart. As a result of the electromagnetic interaction, or Coulomb force, protons repel other protons. Although the Coulomb force is weaker than the nuclear force, it acts over a much longer range. If two protons are one fermi apart, the Coulomb force is about 100 times weaker than the nuclear force. Yet at a distance of 10 fermis, the Coulomb force is about 10 times stronger than the nuclear force.”
[...]
The nuclei of different elements consist of shells occupied by a certain number of protons and neutrons, much in the manner of the electron shell structure surrounding the nucleus. “If the shells of a nucleus are completely filled, as are those of calcium and lead, the nucleus is stable and consequently spherical.” “Stable nuclei usually consist of a ‘magic number’ of protons or neutrons; that is, they have 2, 8, 20, 28, 40, 50, 82, 126, or 184 protons or neutrons. Nuclei that have double magic numbers are particularly stable -- for example, calcium-48 (20 protons and 28 neutrons) or lead 208 (82 protons and 126 neutrons).” The Pauli exclusion principle “holds that a proton cannot occupy an energy state filled by another proton. The same is true of neutrons. As a result, each proton fills one energy state, starting with the state that has the least energy and filling as many states as there are protons. The neutrons fill another set of energy states.”
When the outermost shell of either protons or neutrons is not filled, and the number of protons and/or neutrons depart from the ‘magic numbers’, the nuclear structure is unstable. This can result in superasymmetric fission of the element. “Superasymmetric fission produces two fragments that differ greatly in mass and charge. The emission of the smaller of these two fragments produces radiation known as cluster radioactivity. The cluster is usually several times larger than an alpha particle.” What physicists call “the collective model holds that the outer part of the nucleus can deform when the outer nucleons move with respect to the nucleons of the inner nucleus. [Thus] this collective motion, or deformation, derives from the liquid-drop model. Cold fission can also be expected, as a nucleus splits into two ‘unexcited’ nuclei.” “Unlike the ordinary (hot) process, the energy released in cold fission does not excite the emitted nuclei into high-energy states. The nuclear fragments from cold fission are therefore more spherical and less elongated than the nuclear fragments from ordinary fission.”
[...]
QUANTUM SIZE EFFECTS IN RAPIDLY ROTATING NUCLEI [Y. R. Shimizu and R. A. Broglia, Physical Review C, April 1990, pages 1865-1868.]:
“It has been conjectured that the usual Cooper instability will not exist any more in small particles containing a reduced number of fermions, like, e.g., metallic particles. Therefore, superconductivity should disappear for particles in the quantal size effects (QSE’s) regime, when the energy difference between two discrete one-electron states is comparable to the energy gap of the superconducting state. This means that small superconductors with fewer than about 104 to 105 electrons as well as, e.g. atomic nuclei should be strongly affected by quantal size effects.” “The transition from pair-correlated to normal system with increasing angular momentum involves the coupling between the bands associated with the ground state and the excited states representing fluctuations in the pairing field. The understanding of the role played by pairing fluctuations in nuclei, which is one of the central questions of high-spin physics...”
[Under magnetic fields in the range of 700,000 gauss, it has been observed that high-spin states allow for transferring energy from nucleus to nucleus without loss of energy. This implies the existence of high-spin states (even without magnetic fields) which may lead to superconductivity. Example: The (relatively high temperature, 93 oK) superconductor, Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide (YBa2Cu3O7), is formed by repeated healing and cooling of the compound. This heating and cooling results in water vapor from the atmosphere bleeding into the compound to combine hydrogen and oxygen elements in such a way that some of the copper is left in a monoatomic state, and thus available for superconductivity. In this respect, the implication is for an asymmetric high spin nucleus, arranged in a line some 6.3 Angstroms apart, resonating in two dimensions, to perpetuate the wave and achieve superconductivity. The atoms seem to space themselves automatically, and form the nuclear equivalent of Cooper Pairs. The nucleons screen the electrons, allowing them to pair, and thereby losing their particle aspects -- the fermions thus become Bosons (Bose Condensation). What one achieves is a nucleus with light flowing, instead of electrons.]
[Source: http://www.halexandria.org/dward477.htm]
— Description —
There is a group of elements found in the middle of the periodic table known as the "transition group elements":
1) One category of these is called the precious elements:
Silver, and the "light platinum group" ( palladium, rhodium, and ruthenium). These are called 3d transition group elements.
Gold, and the "heavy platinum group" ( platinum, iridium, and osmium). These are called 4d transition, group elements.
2) Another category of these are the non precious elements:
Copper, cobalt and nickel. These are called 2d transition group elements.
These elements are known as "transition group elements". They are in an uncertain state as regards their positive or negative electro-charge behavior, hence the name "transition". Their valence. electron orbitals are always half filled or half empty. (Electrons in the outer shells of an atom are referred to as valence electrons. Different orbital states for electrons can hold only certain numbers of electrons. ) Elements with fewer electrons in the outer shells tend to be electro-positive, and those with more electrons in the outer shells tend to be electro-negative.
These transition elements possess a unique property in that the electrons in the Partially filled outer orbitals can interchange under the right conditions with electrons in the partially filled inner orbitals (d). This is the underlying basis of catalytic reactions. (A catalytic reaction is a chemical reaction that occurs much more rapidly than normal without the catalyst itself participating in the reaction.)
Transition Group Elements
Atom Clustering and The Monoatomic State
Most atoms cluster in groups of at least two or more atoms. However, the transition group elements, because of their unique properties, can be found already existing, or can be created and are able to remain, in a stable single atom state. This is achieved by having no nearest neighbor closer than four angstroms and, therefore, by not being able to chemically bind with other atoms. This is called a "monoatomic" state.
In this state, these atoms interact in two dimensions, in a unique continuous linear movement between a strong repulsive force when close enough to each other, and a strong attractive force when moved apart at a certain distance. Only when the repulsive force is overcome, will these atoms aggregate to form a metallic union.
In metals, during the process of going from a many atom state to a monoatomic state, there is a disaggregation of the metal-metal bonds and a loss of the properties characteristically assigned to the description of a metal. Different transition elements have different critical atom cluster size which determine their metal characteristics and behavior. These characteristic physical properties are lost at different rates depending on the element involved. (For example, the critical cluster size for rhodium is five atoms; for iridium it is nine atoms.
Two or more atoms, up to thirty-three, of the same transition group element, when clustered together, are called "metal-metal" bonded. In these cluster sizes, they can not be called truly metallic. It takes a twelve atom cluster before they become electrically conductive. It takes thirteen atoms for their true metallic properties to begin to appear. It takes a cluster of thirty-three atoms before they become fully metallic, and will grow all by themselves. At thirty-three form a "face center cubic", a first basic growth structure of three dimensions solidly formed like a cube. In all these quasi metallic and fully metallic states, the atoms interact in three dimensions. In the monoatomic state, they are referred to as non-metallic and they interact in two dimensions.
In the monoatomic state, these elements have unique and consistent behavior. This is their true elemental state.
Transition Group Elements
Superdeformed Nuclei, High Spin Low Energy in the Monoatomic State:
In the monoatomic state, the atoms of the transition group elements lose their chemical reactivity and change the configuration of the nucleus. This change in nuclear configuration seems to cause the electrical change that pacifies the chemical effect. It may be considered as the mono-atom internally compensating for the highly reactive chemical state.
The nuclear configuration changes because there is a correlation between the nuclear orbitals and the electron orbitals as to how full they are. In the nucleus, totally filled orbitals (harmonic) exclude the partially filled orbitals (anharmonic) by pushing them away. The nucleus almost divides into one filled, and one half filled. This is known as the "liquid drop" theory.
This condition is unique to these atoms. The newly shaped nucleus is called "superdeformed". Nuclear physicists have recently confirmed that these atoms will change their proton and neutron configurations when they have no nearest neighbor to di-pole and di-pole react with. They can observe one atom at a time in linear accelerators.
A normal nucleus is shaped non spherically (deformed) at a vertical (length) to horizontal (width) ratio of 1.3 to 1. It is very stable and is held together by the strong force. It takes one million electron volts to knock a proton out of the nucleus!
The nucleons of these monoatomic elements adjust their positions in the nucleus, such that the ratio of their length to width becomes 2 to 1. These "soft" nuclei (those having a number of protons within a certain range and half filled orbitals) deform more easily than normal nuclei. 0nly ten electron volts are needed to cause a superdeformed nucleus to break apart, and this can be done with a mere DC arc! (See discussion of gamma emission below.)
The presence of a superdeformed nucleus is directly correlated to a change in its spin state; it passes from a low spin state to a high spin state. It has been found that the nuclei of these elements have a higher total energy in a low spin state (their internal temperature is higher) than when they are in a high spin state (their internal temperature is lower). This causes the mono-atom to seek the high spin state because that state has the total lowest energy. Furthermore, this high spin state will continue to exist until such time as a nearest neighbor atom is able to transfer energy into the nucleus and convert it back to the higher energy low spin state. (This is called "pinning" in the superconducting industry.)
[...]
David Hudson's Discoveries
David Hudson discovered that the monoatomic state can exist naturally and remain in a stable state in the transitional group elements. (ORME) He also discovered that in this state, the atoms can join to become a many atom resonance coupled system of quantum oscillators, resonating in two dimensions, indeed perfect superconductors, at room temperature. (S-ORME)
Hudson discovered that the precious elements, in the group of transitional elements, could be found in a monoatomic form in certain ores and that by a chemical method, he could separate them out from these ores. The high spin low energy state is stable and naturally maintained. it needs no external manmade manipulation. The internal temperature of the atom is measured to be almost zero degrees Kelvin .(approximately three degrees). This is a naturally cold state. It is, in fact, a perfect superconductor.
Hudson also discovered that he could prepare these mono-atoms from commercial metallic forms of the transitional group elements as well, and maintain them in this state by removing the chemical and crystalline energy. This is achieved by providing another element that is highly reactive and which has a chemical affinity for the transition element. When they react, they form a compound of the two elements. Through a process of replacement chemistry, hydrogen is exchanged for the reactive metal. The hydrogen transition metal compound is chemically removed from the solution and the hydrogen is thermally annealed from the sample. It is inherent in these precious elements to convert to the high spin state if this particular sequence is followed. This process is permanent and does not have to be continuously applied. It is also infinitely less expensive than the traditional refrigeration process.
[Source: http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/hudson.htm]
SUPERDEFORMATION OF NUCLEI [“New Radioactivities,” Walter Greiner and Aurel Sandulescu, Scientific American, March 1990, pages 58-67]:
“An atomic nucleus can spontaneously restructure itself, occasionally ejecting rare clusters of protons and neutrons.” These clusters can be any number of nucleons, e.g. 14 or 24; but the emission of a cluster of nucleons other than say an alpha particle (a He nucleus composed of two protons and two neutrons) is much rarer than alpha emission. “The structure of the nucleus arises from two types of interactions: strong and electromagnetic. As a result of the strong interaction, or nuclear force, protons bind to neutrons and to each other. The nuclear force binds nucleons very tightly but acts over a very short range. To separate two neutrons that are one fermi [10-15 meter] apart, for instance, requires an energy of about one million electron volts [1 Mev]. On the other hand, only about 10 electron volts is needed to dissociate two nucleons that are 10 fermis apart. As a result of the electromagnetic interaction, or Coulomb force, protons repel other protons. Although the Coulomb force is weaker than the nuclear force, it acts over a much longer range. If two protons are one fermi apart, the Coulomb force is about 100 times weaker than the nuclear force. Yet at a distance of 10 fermis, the Coulomb force is about 10 times stronger than the nuclear force.”
[...]
The nuclei of different elements consist of shells occupied by a certain number of protons and neutrons, much in the manner of the electron shell structure surrounding the nucleus. “If the shells of a nucleus are completely filled, as are those of calcium and lead, the nucleus is stable and consequently spherical.” “Stable nuclei usually consist of a ‘magic number’ of protons or neutrons; that is, they have 2, 8, 20, 28, 40, 50, 82, 126, or 184 protons or neutrons. Nuclei that have double magic numbers are particularly stable -- for example, calcium-48 (20 protons and 28 neutrons) or lead 208 (82 protons and 126 neutrons).” The Pauli exclusion principle “holds that a proton cannot occupy an energy state filled by another proton. The same is true of neutrons. As a result, each proton fills one energy state, starting with the state that has the least energy and filling as many states as there are protons. The neutrons fill another set of energy states.”
When the outermost shell of either protons or neutrons is not filled, and the number of protons and/or neutrons depart from the ‘magic numbers’, the nuclear structure is unstable. This can result in superasymmetric fission of the element. “Superasymmetric fission produces two fragments that differ greatly in mass and charge. The emission of the smaller of these two fragments produces radiation known as cluster radioactivity. The cluster is usually several times larger than an alpha particle.” What physicists call “the collective model holds that the outer part of the nucleus can deform when the outer nucleons move with respect to the nucleons of the inner nucleus. [Thus] this collective motion, or deformation, derives from the liquid-drop model. Cold fission can also be expected, as a nucleus splits into two ‘unexcited’ nuclei.” “Unlike the ordinary (hot) process, the energy released in cold fission does not excite the emitted nuclei into high-energy states. The nuclear fragments from cold fission are therefore more spherical and less elongated than the nuclear fragments from ordinary fission.”
[...]
QUANTUM SIZE EFFECTS IN RAPIDLY ROTATING NUCLEI [Y. R. Shimizu and R. A. Broglia, Physical Review C, April 1990, pages 1865-1868.]:
“It has been conjectured that the usual Cooper instability will not exist any more in small particles containing a reduced number of fermions, like, e.g., metallic particles. Therefore, superconductivity should disappear for particles in the quantal size effects (QSE’s) regime, when the energy difference between two discrete one-electron states is comparable to the energy gap of the superconducting state. This means that small superconductors with fewer than about 104 to 105 electrons as well as, e.g. atomic nuclei should be strongly affected by quantal size effects.” “The transition from pair-correlated to normal system with increasing angular momentum involves the coupling between the bands associated with the ground state and the excited states representing fluctuations in the pairing field. The understanding of the role played by pairing fluctuations in nuclei, which is one of the central questions of high-spin physics...”
[Under magnetic fields in the range of 700,000 gauss, it has been observed that high-spin states allow for transferring energy from nucleus to nucleus without loss of energy. This implies the existence of high-spin states (even without magnetic fields) which may lead to superconductivity. Example: The (relatively high temperature, 93 oK) superconductor, Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide (YBa2Cu3O7), is formed by repeated healing and cooling of the compound. This heating and cooling results in water vapor from the atmosphere bleeding into the compound to combine hydrogen and oxygen elements in such a way that some of the copper is left in a monoatomic state, and thus available for superconductivity. In this respect, the implication is for an asymmetric high spin nucleus, arranged in a line some 6.3 Angstroms apart, resonating in two dimensions, to perpetuate the wave and achieve superconductivity. The atoms seem to space themselves automatically, and form the nuclear equivalent of Cooper Pairs. The nucleons screen the electrons, allowing them to pair, and thereby losing their particle aspects -- the fermions thus become Bosons (Bose Condensation). What one achieves is a nucleus with light flowing, instead of electrons.]
[Source: http://www.halexandria.org/dward477.htm]
teaching vs meta-teaching
[...] you cannot use the word ‘teacher’ for martial arts uh? It’s impossible. ‘Teacher’ is for school, you teach; in Japanese this is Kyoshi, ‘master’ is Shisho – a master. The master never teaches, he transmits, he doesn’t say ‘a, b, c, d… you put your hands like this…’ A master pushes you to develop the more deeply how to see things, the art of looking and observation – because if he teaches and explains to you everything he shuts down your capacity to survive and to adapt yourself, for a warrior this is impossible and, if you apply this to Ninjutsu, it’s more deeper. You cannot teach, if you teach it’s like a condemnation if you want, you put him in a place where he cannot do anything. It’s like if you help someone to eat, you always cut up his food and after he always waits for that, because humans are like this, we take automatism very quickly. So first, there is no teacher – teacher is for fixed things, sports things, school; this is reason why the word Ryu cannot be translated as school, because primary master and foundator of ryu never acted like teacher, he never had a dojo. He was the dojo: wherever place he goes.
[Source: COMBAT MAGAZINE INTERVIEW with DR. KACEM ZOUGHARI]
[Source: COMBAT MAGAZINE INTERVIEW with DR. KACEM ZOUGHARI]
Workoholism
[...]First of all: what is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth's surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given. Usually two opposite kinds of advice are given simultaneously by two organized bodies of men; this is called politics. The skill required for this kind of work is not knowledge of the subjects as to which advice is given, but knowledge of the art of persuasive speaking and writing, i.e. of advertising.
[...]From the beginning of civilization until the Industrial Revolution, a man could, as a rule, produce by hard work little more than was required for the subsistence of himself and his family, although his wife worked at least as hard as he did, and his children added their labor as soon as they were old enough to do so. The small surplus above bare necessaries was not left to those who produced it, but was appropriated by warriors and priests. In times of famine there was no surplus; the warriors and priests, however, still secured as much as at other times, with the result that many of the workers died of hunger. This system persisted in Russia until 1917, and still persists in the East; in England, in spite of the Industrial Revolution, it remained in full force throughout the Napoleonic wars, and until a hundred years ago, when the new class of manufacturers acquired power. In America, the system came to an end with the Revolution, except in the South, where it persisted until the Civil War. A system which lasted so long and ended so recently has naturally left a profound impress upon men's thoughts and opinions. Much that we take for granted about the desirability of work is derived from this system, and, being pre-industrial, is not adapted to the modern world. Modern technique has made it possible for leisure, within limits, to be not the prerogative of small privileged classes, but a right evenly distributed throughout the community. The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery.
[...]Modern technique has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor required to secure the necessaries of life for everyone. This was made obvious during the war. At that time all the men in the armed forces, and all the men and women engaged in the production of munitions, all the men and women engaged in spying, war propaganda, or Government offices connected with the war, were withdrawn from productive occupations. In spite of this, the general level of well-being among unskilled wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since. The significance of this fact was concealed by finance: borrowing made it appear as if the future was nourishing the present. But that, of course, would have been impossible; a man cannot eat a loaf of bread that does not yet exist. The war showed conclusively that, by the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work is a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produced, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry.
This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
[Source: Bertrand Russell - In Praise of Idleness (1932)]
[...]From the beginning of civilization until the Industrial Revolution, a man could, as a rule, produce by hard work little more than was required for the subsistence of himself and his family, although his wife worked at least as hard as he did, and his children added their labor as soon as they were old enough to do so. The small surplus above bare necessaries was not left to those who produced it, but was appropriated by warriors and priests. In times of famine there was no surplus; the warriors and priests, however, still secured as much as at other times, with the result that many of the workers died of hunger. This system persisted in Russia until 1917, and still persists in the East; in England, in spite of the Industrial Revolution, it remained in full force throughout the Napoleonic wars, and until a hundred years ago, when the new class of manufacturers acquired power. In America, the system came to an end with the Revolution, except in the South, where it persisted until the Civil War. A system which lasted so long and ended so recently has naturally left a profound impress upon men's thoughts and opinions. Much that we take for granted about the desirability of work is derived from this system, and, being pre-industrial, is not adapted to the modern world. Modern technique has made it possible for leisure, within limits, to be not the prerogative of small privileged classes, but a right evenly distributed throughout the community. The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery.
[...]Modern technique has made it possible to diminish enormously the amount of labor required to secure the necessaries of life for everyone. This was made obvious during the war. At that time all the men in the armed forces, and all the men and women engaged in the production of munitions, all the men and women engaged in spying, war propaganda, or Government offices connected with the war, were withdrawn from productive occupations. In spite of this, the general level of well-being among unskilled wage-earners on the side of the Allies was higher than before or since. The significance of this fact was concealed by finance: borrowing made it appear as if the future was nourishing the present. But that, of course, would have been impossible; a man cannot eat a loaf of bread that does not yet exist. The war showed conclusively that, by the scientific organization of production, it is possible to keep modern populations in fair comfort on a small part of the working capacity of the modern world. If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work is a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produced, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry.
This is the morality of the Slave State, applied in circumstances totally unlike those in which it arose. No wonder the result has been disastrous. Let us take an illustration. Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
[Source: Bertrand Russell - In Praise of Idleness (1932)]
The Nature of Law
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What Is Law ? What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.
For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [..]
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. Victims of Lawful Plunder Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests. It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.
The Results of Legal Plunder
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking. In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. [...]
[...]Can the law -- which necessarily requires the use of force -- rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution -- so long searched for in the area of social relationships -- is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice. Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law -- that is, by force -- this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization -- justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
[...]Law Is Force
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
Law Is a Negative Concept
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed. As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent. But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property. Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
[...]Proper Legislative Functions
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety. It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person. Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self- defense. It is for this reason that the collective force -- which is only the organized combination of the individual forces -- may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose. Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.
[Source: Frederick Bastiat - The Law]
For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [..]
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain -- and since labor is pain in itself -it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds. Victims of Lawful Plunder Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests. It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution -- some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.
The Results of Legal Plunder
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking. In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. [...]
[...]Can the law -- which necessarily requires the use of force -- rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution -- so long searched for in the area of social relationships -- is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice. Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law -- that is, by force -- this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization -- justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
[...]Law Is Force
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion. Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
Law Is a Negative Concept
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed. As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent. But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed -then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property. Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
[...]Proper Legislative Functions
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety. It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person. Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self- defense. It is for this reason that the collective force -- which is only the organized combination of the individual forces -- may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose. Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.
[Source: Frederick Bastiat - The Law]
NLP Presuppositions
People always take the best option they have
The map is not the teritory
Every behaviour has a positive intention
Everyone already has all the resources they need
What one can do, another can do
If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got
The one with the widest range of choices controls the system
The meaning of your communication is the response you get
You can't not communicate
There is no failure, only feedback
The map is not the teritory
Every behaviour has a positive intention
Everyone already has all the resources they need
What one can do, another can do
If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got
The one with the widest range of choices controls the system
The meaning of your communication is the response you get
You can't not communicate
There is no failure, only feedback
aquatic ape theory
[...]Humans are so accustomed to erect locomotion that it takes a specialist to appreciate what a bizarre and costly adaptation it was. Owen Lovejoy commented: " "For any quadruped to get upon its hind legs in order to run is an insane thing to do. It's plain ridiculous." As a gait it is far more unstable than quadrupedalism; it takes very much longer to learn, greatly extending the period when the female is burdened with the task of carrying the infant; it is a deplorably ineffective defence posture, exposing the most vulnerable organs of the body to the risk of damage or evisceration; unlike in quadrupeds damage to one leg or foot can be crippling rather than a temporary inconvenience. For bipedalism to become as efficient as it is today required extensive remodelling of the body, affecting the cranium, spine, pelvis, legs, feet, and consequent adaptations in the muscles and other organs. After five million years of these modifications, the spine is still the first organ in our bodies to deteriorate due to wear and tear, and bipedalism is the direct cause of vascular disorders such as varicose veins and haemorrhoids, and of obstetric disorders that throughout most of history have been life-threatening.
[...]The original assumption concerning human nakedness, that the hominids shed their body hair to avoid overheating, offered no valid reason why they would have been more at risk from overheating than other species sharing the same habitat. It ignored the fact that depilating an animal on the savanna raises its core temperature, rather than lowering it The argument that nakedness must have been a necessary concomitant of sweat-cooling is invalidated by the example of the thick-coated but efficiently sweat-cooling patas monkey. The progressive shortening of body hairs until they were functionally useless was not an extrapolation of any existing primate trend. Russell Newman convincingly argued that hairlessness must have preceded the move to the savanna; but the feature is no more frequently encountered, and no more easily explained , in a forest habitat than on the open plains. Human skin also differs from that of primates in respect of its greater thickness and elasticity, a radical transformation of the skin glands, and the way it is connected to a layer of fibrous tissue and a fat layer, described by John Napier as "one of humankind’s greatest unsung hallmarks" and found elsewhere only in aquatic species. William Montagna after years of exhaustive research into all aspects of primate skin, reported in 1972 that the problem of human nakedness continued to defy solution.
[...]While speech is unique to humans, the physical modifications that made it possible are not. Humans but not apes can consciously exert control over the volume of air they inhale, how long they hold it, and how quickly they exhale it. The only other mammals known to be capable of this are diving mammals. It was an essential precondition of speech and the lack of it in apes is an entirely sufficient explanation of why they cannot be taught to speak. Another feature found in adult humans but no other land mammal is the descended larynx which has lost all connection with the palate. This arrangement has several disadvantages and it has been persuasively argued that it is a main factor contributing to the phenomenon of SIDS (crib deaths). One possible advantage to an aquatic hominid could have been that it facilitates mouth-breathing and makes it possible to inhale large volumes of air very quickly. The theory that it evolved in order to make speech possible, or was a precondition of speech, has now been invalidated. Professor Tecumseh Fitch of M.I.T. in Boston has examined a little girl of four years old in whom the larynx has never descended, but her speech is indistinguishable from that of any other child of her age.
[...]Homo has been described as an obese species; even the slimmest human has the potential for obesity since humans inherit ten times as many adipocytes as would be expected in a mammal of our size. The percentage of fat in a human neonate is greater than that of any other newborn land mammal . It is more than in the harp seal or the sealion, and about six times as much as in a baboon. After birth the baby - despite the high energy requirements of its growing brain – continues to devote roughly 70% of its growth potential to increasing this fat deposit, reaching peak adiposity of around 25% of its body mass by the age of nine months. These facts would not be predicted. either as part of the inheritance from early arboreal ancestors nor as adaptations to a life on the plains of Africa.
[...]The attribute of fat to which least attention has been paid is that it provides buoyancy. The amount of fat in diving mammals is liable to vary according to whether they are surface feeders, or deep divers for whom too much buoyancy would be an embarrassment. It is worth noting that a human baby – apart from adapting happily to the water if introduced to it early enough – will float, whereas a chimpanzee or gorilla infant would sink.
[Source: http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Morgan.html]
Elaine Morgan site, withe her latest book available for free download: http://www.elainemorgan.me.uk/
[...]The original assumption concerning human nakedness, that the hominids shed their body hair to avoid overheating, offered no valid reason why they would have been more at risk from overheating than other species sharing the same habitat. It ignored the fact that depilating an animal on the savanna raises its core temperature, rather than lowering it The argument that nakedness must have been a necessary concomitant of sweat-cooling is invalidated by the example of the thick-coated but efficiently sweat-cooling patas monkey. The progressive shortening of body hairs until they were functionally useless was not an extrapolation of any existing primate trend. Russell Newman convincingly argued that hairlessness must have preceded the move to the savanna; but the feature is no more frequently encountered, and no more easily explained , in a forest habitat than on the open plains. Human skin also differs from that of primates in respect of its greater thickness and elasticity, a radical transformation of the skin glands, and the way it is connected to a layer of fibrous tissue and a fat layer, described by John Napier as "one of humankind’s greatest unsung hallmarks" and found elsewhere only in aquatic species. William Montagna after years of exhaustive research into all aspects of primate skin, reported in 1972 that the problem of human nakedness continued to defy solution.
[...]While speech is unique to humans, the physical modifications that made it possible are not. Humans but not apes can consciously exert control over the volume of air they inhale, how long they hold it, and how quickly they exhale it. The only other mammals known to be capable of this are diving mammals. It was an essential precondition of speech and the lack of it in apes is an entirely sufficient explanation of why they cannot be taught to speak. Another feature found in adult humans but no other land mammal is the descended larynx which has lost all connection with the palate. This arrangement has several disadvantages and it has been persuasively argued that it is a main factor contributing to the phenomenon of SIDS (crib deaths). One possible advantage to an aquatic hominid could have been that it facilitates mouth-breathing and makes it possible to inhale large volumes of air very quickly. The theory that it evolved in order to make speech possible, or was a precondition of speech, has now been invalidated. Professor Tecumseh Fitch of M.I.T. in Boston has examined a little girl of four years old in whom the larynx has never descended, but her speech is indistinguishable from that of any other child of her age.
[...]Homo has been described as an obese species; even the slimmest human has the potential for obesity since humans inherit ten times as many adipocytes as would be expected in a mammal of our size. The percentage of fat in a human neonate is greater than that of any other newborn land mammal . It is more than in the harp seal or the sealion, and about six times as much as in a baboon. After birth the baby - despite the high energy requirements of its growing brain – continues to devote roughly 70% of its growth potential to increasing this fat deposit, reaching peak adiposity of around 25% of its body mass by the age of nine months. These facts would not be predicted. either as part of the inheritance from early arboreal ancestors nor as adaptations to a life on the plains of Africa.
[...]The attribute of fat to which least attention has been paid is that it provides buoyancy. The amount of fat in diving mammals is liable to vary according to whether they are surface feeders, or deep divers for whom too much buoyancy would be an embarrassment. It is worth noting that a human baby – apart from adapting happily to the water if introduced to it early enough – will float, whereas a chimpanzee or gorilla infant would sink.
[Source: http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Morgan.html]
Elaine Morgan site, withe her latest book available for free download: http://www.elainemorgan.me.uk/
equality before the law
"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only want to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time."
- F.A. Hayek in THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, as quoted by Joan Kennedy Taylor in 7 Libertarian Review 30, at 33 (December, 1978).
Let us examine a favorite Patriot factual setting to see what happens when legal equality is forced on objects that belong, out in the practical setting, in their own class, free to commingle with other similar objects sharing the same approximate attributes, orientation, velocity, and dimensions. Why are bicycles, pedestrians, and buggies discouraged from using interstate highways where automobiles and huge semi's reign supreme at accelerated velocities? Because as a matter of practical concern, although, ARGUENDO, each form of transportation is legally entitled to some right-of-way access, in the practical setting each form of transportation operates best in its own protected path and status, free from each other's unique requirements. Do railroads really belong on automobile highways?
Even though both are particular forms of transportation that carry freight and people, by their nature they belong on separate tracks or paths. To have all forms use the same highway path, by legally forcing non-discrimination in effect between different forms of transportation ("It just isn't fair that I cannot use my bike on that highway!"), although initially it sounds legally impressive to get rid of discrimination, this actually creates hard damages out in the practical setting when high velocity vehicles weave their way around buggies and bicycles that non-discrimination legislation has forced into using the same track or status; bicycles and pedestrians belong on their own bicycle/pedestrian paths, sharing that path with transportation forms that operate under similar characteristics, and under similar velocity parameters. Not all particular forms of the same general classification belong in the same status or path, and when forced to cross over and commingle with each other, then damages occur.
Customized legislation (or DISCRIMINATION as some would characterize it by trying to cast an illicit derogatory inference on the subject even before the substance is addressed on its merits), providing for each particular form of transportation to operate in its own ideal tract and setting, at its own maximum velocity, prevents the damages that are caused by reason of improvidently commingling different particular forms. Correct PRINCIPLES OF NATURE, however invisible, operate across all factual settings, transparent to the particular application vicissitudes then under discussion.
And just as men and women were designed by their Creator to operate at different velocities and accomplish different objectives down here, although both are mammalian vertebrates and share similar dimensions, forcing both particular genders into the same track and status to accomplish legal equality will actually secondarily create hard damages out in the practical setting.
"The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labor, particularly when done standing, the influence vigorous health upon the future well-being of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 422 (1907).
"...history discloses the fact that women have always been dependent upon man. He established his control at the outset by superior physical strength, and this control in various forms, with diminishing intensity, has continued to the present. As minors, though not to the same extent, she has been looked upon in the courts as needing special care that her rights may be preserved... Though limitations upon personal and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is that in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full assertion of those rights... Differentiated by these matters from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessarily for men, and could not be sustained."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 421 (1907).
"A doctrinaire equality, then, is the theme of the [Equal Rights] Amendment. And so women must be admitted to West Point on a parity with men; women must be conscripted for military service equally with men... girls must be eligible for the same athletic teams as boys in the public schools and state universities; Boston Boys' Latin School and Girls' Latin School must merge (not simply be brought into parity); life insurance commissioners may not continue to approve lower life insurance premiums for women (based on greater life expectancy) -- all by command of the Federal Constitution."
- Paul Freund of Harvard University in HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE #4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, page 611, 92nd Congress, First Session [Discussing House Joint Resolutions 35 and 208 "The ERA"] (March and April, 1971).
[Source: Mercier - Invisible Contracts]
- F.A. Hayek in THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, as quoted by Joan Kennedy Taylor in 7 Libertarian Review 30, at 33 (December, 1978).
Let us examine a favorite Patriot factual setting to see what happens when legal equality is forced on objects that belong, out in the practical setting, in their own class, free to commingle with other similar objects sharing the same approximate attributes, orientation, velocity, and dimensions. Why are bicycles, pedestrians, and buggies discouraged from using interstate highways where automobiles and huge semi's reign supreme at accelerated velocities? Because as a matter of practical concern, although, ARGUENDO, each form of transportation is legally entitled to some right-of-way access, in the practical setting each form of transportation operates best in its own protected path and status, free from each other's unique requirements. Do railroads really belong on automobile highways?
Even though both are particular forms of transportation that carry freight and people, by their nature they belong on separate tracks or paths. To have all forms use the same highway path, by legally forcing non-discrimination in effect between different forms of transportation ("It just isn't fair that I cannot use my bike on that highway!"), although initially it sounds legally impressive to get rid of discrimination, this actually creates hard damages out in the practical setting when high velocity vehicles weave their way around buggies and bicycles that non-discrimination legislation has forced into using the same track or status; bicycles and pedestrians belong on their own bicycle/pedestrian paths, sharing that path with transportation forms that operate under similar characteristics, and under similar velocity parameters. Not all particular forms of the same general classification belong in the same status or path, and when forced to cross over and commingle with each other, then damages occur.
Customized legislation (or DISCRIMINATION as some would characterize it by trying to cast an illicit derogatory inference on the subject even before the substance is addressed on its merits), providing for each particular form of transportation to operate in its own ideal tract and setting, at its own maximum velocity, prevents the damages that are caused by reason of improvidently commingling different particular forms. Correct PRINCIPLES OF NATURE, however invisible, operate across all factual settings, transparent to the particular application vicissitudes then under discussion.
And just as men and women were designed by their Creator to operate at different velocities and accomplish different objectives down here, although both are mammalian vertebrates and share similar dimensions, forcing both particular genders into the same track and status to accomplish legal equality will actually secondarily create hard damages out in the practical setting.
"The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labor, particularly when done standing, the influence vigorous health upon the future well-being of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 422 (1907).
"...history discloses the fact that women have always been dependent upon man. He established his control at the outset by superior physical strength, and this control in various forms, with diminishing intensity, has continued to the present. As minors, though not to the same extent, she has been looked upon in the courts as needing special care that her rights may be preserved... Though limitations upon personal and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is that in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full assertion of those rights... Differentiated by these matters from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessarily for men, and could not be sustained."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 421 (1907).
"A doctrinaire equality, then, is the theme of the [Equal Rights] Amendment. And so women must be admitted to West Point on a parity with men; women must be conscripted for military service equally with men... girls must be eligible for the same athletic teams as boys in the public schools and state universities; Boston Boys' Latin School and Girls' Latin School must merge (not simply be brought into parity); life insurance commissioners may not continue to approve lower life insurance premiums for women (based on greater life expectancy) -- all by command of the Federal Constitution."
- Paul Freund of Harvard University in HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE #4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, page 611, 92nd Congress, First Session [Discussing House Joint Resolutions 35 and 208 "The ERA"] (March and April, 1971).
[Source: Mercier - Invisible Contracts]
money and fictions
An obligation to pay money generally is enforced by an action of assumpsit, and to that extent is referred to a contract, even though it be one existing only by fiction of law. But such obligations when imposed upon the members of a corporation may very very largely. The incorporation may create a chartered partnership the members of which are primary contractors, or it may go no farther than to impose a penalty; or again, it may create a secondary remedy for a debt treated as that of the corporation alone, like the right to attach the corporation's real estate; or the liability may be inseparable from the local procedure; or the law may be so ambiguous as to leave it doubtful whether the liability is matter of remedy, and local, or creates a contract on the part of the members that will go with them wherever they are found (McClaine v. Rankin). In the present case we think that there can be no doubt of the meaning of the California statute. It reads: 'Each stockholder of a corporation is individually and personally liable for such proportion of its debts and liabilities,' etc., as we have stated, and supposes the action against him to be brought 'upon such debt.' Civil Code, 322. This means that by force of the statute, if the corporation incurs a debt within the juris- [232 U.S. 221, 236] diction, the stockholder is a party to it, and joins in the contract in the proportion of his shares.
A fiction of law is stated from Lectric Law Library on the net as follows:
The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.
The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible actually is.
Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretense of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench.
It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.
The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law.
Now notice that Assumption is the word used to describe how fiction operates. The word presumption is the opposite, see opening paragraph for this sentence "It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true."
Now lets use this material from Black's 3rd Edition Law book and a case to wit:
Fiction. Derived from Fictio in Roman Law, a fiction is defined as a false averment on the part of the Plaintiff which the defendant is not allowed to traverse, the object being to give the court jurisdiction. Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. (1969)
[Source: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov037.htm]
A fiction of law is stated from Lectric Law Library on the net as follows:
The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.
The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible actually is.
Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretense of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench.
It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.
The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law.
Now notice that Assumption is the word used to describe how fiction operates. The word presumption is the opposite, see opening paragraph for this sentence "It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true."
Now lets use this material from Black's 3rd Edition Law book and a case to wit:
Fiction. Derived from Fictio in Roman Law, a fiction is defined as a false averment on the part of the Plaintiff which the defendant is not allowed to traverse, the object being to give the court jurisdiction. Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. (1969)
[Source: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov037.htm]
oaths of office
[...] you , when calling yourself a "state citizen" are an integral part of a corporate body and you yourself take on the character of a legal entity called a "person". All statutes are private corporate law and they all address a "person" and not a man. [...] Now you know why they refer to you as person.
[...] What was the American before he "resided" in a State? Wasn't he a "free white person?" See Works of John Adams, 213 and Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law,note on page 459, stated in part:
"The proper english meaning of the term `citizen' imported membership of a borough or local municipal corporation. The usual word for a man's political relation to the monarch of the state was `subject'. . . . The word `citizen' is not found in any of our state constitutions before that of Massachusetts (1780); . . . In the Declaration of Independence (1776), we read it once, `He has restrained our fellow citizens,' etc. and once in the Articles of Confederation."
[...] The oath thus states in part; I, ......... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution ...
Now we go to the paper called the Constitution of the United States. The two main parts that this oath apply are Article VI and the 14th Amendment Paragraph three. Remember that the oath is to a contract that they have to abide by and nothing else. You are not involved nor mentioned in the oath and with good reason. So let's see what they are abiding with.
First is the oath to Article VI. United States Article VI protects the debt owed to the creditor King by each debtor colony.
Article VI, U.S. Constitution.
1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid as against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. [The King's money and debt is protected and this is their solemn oath they take.]
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made [the treaty of 1606 and 1782 made with the King], or which shall be made [Jay's treaty of 1792 with the King], under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; [despite anything to the contrary Treaties are part of the Constitution and reign supreme]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
To prove these treaties are the "Law of the Land" here is what the HAMILTON v. EATON, 1 N.C. 641 (1796), HAMILTON v. EATON. 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.), had to say.
"[...] in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled."
Evidence what was stated by the same court; that those that join the State are "SUBJECTS" not sovereigns:
"By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, "That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State."
[...]So lets go to the 14th Amendment and see if they are following their oaths to obey and defend the contract of the corporations (state and federal).
But before we do we must set the stage for the reason the judges are only following their oath to the contract, which is in no way directed to you as you are not a party to the contract and never were. I will get to the Bill of Rights later.
Bouviers Law Dictionary defines Insurgent as, "One who is concerned in an insurrection. He differs from a rebel in this, that rebel is always understood in a bad sense, or one who unjustly opposes the constituted authorities; insurgent may be one who justly opposes the tyranny of constituted authorities. The colonists who opposed the tyranny of the English government were insurgents, not rebels."
As a side note , the 1933 trading with the enemy Act did not, I repeat, DID NOT make you the enemy of the United States despite what anyone says or writes about it. What it did was make you the enemy of the banks and that's why the banks were closed for 6 days so the President could issue them licenses to deal with the enemy, A.K.A. the American people. Your ancestors were already the enemy starting 1863, therefore, you too are the enemy and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to declare war against this government who is the conqueror. [...]
Now we go to Article 149 of the Lieber Code or General Order 100 of President Lincoln, who, prior to this, through 12 Stat 319, made you the enemy of the "State". That 1863 statute was never repealed and exists in Title 50 Sections 212, 213 and 215 as well as in Title 28 sections 2461 to 2465 seizure. If you do not believe me go and pull those Title 50 sections and go to the source law. Also note what Title 50 is named. So they still, unbeknownst to you, operate under this General Order 100. This is the part that they use against us today because remember, WE ARE STILL THE ENEMY INSURGENTS when attacking any laws of government. Read carefully.
The Lieber Code of 1863, SECTION X.--Insurrection-- Civil war--Rebellion.
"149. Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in views."
Now, "when we go against one or more of its laws", and that is the income tax laws, the Registration laws, the Driver license laws or any one of the multitude of laws they make, we are in insurrection because we are, remember, the enemy. When we defy an officer collecting revenue by any means then we are going "against an officer or officers" and are therefore considered dangerous and an insurrectionist.
In comes the 14th amendment paragraph to which the judge took his oath to obey. It states- "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Please note the passage "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". This is a key part because the judges are bound by oath to obey Article VI as to the debts to be paid and this paragraph three. You might see that paragraph four states that we cannot question the debt. We are a declared enemy under 12 Stat 319 and a declared enemy of the banks under section 5 b of the Trading with the Enemy Act that was not repealed with the rest of the act. Then if the judge, in ruling in the enemy's favor in any revenue laws, would be violating his oath of office. So you cannot complain that they are not following the oath of office. If ruling against the IRS they would then be violating their oath to protect the status quo of the corporation.
[Source: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov066.htm]
[...] What was the American before he "resided" in a State? Wasn't he a "free white person?" See Works of John Adams, 213 and Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law,note on page 459, stated in part:
"The proper english meaning of the term `citizen' imported membership of a borough or local municipal corporation. The usual word for a man's political relation to the monarch of the state was `subject'. . . . The word `citizen' is not found in any of our state constitutions before that of Massachusetts (1780); . . . In the Declaration of Independence (1776), we read it once, `He has restrained our fellow citizens,' etc. and once in the Articles of Confederation."
[...] The oath thus states in part; I, ......... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution ...
Now we go to the paper called the Constitution of the United States. The two main parts that this oath apply are Article VI and the 14th Amendment Paragraph three. Remember that the oath is to a contract that they have to abide by and nothing else. You are not involved nor mentioned in the oath and with good reason. So let's see what they are abiding with.
First is the oath to Article VI. United States Article VI protects the debt owed to the creditor King by each debtor colony.
Article VI, U.S. Constitution.
1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid as against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. [The King's money and debt is protected and this is their solemn oath they take.]
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made [the treaty of 1606 and 1782 made with the King], or which shall be made [Jay's treaty of 1792 with the King], under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; [despite anything to the contrary Treaties are part of the Constitution and reign supreme]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
To prove these treaties are the "Law of the Land" here is what the HAMILTON v. EATON, 1 N.C. 641 (1796), HAMILTON v. EATON. 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.), had to say.
"[...] in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled."
Evidence what was stated by the same court; that those that join the State are "SUBJECTS" not sovereigns:
"By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, "That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State."
[...]So lets go to the 14th Amendment and see if they are following their oaths to obey and defend the contract of the corporations (state and federal).
But before we do we must set the stage for the reason the judges are only following their oath to the contract, which is in no way directed to you as you are not a party to the contract and never were. I will get to the Bill of Rights later.
Bouviers Law Dictionary defines Insurgent as, "One who is concerned in an insurrection. He differs from a rebel in this, that rebel is always understood in a bad sense, or one who unjustly opposes the constituted authorities; insurgent may be one who justly opposes the tyranny of constituted authorities. The colonists who opposed the tyranny of the English government were insurgents, not rebels."
As a side note , the 1933 trading with the enemy Act did not, I repeat, DID NOT make you the enemy of the United States despite what anyone says or writes about it. What it did was make you the enemy of the banks and that's why the banks were closed for 6 days so the President could issue them licenses to deal with the enemy, A.K.A. the American people. Your ancestors were already the enemy starting 1863, therefore, you too are the enemy and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to declare war against this government who is the conqueror. [...]
Now we go to Article 149 of the Lieber Code or General Order 100 of President Lincoln, who, prior to this, through 12 Stat 319, made you the enemy of the "State". That 1863 statute was never repealed and exists in Title 50 Sections 212, 213 and 215 as well as in Title 28 sections 2461 to 2465 seizure. If you do not believe me go and pull those Title 50 sections and go to the source law. Also note what Title 50 is named. So they still, unbeknownst to you, operate under this General Order 100. This is the part that they use against us today because remember, WE ARE STILL THE ENEMY INSURGENTS when attacking any laws of government. Read carefully.
The Lieber Code of 1863, SECTION X.--Insurrection-- Civil war--Rebellion.
"149. Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in views."
Now, "when we go against one or more of its laws", and that is the income tax laws, the Registration laws, the Driver license laws or any one of the multitude of laws they make, we are in insurrection because we are, remember, the enemy. When we defy an officer collecting revenue by any means then we are going "against an officer or officers" and are therefore considered dangerous and an insurrectionist.
In comes the 14th amendment paragraph to which the judge took his oath to obey. It states- "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Please note the passage "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". This is a key part because the judges are bound by oath to obey Article VI as to the debts to be paid and this paragraph three. You might see that paragraph four states that we cannot question the debt. We are a declared enemy under 12 Stat 319 and a declared enemy of the banks under section 5 b of the Trading with the Enemy Act that was not repealed with the rest of the act. Then if the judge, in ruling in the enemy's favor in any revenue laws, would be violating his oath of office. So you cannot complain that they are not following the oath of office. If ruling against the IRS they would then be violating their oath to protect the status quo of the corporation.
[Source: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov066.htm]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
