In a fairly recent post, I wrote (and now updated it a bit with some emphasis for clarity here)…
Our Supreme Court illegally redefined the Commerce Clause [from “regulate Commerce”] to ‘regulate any activity having a substantial effect on commerce’ decades ago […]
What nobody [but yours truly] is talking about is the fact that your thought activity (which literally determines all of your buying and selling decisions) always rationally has a substantial effect on commerce.
The illegal redefining of the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate your thought activity in the “land of the free” — a technological capability factually coming to light in the not-too-distant future, so a serious national concern.
Now watch this little-over-two-minute video (one showing one brain controlling the actions of another brain) that newly appeared at the “World Science Festival” YouTube channel a few days ago…
Computers will logically disappear into the brain for some future generation (serious and necessary planning will likely push that ability beyond anyone alive during this authorship, but the technology is advancing towards brains that are reasonably temporally nearby), so this controlling capability will not be limited to anyone wearing a special hat for the magnetic manipulation of mentality.
Anyone understanding my view in life understands that prohibitions (which have never been conclusively proven to work) only place banned results in criminal control at the serious cost of taxpayer resources and liberty, so intelligence and civility demand that they be maximally avoided.
Even murder prohibition does not prevent murder, but it sadly remains the best solution until human behavior can be righteously (i.e. in a purely incoercible form) adapted prior (via serious improvements to individuals’ stress management) to the destructive stresses igniting murderous action.
Society has experienced decades of drug and gun “control” laws (for additionally solid examples) that have abhorrently failed outside of unethically politicized statistical spin (so failed by any fully honest measure). Moreover, both sets of laws are obviously unconstitutional by any uncorrupt judicial measure (if only enough Americans would care about that fact to firmly insist upon the removal of that corruption), but I somewhat digress.
Even regulations (euphemism for prohibitions, because any regulation prohibits some activity, and nobody can respectably oppose regulating society towards composure and equality) always produce questionable results (regulators can be bribed, loopholes abound, selective enforcement from unethical favoritism, incompetence, unintended consequences, and so on to the detriment of the ‘powerless’ supposedly being protected ironically by those regulations).
Tragedy is demonstrably inherent within our always-pros-and-cons reality (e.g. each one of us eventually dies, regardless of how the rule-of-law is structured), so regulations can only serve to determine the targets of tragedy, and you can probably easily conclude which group of people have better odds of not being those targets — the elitists (in the private and public sectors) controlling the regulations.
In short, trying to stop or control this ironically brain-controlling technology (or any other) against abuse is basically impossible, but being publicly prepared for it (including entertainingly, so effectively, teaching everyone where the traps and defenses are) is possible and should be wisely embraced (especially when the Information Age logically leads to the Entertainment/Education Age).
Without that embrace, this is the sick world we live in and leave for upcoming generations to excessively rot through — creating negative stress cyclically fueling and amplifying itself until critical mass once again sadly explodes into unpredictable branches of violent mass action against entrenched corruption forming the metaphorical minefield of laws that together (at least arguably) harm more people than all non-human-sourced tragedy combined (i.e. human-law-based stressors run rampant, and logically inclusively contribute to deadly bodily inflammation, and so on).
This is the world where deception and hypocrisy reign supreme excessively to the comfort of elitist fools who demonstrably fail to understand the crystal clear logic that a balancing reality (e.g. this one by any mainstream scientific assessment and common sense) can only mean comfort is purely fully paid for via discomfort (there is no “free lunch” in dominance). Note the unimaginable complexity demonstrated by reality means that payment cannot always be predicted in terms of ‘how’ (which is the source of the “clever” mind believing in the possibility of getting away with abuse — the idiotic ‘if nobody sees it, it did not happen’).
Elitists too often believe they are cleverly tricking the masses for elitist comfort (while merely pretending to uphold public safety), but they are only “shooting themselves in their feet”, because the Rule of Reality (i.e. my preferred term for reality’s purely scientifically inevitable need for balance for stability — the sound scientific version of the effects of karma) ensures full payment (suffering out is suffering in) — and reality cannot be bribed, provides no loopholes, offers no selective enforcement, is purely competent for itself, always has intended consequences, and so on to the detriment of the ‘powerful’ supposedly being protected by being above the law.
In short, the Rule of Reality is a fully logical, grounded, and naturally governing force — one sadly unrecognized these days by way too many people (apparently almost everyone) to outrageously (intentionally or otherwise) condone severe cases of suffering.
Again, this is not mysticism, but pure and fundamentally grounded logic. Feel free to challenge my conclusion (any of them), but understand upfront my strictest acceptance of only a purely logical (so fair, so just) expression — any form of selective reasoning may be highlighted for our educational purposes.
Our nation is terribly broken (factually speaking), because the primary (and sensible) goal of our nation upon establishment (i.e. the goal of opposing the abuse of law — logically the worst form of abuse due to its mainly broad scope of destruction) was shamefully ignored on behalf of dominating pre-American elitist preferences spanning the political spectrum (e.g. slavery, suppression of equal rights for women, and so on).
The monstrously hideous result is a perpetually growing and torturously tumultuous empowerment for corrupt elitist leverage without proper public defense.
Realistically speaking, there are two fundamental and righteous options — save this nation by scientific constitutionalism (my preference), or apply scientific constitutionalism upon national demise.
The only other option is yet another sick flavor of ‘we can trust our rulers to define liberty according to their subjective — e.g. weakly “scientific” — conclusions’ and all of the elitist-sourced abuses from favoritism that inevitably creeps and spreads out against too many generations of people vulnerable to that selfish elitist manipulation of law — allowing the unbearably dumb cycle of oppression repeat until death does humanity part.
Scientific constitutionalism (unlike any other political movement) majorly includes bringing certainty to language, so law.
A prime example of an uncertain word is commerce (dictionary.com):
1. an interchange of goods or commodities, especially on a large scale between different countries (foreign commerce) or between different parts of the same country (domestic commerce) trade; business.
2. social relations, especially the exchange of views, attitudes, etc.
3. sexual intercourse.
4. intellectual or spiritual interchange; communion.
What exactly does our Constitution mean upon granting Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (that quote being the full Commerce Clause, if unclear)?
Well, for one, it means Congress can ridiculously ban (not regulate) the mere possession of a certain plant (cannabis — the science term for marijuana) in your American hand — as repeatedly ruled by our Supreme Court. Millions of non-violent (i.e. sanely innocent) lives have been ruined to varying degrees by that abusive judicial leverage, so we are not talking theory here, but a massive experimental conclusion of mass destruction largely meeting metaphorical crickets chirping in our “community” (i.e. an abhorrently excessively, if not also cowardly, selfish group of fools idiotically ignoring the imminently balancing Rule of Reality that will forcibly, and perhaps agonizingly, correct our corruption, if we do not do it ourselves).
Scientific conclusions can be (and too often are) unethically skewed (i.e. the term science is too often abused), but the scientific method itself is a nice and simple certainty incapable of being corrupted (i.e. fully meeting the demands of that method only becomes purely agreeable results without possible exception) — one that must be powerfully leveraged to remove (inclusively intentional) confusion from language to form concrete law (instead of the muddy mess passing for law these days).
Scientific constitutionalism is genuine power for the people, because the certain and simple social construct that is the self-evident and unalienable right to liberty (i.e. liberty — the condition of being free from restriction or control — is limited only by the right itself) logically simply prevents the ratification of corrupt laws (when the public is righteously taught to maturely passionately care about that critical right enough to publicly defend it properly — which should not be too challenging of a task upon considering the undeniable popularity of liberty).
Increasing certainty in language (by casually expanding linguistics to include carefully adding certainty to language, instead of just allowing the purely wild evolution of language to be studied by linguists) also greatly improves communication in general (so naturally improves education), which consequently improves society to form a healthy feedback loop for a positive change.
Scientific constitutionalism also secures proper power for the governing oligarchy (always the group in actual power across the private and public sectors, regardless of formal government structuring — e.g. dictatorship, republic, democracy, and so on), because it ensures sound leadership decisions (i.e. fully logical and therefore fair, so just ones) cannot be overridden by insanely popular sentiment probably stirred up by responsible-looking reason abusers (if not also coerced by powerful thuggery).
Heading into the era of remote mental control, society better stop being largely suckered, and start being wise, because the Rule of Reality is not limited to abusive oligarchs — but can destroy an entire species with relatively minimal energy (e.g. a rock the size of a metropolis slamming into the Earth at about 65,000 kilometers [40,000 miles] per hour to ultimately wipe out the then-dominating species known as the dinosaurs, and many other species forming the apparently 75% of all life on Earth then terminated abruptly).
Scientific constitutionalism cannot be expected to be implemented overnight (or such), because increasing certainty in language requires care (so time), but the movement can (and must) begin now with the exploration of lingual certainty (at least for a sound judicial base).
The fundamental problem is objectively (so fairly, so justly) defining harm.
In a purely energetic reality (e.g. this one, at least according to mainstream physics), harm is subjective, so impossible to objectively define. That fact is the crux at the base of problematic law, but society continuously dominantly walks ignorantly complexly above that fact — spinning this and that for cheap political gain as if nothing bad comes from that cheapness, unknowingly while reality keeps literally perfect score for its balancing correction.
The solution required by any society with an unalienable right to liberty is harm must be maximally conclusively (never suggestively, or such) defined in strictest accordance with the scientific method. Murder, assault, theft, and slander clearly fall into the category of harm, but holding a plant in your hand does not (among thousands of other prohibitionary examples to “regulate” society).
I started my Liberty Shield entertainment (inclusively educational) ecosystem in the effort to best logically define that new and necessary political movement (one at least logically covering the honorable intentions of genuine liberals/progressives, American conservatives, and libertarians) to achieve enough credibility to gain enough traction for growth beyond my lifetime.
A lot more detail exists in the Liberty Shield informational roots, because I never want to be a part of yet another idealistic movement. There are admittedly serious challenges towards implementing scientific constitutionalism, but also serious rewards for the society that embraces those challenges to come out on top — judicially, scientifically, educationally, technologically, economically, militaristically, culturally, spiritually, and healthfully.
It is time for a righteously motivated (i.e. caring) society to press maturely hard for concrete (i.e. certain) measures to finally prevent reason abusers and their protective thugs from unethically deceiving the public mindset to seize power for elitist conquests submerging society into selfish ruin.
It is time for you to join that caring society, or explain your supposedly better alternative. I am always listening with regards to improving society, but (basically repeating for emphasis) I will be respectfully merciless against reason abusers here, so we can all better learn how to prevent such abuse from negatively controlling what would otherwise be healthily caring minds.
Hopefully enough of you promptly understand the need to keep scientific constitutionalism from tragically joining the dinosaurs — especially before this purely logical solution to the horrible oppression cycle remains buried in many continuously accumulating layers of informational sediment (perhaps lost forever).
Leave a Reply