freedom of thought, which amendment protects that?

Bullshit.

Just be happy with what you have and you will be as rich as a person can be.

abandonconflict said:

Bullshit.

Just be happy with what you have and you will be as rich as a person can be.

Click to expand...

I began a long time ago, to understand how want, and thus discontentment was fomented, and this is only the smallest portion of how our minds are captured. I was away from radio and TV - it helps, Being exposed to the hallucinogenics may well play a part, and may well also be illegal for that very reason.

As the famous Hannibal Lector said "we first begin to covet what we see". The free enterprise system cannot operate the way it does unless we all covet and we all are exposed everywhere to the items those who also covet wish us to covet. There are few places left without a TV, restaraunts, gas stations, airports, and when there is no such thing, there are the sides of busses, the sides of highways, banners flying through the sky, messages popping up on your computer screen.

We need not covet simply the item but the lifestyle it represents. But again, it is not simply covetousness, it is belief, in a cause, in a philosophy, in a religion. We are taught, many of us, at a young age, a particular religion and also taught never ever to question its dogma. Now, is your mind your own?

We are filled with half truths and myth. America has the greatest health care system on earth, America is the most giving. America is exceptional.

Liberals are all takers and fools, conservatives are all greedy rich people. There is no global warming, Global warming will destroy us alllll. There is no harm in cigarettes, "cigarettes kill", this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs. Big oil is our salvation, Big oil will ruin us all.

Each of these statements doesn't just appear, it is carefully orchestrated to make the largest impact by some organization with the money to do so and the self interest to spend it.

I have studied this for many many years now and I am fooled as well. I let my guard down because what is told to me not only makes sense but fits with my philosophy or prejudice. The biggest day for spousal abuse is Super Bowl Sunday!! I believed that for years until someon challenged me and I did the research I should have done. It was a liberal, woman's rights lie.

canndo i have read all you have written here so far and i have also been studying this topic through experience for many many years and i have also been fooled many times along the way, but i can only respond to your well thought interpretations from my own experiences and in my experiences many times i have chosen that which was 'not an option' presented by 'the powers that be' (if you will)...and time and time again all it took was my insistence and persistence to bring into being the otherwise unseen options etc...
one of the many examples i could share from my personal life i already have and it tends to put your conclusions into question...

"i was put on trial in madera county ca for felony cultivation charges in 1994 and before 215 (the compassionate use act)...this was also before i understood the concept of a 'general intent crime' so i didnt understand that in such 'criminal' trials (cannabis cultivation being in that category) why you did what you did becomes (unless a judge explicitly rules other wise in pre trial deliberations etc) irrelevant and inadmissible and the only relevant questions become 'did you do it?' or 'did you have it?' etc...(lesson learned, always be a plaintiff if possible rather than a criminal defendant because basically the rules flip to the reverse and give you relevance when telling why your doing what your doing etc lol)...
the problem for me was that the whole reason i planted the 20,000 seeds was to intentionally go on trial in order to tell the jury why i did what i did lol so you can imagine what a pickle jar i had gotten myself into...
long story short i represented myself and even though for 5 days the judge kept 'shutting me down' and instructing the jury to 'disregard' what ever i had said i kept getting a sentence or two in here and there that 'put the skunk in the jury box' as they say...
because i had 'admitted to guilt' (was even on video tape and called the sheriff myself lol) the judge basically instructed the jury to convict...
the conservative madera co jury came back with a unanimous acquittal...it was a unique jury nullification case...
but you would never know what im about to tell you if you relied on norml's 'official' press releases about the trial/verdict etc...
which is that the 'skunk' i through in the jury box every chance i got was that we all have the self evident inherent human right to posses seeds and grow plants for our own use in effort to satisfy our needs to live...
my point is that we are in this mess imo do to our own negligence in that we have all along been framing this issue wrong or allowing it be framed wrong etc...
our corpsgov relishes in the fact that we help them keep the question away from human rights and only asked in terms of 'should weed be legalized/regulated' etc...
what if?
what if the nation question to the public jury was 'is possessing seeds and growing plants, 'any' plants (in effort to meet your own needs in order to 'live') your self evident inherent human right?
would things be different now?
its not to late to make this happen..."

DNAprotection said:

canndo i have read all you have written here so far and i have also been studying this topic through experience for many many years and i have also been fooled many times along the way, but i can only respond to your well thought interpretations from my own experiences and in my experiences many times i have chosen that which was 'not an option' presented by 'the powers that be' (if you will)...and time and time again all it took was my insistence and persistence to bring into being the otherwise unseen options etc...
one of the many examples i could share from my personal life i already have and it tends to put your conclusions into question...

"i was put on trial in madera county ca for felony cultivation charges in 1994 and before 215 (the compassionate use act)...this was also before i understood the concept of a 'general intent crime' so i didnt understand that in such 'criminal' trials (cannabis cultivation being in that category) why you did what you did becomes (unless a judge explicitly rules other wise in pre trial deliberations etc) irrelevant and inadmissible and the only relevant questions become 'did you do it?' or 'did you have it?' etc...(lesson learned, always be a plaintiff if possible rather than a criminal defendant because basically the rules flip to the reverse and give you relevance when telling why your doing what your doing etc lol)...
the problem for me was that the whole reason i planted the 20,000 seeds was to intentionally go on trial in order to tell the jury why i did what i did lol so you can imagine what a pickle jar i had gotten myself into...
long story short i represented myself and even though for 5 days the judge kept 'shutting me down' and instructing the jury to 'disregard' what ever i had said i kept getting a sentence or two in here and there that 'put the skunk in the jury box' as they say...
because i had 'admitted to guilt' (was even on video tape and called the sheriff myself lol) the judge basically instructed the jury to convict...
the conservative madera co jury came back with a unanimous acquittal...it was a unique jury nullification case...
but you would never know what im about to tell you if you relied on norml's 'official' press releases about the trial/verdict etc...
which is that the 'skunk' i through in the jury box every chance i got was that we all have the self evident inherent human right to posses seeds and grow plants for our own use in effort to satisfy our needs to live...
my point is that we are in this mess imo do to our own negligence in that we have all along been framing this issue wrong or allowing it be framed wrong etc...
our corpsgov relishes in the fact that we help them keep the question away from human rights and only asked in terms of 'should weed be legalized/regulated' etc...
what if?
what if the nation question to the public jury was 'is possessing seeds and growing plants, 'any' plants (in effort to meet your own needs in order to 'live') your self evident inherent human right?
would things be different now?
its not to late to make this happen..."

Click to expand...

my case is bolstered by that very phrase - no,I would never know.

canndo said:

my case is bolstered by that very phrase - no,I would never know.

Click to expand...

well now you've lost me...
i gave you a plain and clear example where the options were not only limited by the market and product makers but the options were expressly limited by the 'law' and by the judge etc yet my choosing the unseen/not even allowed option was enough to give the jury the same option regardless of specific instructions to the contrary...they chose as i chose to color outside the lines...
how does this do anything but put your conclusions in question?

DNAprotection said:

well now you've lost me...
i gave you a plain and clear example where the options were not only limited by the market and product makers but the options were expressly limited by the 'law' and by the judge etc yet my choosing the unseen/not even allowed option was enough to give the jury the same option regardless of specific instructions to the contrary...they chose as i chose to color outside the lines...
how does this do anything but put your conclusions in question?

Click to expand...

One mind, no one else knows, your actions were quaranteened.

canndo said:

One mind, no one else knows, your actions were quaranteened.

Click to expand...

very true canndo and i assure you no one knows that bit better than i do...but it was a spark that could have made a flame if capitalized on properly...
even in that local arena where before that almost all cannabis cases were pleaded out, the next 3 cases that unusually went to trial were also then thrown out by the juries.
all im saying is that until a more efficient method of mind control is ready for prime time the choices 'available' are ultimately limited by our own choices to be satisfied with such and literally stop considering other possibilities...

DNAprotection said:

very true canndo and i assure you no one knows that bit better than i do...but it was a spark that could have made a flame if capitalized on properly...
even in that local arena where before that almost all cannabis cases were pleaded out, the next 3 cases that unusually went to trial were also then thrown out by the juries.
all im saying is that until a more efficient method of mind control is ready for prime time the choices 'available' are ultimately limited by our own choices to be satisfied with such and literally stop considering other possibilities...

Click to expand...

It takes too rare a breed and too much bravery. Our fouunding fathers saw that their choices were actually only options but found another way, the majority of the masses did not follow. And that was a time of deep philosophical thought. Now, the biggest thought any of us have is what is introduced to us by the Matrix. "gee, maybe things aren't as they seem".

I have been pointing these very things out in every way possible to little avail. the next big "thing" is the removal of our choice regarding food. in the next 10 years or so all choice with regard to GMOs will be removed from the population but that is only a portion of it, a campaign to have us believe that GMOs are not only good for us but for the planet will reign. "but it's got electrolites", is as prophetic a line from "Idiocracy" as any.

Do you have a real choice when it comes to your food? for the vast majorty, the answer is no. Those who believe they do are fooling themselves, which is exactly what those who wish us to believe it - have us believe it.


If you go down the line with a close eye you can test yourselves or others on this principle.

What do you believe that big corporations or big government would rather you believe?

There is no global warming
lawyers are bad
regulation is bad
raising the minimum wage will negatively affect you
universal health care is bad
frivolous law suits are the rage
you have the right to choice, it is in the constitution (choice meaning the choice to have as much salt and sugar and fat in your processed food as you like)

When companies pollute - shit happens, after all, it is just an accident
Companies would never intentionaly endanger their customers, it doesn't make sense
"we only produce what the customer wants"
You have a constitutional inalienable right to life liberty and property and those rights are granted by your creator. (in fact you have no such rights)
Your second amendment right is the one that protects all the others.
companies have your best interest in mind
Profit is always a reasonable goal
The free enterprise system, in the manner practiced in the United States is the ultimate victory over chaos
The rich are the only ones who give you jobs
Big government is always bad
The only tyranny is that which eminates from government
Unions are bad


Many hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars has been spent to have people believe these things. Many more hundreds of billions is spent ascertaining trends and getting out in front of them in order to make the spender seem like an innovator. Look carefully at the "gluten free" adds, before that the margerne adds, the now GMO free campaigns, the Organic campaign, the localy sourced campaign.

I posted a while back that large processed food companies had unlocked centers in our brains that could addict us to certain combinations of foods. They used sophisticated technology to watch the brain itself and modify their products. There have been studies done where people were given a bag of chips or cookies, allowed to begin eating them and then given a shot of an opiate antagonist. They stopped eating the chips.

When it was discovered recently that woman were not even entering the snack isle in their grocery stores because they knew that if they purchased anything on the isle they would wind up standing in the kitchen consuming the entire box. So, if you have noticed, the bags were reduced in size to 100 calorie servings.

Of course the companies put an assortment of bags in each box - so that the woman would simply go on to the next little 100 calorie bag until still, the box was empty.

This is all BY DESIGN. and it is just a very few examples. Nestlie has recently perfected a meal for folks who have had gastric bypasses - in part their own doing and now they are packing those little pouches with as many empty calories and flavor as they possibly can.

BY DESIGN.


Most of these methods were borrowed from the tobacco industry. Most cigarette tobacco is treated with ammonia. This process causes the nicotine to become a base and more able to pass through the membranes of the lung - causing a quicker reaction and causing an increase in the possibility of addiction.

BY DESIGN.

Your mind and your desires are not your own.

Want more?


Bread and Circuses - only someone else owns both. the rise of the every day man as star, the demise of the "expert", so that every pundant is the equivelent of any PHD. The rise of "fake" authorities. The continuing trend toward distrust of science (our only method of assertaining the truth), the reduction in funding of any goverrnment entity that might protect the common man from big business. distraction and disinformation. Where exactly do you think the idea that the ACA included death panels - did you think that just sprang up unaided?

When the health insurance industries first got wind of a first run at Cannes of Michael Moore's anti health care "documentary" (he is also a disinformer). They sent spies to watch the movie and then report back instantly on the movie. The insurance companies immediately moved to introduce disiniformation into the population in order to head off the negative opinions that movie would cause.

The GCC, the Global Climate Coalition was a PR firm that used Tobacco methods to introduce doubt into what was previously a simple scientific debate, they caused the debate to be both personal and political. Abortionist activists produce volumes of misinformation about the health dangers to mothers who have abortions. Al Gore's movie was fraught with alarmist propaganda, and in turn the GCC produced their own propaganda.

There are no longer facts, there are only opinions appearing as fact, there are only "beliefs" Do you "believe" in evolution - the world's most unasailable scientific theory to date, but it is categorized as a "religion" so as to put some quack pastor on par with any peer reviewed, scientific paper on the subject.

again, you are not allowed true choice, only options, all of which are offered up to you by one self interested entity or another.

Oh don't believe that I think there is a global conspiricy, there isn't, it is only that one feeds upon the other. The more our food supply suffers, the more the pharmaceutical company prospers. The more the AG industry forces it's limited options of food upon us the more money it makes and the more it can subvert not only the government but the people who vote and purchase it's products.

canndo i havent disagreed with any part of your analysis as to our current state of being and how that comes to be, where we part views is in the final 'diagnosis' (if you will)
and so i can only repeat what i have already stated is my view in that respect...(nothing you have written so far has convinced me otherwise, and i am always open to thinking differently if it makes sense to me)
"until a more efficient method of mind control is ready for prime time, the choices 'available' are ultimately limited by our own choices to be satisfied with such and literally stop considering other possibilities..."

Don't just be a consumer.

• We are not free, our minds are not our own, our desires are not our own.​
  
  
  
  

Click to expand...

I dont think you are qualified to comment about all of us in this manner.

NLXSK1 said:

I dont think you are qualified to comment about all of us in this manner.

Click to expand...

first, we have no idea who you're talking to because you are unable to make a simple quote.

second, no one thinks you are qualified to comment on anything, besides servicing a dozen dudes every day for $20 a pop.

but perhaps we just have no idea what you're capable of.

UncleBuck said:

first, we have no idea who you're talking to because you are unable to make a simple quote.

second, no one thinks you are qualified to comment on anything, besides servicing a dozen dudes every day for $20 a pop.

but perhaps we just have no idea what you're capable of.

Click to expand...

You are correct. That is why I said it in the first place.

NLXSK1 said:

I dont think you are qualified to comment about all of us in this manner.

Click to expand...

apparently you and buck need some bonobo therapy...in other words just have sex and learn to get along ...
aside from that if i understand your quote above than i agree...

[video=youtube;tQNpL-HBoNk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQNpL-HBoNk[/video]

DNAprotection said:

what if technology was developed that would allow for basic control of a humans thought?
i pose this question outside of the context of any reasonable voluntary scenario such as agreeing to hypnosis or signing up for the military etc...
in other words for example a technology that one might be exposed to through tv, radio. computer or cell phone etc that would/could be used by the corpsgov on you to help with 'national security' etc and so such would naturally be 'classified' project etc...
im not implying that such a thing is or isn't going on, i'm just reaching for a viable example in effort to put the question in a reasonable context...
freedom of 'speech' = the expression of thought, so the freedom to think must come before that imo lol...
freedom of thought it seems to me is in part directly related to your 'conscience' and in that context it seems that such freedoms would be protected under the 1st amendment within the words that come before any mention of speech...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

and so regardless of what you think or believe or understand about who and what you are and your notions of right and wrong etc it seems that if you have no use for the first words in the first amendment then you have no real constitutional protection for your human right to think...
what do you think?

Click to expand...

Here we go again. The Constitution doesn't give us rights, rights certainly cannot from a piece of paper. The constitution isn't a list of our rights, in fact, not one single right is enumerated. The Bill Of rights is not about giving us rights, but about making government powerless to infringe on them.

Too bad so many people think the constitution gives us rights, that we figure if it doesn't say it in there, then we have no right to it, which couldn't be any more wrong. Easily duped.

The bigger question is, what amendment protects against my erection?

see4 said:

The bigger question is, what amendment protects against my erection?

Click to expand...

I wonder if I could blast your pecker off with my newest aquisition:



Behold, a 1967 "T" series Browning Hi-Power, made in waffle inventing Belgium. $1300 at the gun show. I dickered for a while and pointed out the hair scratch on the front of the grip ( take rings off before handling these things people, sheesh)

Never been shot, it's just a safe queen, Came with the book and the case as original, plus the price in 1967 was $135 as the receipt attests. Anyway, I figured you would appreciate it if anyone can.

DNAprotection said:

what if technology was developed that would allow for basic control of a humans thought?
i pose this question outside of the context of any reasonable voluntary scenario such as agreeing to hypnosis or signing up for the military etc...
in other words for example a technology that one might be exposed to through tv, radio. computer or cell phone etc that would/could be used by the corpsgov on you to help with 'national security' etc and so such would naturally be 'classified' project etc...
im not implying that such a thing is or isn't going on, i'm just reaching for a viable example in effort to put the question in a reasonable context...
freedom of 'speech' = the expression of thought, so the freedom to think must come before that imo lol...
freedom of thought it seems to me is in part directly related to your 'conscience' and in that context it seems that such freedoms would be protected under the 1st amendment within the words that come before any mention of speech...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

and so regardless of what you think or believe or understand about who and what you are and your notions of right and wrong etc it seems that if you have no use for the first words in the first amendment then you have no real constitutional protection for your human right to think...
what do you think?

Click to expand...

It's not a amendment that protects it ,

The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of Congress.[SUP][1][/SUP] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The orinigal brain washing

public education , now with common core