Pegasus Research Consortium

We live in a nation where freedom of speech and expression hold top priority in both numerical designation and in real terms of law above all other rights we enjoy. There are reasons for that, and they are very solid and well considered ones. More can be found in supporting documents to the US Constitution.

At what point can we say that has gone too far? Is there a point where we can say free speech crosses into harmful speech?

First, let me say I am by NO means suggesting, even for discussion, that Government or State authority have any place in this. It isn't their business to tend, and that is also by the same #1 right which we speak by. However....SHOULD there be a point where we, as citizens, exercise some self-moderation? Should there be a point where, failing that, the citizenry exercises some pointed moderation? Take this case as an example....and yes, sadly, is from my own state.

QuoteJefferson County Recorder of Deeds Debbie Dunnegan called President Barack Obama "our domestic enemy" and suggested the U.S. Constitution would give the U.S. military the authority to oust the president in a coup d'état, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Wednesday.

Now there is more than one problem with that. Oh, my yes. There are a couple major issues I see here. However, lets start with the most obvious one. She is mistaken, unless I read my Constitution wrong. There is absolutely *NO* place or right, implied or otherwise, for the Military to stage the forceful takeover (our Coup) of our nation. None. Period. Doesn't exist. Isn't there. If it comes to that, they have already chosen to act well outside the law and the founding principles of our nation. Oh, there is more tho...

Quote"I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the Constitution gives you the authority. What am I missing?" Dunnegan, a Republican, wrote in a since deleted Facebook post.

Suggesting the President is a fool is one thing. I've done so more than once. Suggesting the man has the professional competence of a circus performer is probably fair too, or at least I'd say so. He plays a clown so well too, but I disgress. Suggesting the President is a real and legitimate ENEMY of our nation, with suggestion to see real world action to follow on that basis? Now, I think that is a bit too far. A tad over the top. Perhaps.....pushing it that last step into the abyss.

Finally....

QuoteMilitary recruits pledge to defend the United States against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" when joining the armed forces.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/politics/missouri-county-official-military-coup-barack-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t4)

Yes, they absolutely do. They take that oath, but that isn't the FULL oath they take. This is:

QuoteI, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The part in yellow, the clerk in our State Capital got correct. The part in red, she seems to handily forget when it means the most. So, to be realistic, a military coup to remove this or any other President would accomplish two things before we even get to the aftermath of rebuilding.

#1. It would, beyond any question whatever, enrage and infuriate a fair % of our nation who are either neutral to, supportive of, or simply disinterested in the plight of the President. (There are a few without apparent interest....really!)

#2. It would start, from the first opening move, a new day in America and with a new way. That new way would, from its inception, be based in violation of...not support of...our most cherished principles and founding guidelines. In short, we would see our future start by the worst parts of our long past.

Somehow...I don't think advocating for coup is a great idea. Even more? I think hearing that come from an elected official, even at her level, is disturbing. To hear it justified through arguments showing such profound ignorance puts the cherry on the cupcake of WRONG.

Anyone else agree? Disagree? Think the woman ought to get a key to the city or perhaps a ticket to unemployment?

I honestly don't know why anyone would want to be the President.  No matter what you do, what you say, what your policies are, you're going to be hated.  Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon - all had people wanting their heads on a pike.

The current hate for Obama reminds me exactly of the hate for Bush.(43) Wash, rinse, repeat. Head on a pike.  Only the partisan sides have flipped.

The military should have no place in replacing a president.  That is an act of Congress.  To get a majority of Congress to agree on this issue, it'll likely not be partisan in nature.  It'll be clear cut egregious action by the President.  AKA Nixon.  Dislike Obama for whatever reasons, he hasn't crossed a red line like Nixon did.

And I think you are correct, if the military were to overthrow the President, a fair percentage of the population would immediately lose faith in both the military as well as the new government.  Your vote is suddenly marginalized.

As far as that elected official on facebook, that says more about her than the object of her whining.

QuoteI, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders
of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God

Just a point of interest;

Regarding the bible they 'Swear this oath upon'.

It is written in the very same bible they 'Swear Upon', in 'The Gospel According to MATTHEW' Quote;

Quote33.
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34.
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35.
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem;
for it is the city of the great King.

36.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,
because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

:o


So the 'Swearing In' process makes a full MOCKERY of this, before they start !  :(


Perhaps performing the 'Affirmation' is more appropriate, for the 'human Primates' condition.


The 'human Primate' is full to the brim, with 'Corruption'.   :(

Apart from explaining how to wipe out huge parts of the population or abusing people, all speech should be free.

Free speech is fine, , , , , , ,



, , , it's the LISTENERS one has to be careful of.  :P

Quote from: Norval on October 17, 2014, 08:09:04 PM
Free speech is fine, , , , , , ,



, , , it's the LISTENERS one has to be careful of.  :P

LOL... Oh, truer words have never been spoken. No kidding!

Free speech is a myth. Prove otherwise.

Quote from: Pimander on October 16, 2014, 10:30:19 PM
all speech should be free.

All speech IS free... in every country.

It doesn't matter where you are you have the right to say whatever you want at any time.

What people forget is that Freedom of Speech comes with CONSEQUENCES

So say for example I want to say that all Harley riders are are pussies that use the bike to compensate for their lack of manhood...

No one will stop me from saying that... however if I say that in a biker bar I can expect that there will be certain consequences for uttering those words

::)

Lets have a look at the basics...

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"

THIS ONE is the key...

"for respect of the rights or reputation of others"

That is the one that most people tend to utterly ignore when touting freedom of speech.  People forget that when you say something that involves OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS.. it is easy to cross the line. If people would remember that saying what you will about others has CAUSE AND EFFECT, there would be la lot less problems in the world today

Every government restricts speech to some degree. Common limitations on speech relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, and campaign finance reform. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.

The term "offense principle" is also used to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.

An it harm none, do what ye will. (do what you will so long as it harms no one)

Quote from: VillageIdiot on October 17, 2014, 09:05:29 PM
Free speech is a myth. Prove otherwise.

No it is real enough but it is a two edged sword.

Take this forum for example...

You can freely post whatever you want... but since this is a PRIVATE forum, I have the right to delete anything I wish

::)

There are very few nations in the world that even HAVE a "Freedom of Speech" clause in their constitution.  Even in the US it was added as the first ammendment. Seems they forgot it at the beginning  :P

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.   

The CATCH here is the word "CONGRESS"  It says nothing about state or other local governments from restricting speech

Fortunately for us...

The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

So it wasn't until the 14th amendment that it trickled down to state level

::)

Quote from: zorgon on October 17, 2014, 09:32:28 PM

So it wasn't until the 14th amendment that it trickled down to state level

::)

Very true. Even that didn't necessarily settle the issue.  One of the interesting things to see in looking at American history is how much further the Government has gone in abuse than it has so far in modern times. Some of it was beyond what we'd call police state today, and one example was an outright Act passed by Congress and signed by Wilson.

QuoteAimed at socialists, pacifists and other anti-war activists, the Sedition Act imposed harsh penalties on anyone found guilty of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts. Those who were found guilty of such actions, the act stated, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. This was the same penalty that had been imposed for acts of espionage in the earlier legislation.

Source: History Channel (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-congress-passes-sedition-act)

Of course, our founding fathers weren't too great in all cases themselves. It seems we can infer they had a few insecurity issues too. At least with Adams and those of his thinking.

QuoteSince the country was founded, Americans have struggled with the right of free speech. Should there be limits? At what point does one person's right impinge on the right of another? Should people be able to freely criticize the government, even in times of national crisis? In the late 1790s, President John Adams and Congress decided the answer to the last question was a resounding NO. 

In July 1798, Congress passed and the President signed, the Sedition Act- a bill that made it a crime to speak or write anything against the government. A person charged under the Sedition Act was subject to a maximum of two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

That had quite a double punch as well, and especially if you weren't well off for the times. $2,000 was A LOT of late 18th century dough to cough up. Debtors prisons were alive and well with plenty of room for more back then though, so I'll bet it could be a bit more than 2 years by the end of it.

Getting back to the more recent example tho..... Quite a few people got wacked with Wilson's little sedition stick by the end of it.

QuoteOnce again, U.S. Marshals were charged with the enforcement of sedition cases. By the time the law was repealed in 1920, more than 2,000 people had been prosecuted under the Sedition Act and its precursor, the Espionage Act of 1917.

Source: US Marshals Museum (http://www.usmarshalsmuseum.com/sedition_acts)

I'm thinking it is irresponsible of an elected official to say what she did, at any level. Still, the only place which should have the ability to give her grief are those that can remove her. The voters that see her on the ballot. Apparently that is coming right up for her, too. We're the state that generally runs as red as a Washington Apple, but turned down Akin for McCaskill in large part because extreme ignorance just rubs the Show Me state the wrong way. lol.... (I find it a bit amusing because we do have a fairly responsive electorate across this state. Always have.....and things like this often come back to bite here)

Quote from: Wrabbit2000 on October 16, 2014, 05:36:16 PM
Suggesting the President is a real and legitimate ENEMY of our nation, with suggestion to see real world action to follow on that basis? Now, I think that is a bit too far. A tad over the top. Perhaps.....pushing it that last step into the abyss.

Wrabbit, I know this might seem an unspeakably radical question to ask, but...have you ever considered the possibility that Ms. Dunnegan just might be right?

America has desperately needed violent revolution for a long time, as far as I am concerned; at least since 2000, but probably longer than that.  The Presidency is also the least of the country's problems, because the executive branch has become surrounded by career politicians who are never elected, and who remain in office, irrespective of whether the party or President in question are voted in or out.

I honestly believe that, taken together, the combination of the American government, Randian Objectivism, and corporate Capitalism, represent the single most dire threat to continued human survival on this planet, that either does currently exist, or has ever existed.  Said combination is a political, economic, and sociological plague that makes Ebola look like allergic rhinitis by comparison.  It is omnicidal.  It does not discriminate as to who it kills.  It destroys plants, animals, humans; literally every element of the organic or natural world that crosses its' path.

This statement does not need to be taken as a criticism of those members of the American public who are unaffiliated with either the government or Wall Street.  Yet I will say, that if said American public wish to actively demonstrate that they are the saviours of humanity that they apparently like to regard themselves as, that they should be the first to recognise the urgent need for the complete, unsparing overthrow of their government; and this for the wellbeing of the entirety of humanity, not just their own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auFz6AYB0h4

I am not an American; yet ironically I often feel that I am actually more patriotic, or hold greater fidelity to the country's initial mentality, than the majority of you yourselves do.  The proverbial rebel yell is seemingly no longer heard among any of you, and it is utterly disgraceful.  I have come to believe that America will probably be the last country on this planet to revolt against its' government, at this point; yet the truth is, that yours is also the country with the greatest need to do so.

How long is it going to take?  When will you say that enough is enough?  When, more importantly, will you realise, that while doing so may cost you your lives, that there is a certain level of inhumanity, which it is honestly better to die in preference to, rather than to experience?

At least according to the propaganda that we are all taught, America's ancestors supposedly knew the above.  The country's contemporary population, on the other hand, has apparently forgotten it.  I have always believed, and will continue to believe, that sedition is a literally divine imperative; and that has never been more true at any other point in human history, than it is right now.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 18, 2014, 07:46:12 AM
Wrabbit, I know this might seem an unspeakably radical question to ask, but...have you ever considered the possibility that Ms. Dunnegan just might be right?

America has desperately needed violent revolution for a long time, as far as I am concerned; at least since 2000, but probably longer than that.  The Presidency is also the least of the country's problems, because the executive branch has become surrounded by career politicians who are never elected, and who remain in office, irrespective of whether the party or President in question are voted in or out.

I honestly believe that, taken together, the combination of the American government, Randian Objectivism, and corporate Capitalism, represent the single most dire threat to continued human survival on this planet, that either does currently exist, or has ever existed.  Said combination is a political, economic, and sociological plague that makes Ebola look like allergic rhinitis by comparison.  It is omnicidal.  It does not discriminate as to who it kills.  It destroys plants, animals, humans; literally every element of the organic or natural world that crosses its' path.

This statement does not need to be taken as a criticism of those members of the American public who are unaffiliated with either the government or Wall Street.  Yet I will say, that if said American public wish to actively demonstrate that they are the saviours of humanity that they apparently like to regard themselves as, that they should be the first to recognise the urgent need for the complete, unsparing overthrow of their government; and this for the wellbeing of the entirety of humanity, not just their own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auFz6AYB0h4

I am not an American; yet ironically I often feel that I am actually more patriotic, or hold greater fidelity to the country's initial mentality, than the majority of you yourselves do.  The proverbial rebel yell is apparently no longer heard among any of you, and it is utterly disgraceful.  I have come to believe that America will probably be the last country on this planet to revolt against its' government, at this point; yet the truth is, that yours is also the country with the greatest need to do so.

How long is it going to take?  When will you say that enough is enough?  When, more importantly, will you realise, that while doing so may cost you your lives, that there is a certain level of inhumanity, which it is honestly better to die in preference to, rather than to experience?

At least according to the propaganda that we are all taught, America's ancestors supposedly knew the above.  The country's contemporary population, on the other hand, has apparently forgotten it.  I have always believed, and will continue to believe, that sedition is a literally divine imperative; and that has never been more true at any other point in human history, than it is right now.

boy oh boy, petrus, you do need to read that link in the thread you referred to as a treatise on baphomet.   sun-tzu ain't got nothing on these guys.  i mean, it's like a chess game with human life.
http://www.granddesignexposed.com/pdf/RulersofEvil.pdf

what kind of human being, would spend their entire existence, formulating ways in which to bend people to the will of one guy? it's horrific.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 18, 2014, 07:46:12 AM
Wrabbit, I know this might seem an unspeakably radical question to ask, but...have you ever considered the possibility that Ms. Dunnegan just might be right?

I've certainly considered it. Very briefly. It's a terrible idea. I can't say what works or what doesn't in other nations. However, a coup would put the military of the system you most dislike in unquestioned control, at least for a short time. Hopefully, if it ever happened, it would only be a short time, anyway.

Bad idea.

QuoteAmerica has desperately needed violent revolution for a long time

Creating an open fight that destabilizes civil order within a society of over 100 million gun owners is a bad idea[/quote]

QuoteThe Presidency is also the least of the country's problems, because the executive branch has become surrounded by career politicians who are never elected, and who remain in office, irrespective of whether the party or President in question are voted in or out.

I agree with that 100% and it is amazing to see which names are the same through the last 10-15 years, and the 90's, AND the 80's, and for some? The 70's as well. Same individual men. Not just the same family names. You're right about a general group of men appearing over across multiple administrations and decades.

QuoteI honestly believe that, taken together, the combination of the American government, Randian Objectivism, and corporate Capitalism, represent the single most dire threat to continued human survival on this planet, that either does currently exist, or has ever existed. 

Disagreement brings variety and that's a good thing when done without being disagreeable, eh? Agree to disagree on that point. :)

QuoteYet I will say, that if said American public wish to actively demonstrate that they are the saviours of humanity that they apparently like to regard themselves as, that they should be the first to recognise the urgent need for the complete, unsparing overthrow of their government;

Careful what you'd wish for. Soviet and later Russian projections of that almost unthinkable outcome showed an ultimate break up into 3-4 different nations. America would have a very violent road internally, getting there. Too many mutually exclusive agendas. All armed.

There is also still the fact over 50% of the people who did bother to vote, voted for the guy we have right now. That's (thumbnail figuring) at least 30-35 million real people who'd think it an actionable criminal thing to see this President removed outside Impeachment (and conviction) or legitimate medical incapacity.

QuoteHow long is it going to take?  When will you say that enough is enough?  When, more importantly, will you realise, that while doing so may cost you your lives, that there is a certain level of inhumanity, which it is honestly better to die in preference to, rather than to experience?

The America you seem to see or somehow know has little to no relation at all to the America I live in and have spent most of my lifetime travelling all over in trucking. I see serious issues, and I definitely see problems that support the level of demonstrations happening in some places. More will likely come. As it should. We're an open and free society, and the absurd and outright silly numbers imbalance needs driven home if the State gets all out of hand about things. 2 million on their side to control 330 million with. Anything that would seriously reduce that 330 would all but obliterate the couple million in the process ...and nowhere is THAT deep. lol....

It won't likely go beyond demonstrations until more concrete things are happening to show the system has broken down. You could start with a minimum of Obama overstaying his welcome, or something equally obvious in 2016. The public as a whole won't support or tolerate anything like forceful change short of it.

Not real likely to happen, IMO. Almost half of those that actually register to vote don't even show up. More, in some past years. That, taken from a more dismal number between eligible and registered. The system IS run by a small #....but not much conspiracy is needed at how. Too many don't participate, and those who do are largely the party faithful who barely consider or care what the names are.

Those who remain and vote outside the party faithful are the subject of $700 million to $1 billion, per side, in spending to confuse the logic from their minds for just a short period of time. Hardly fair when you think about it...but people who are already confused easily become capable of voting for the man with nuclear weapons release authority based almost entirely on popularity and wit. (sigh)

We'll have a remarkable epitaph for history: 'Here lay the American Experiment. It was struck down by apathy, and no one bothered to notice it go'.

Quote from: Wrabbit2000 on October 18, 2014, 09:56:09 AM


We'll have a remarkable epitaph for history: 'Here lay the American Experiment. It was struck down by apathy, and no one bothered to notice it go'.

none of this makes sense.  that is part of the problem.  if the american people revolted it would take about 5 minutes with modern tech, to stop the whole thing dead in its tracks and when the dust cleared, there'd be fields of dead people for as far as the eye could see, with their guns laying mute by their sides.

if they didn't take instant response, they'd just call on their allies who they helped socially engineer their countries.  and many of them would jump at the chance to wipe out americans, as you can well imagine.   heck our government could use it as a door prize -- wanna get revenge on white protestants and jews, sign here and bring your ak47 (you keep the spoils). 

p.s. but i dare say, they know they don't have to look any further than internally. they've already raised up an army on american soil, of the disadvantaged from all over the world.  easily could be a religious/race war. easily. and our rulers could just go take cruise ship vacations while we killed each other and have it pumped via satellite to bigscreen tvs on their cruise ships, a'la benghazi.

Quote from: undo11 on October 18, 2014, 07:58:46 AM
what kind of human being, would spend their entire existence, formulating ways in which to bend people to the will of one guy? it's horrific.

Every world leader and their propaganda machines, especially the POTUS would.  It is called politics.  ;D

Quote from: undo11 on October 18, 2014, 07:58:46 AM
what kind of human being, would spend their entire existence, formulating ways in which to bend people to the will of one guy? it's horrific.

To understand THAT you would need to understand the Law of Sheep

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/allhail.gif)

I need sleep... so will elaborate tomorrow

Quote from: zorgon on October 18, 2014, 12:43:59 PM
To understand THAT you would need to understand the Law of Sheep

(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Bluebird/allhail.gif)

I need sleep... so will elaborate tomorrow

well if you read the book at the link i gave on the prior page, it suggests that rosicrucians are sheep as well, just cleverly disguised to them, so that they view it as some higher calling to the wisdom of the ages, which in reality is just the words and commands of whoever the current superior jesuit general happens to be.  lol

so yeah.  baaah to you too.  :D

p.s.  it was pimander who gave me the link, btw, so you can't accuse me of dredging it up from some fanatical evangelical website. hehe

Quote from: zorgon on October 17, 2014, 09:17:33 PM
No it is real enough but it is a two edged sword.

Take this forum for example...

You can freely post whatever you want... but since this is a PRIVATE forum, I have the right to delete anything I wish

::)

If you can delete what I say then speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would mean my opinion would prevail no matter what.

Quote from: VillageIdiot on October 18, 2014, 02:07:31 PM
If you can delete what I say then speech isn't really free. Truly free speech would mean my opinion would prevail no matter what.

You can type what you like but you can't force us to publish it.  This is a publication in the eyes of the law.

Quote from: Pimander on October 18, 2014, 04:58:00 PM
You can type what you like but you can't force us to publish it.  This is a publication in the eyes of the law.

Yes, which reinforces my argument that there is no truly free speech.

Quote from: VillageIdiot on October 18, 2014, 05:01:56 PM
Yes, which reinforces my argument that there is no truly free speech.

Free speech as a RIGHT against the private sector has never existed in that way. You have never been able to demand you have your say within a private venue like this website..or any other for that matter. You can't even legally demand access, let alone what you may wish to say.

The reason is simple. You now have a conflict there. Your right to speech has come in direct conflict with the owners right to run his business as he sees fit. One side or the other must give, and accommodation is most reasonable to ask of the one speaking, since it is not protected. It is protected with any state or government entity (State since the right was incorporated a long time ago) but it just isn't a 'right' between two private individuals.

(Of course...SOME expression is finding they can force themselves upon a private venue by way of the court...but that is another thread entirely, and limited in scope)

Quote from: Wrabbit2000 on October 18, 2014, 07:01:30 PM
Free speech as a RIGHT against the private sector has never existed in that way. You have never been able to demand you have your say within a private venue like this website..or any other for that matter. You can't even legally demand access, let alone what you may wish to say.

The reason is simple. You now have a conflict there. Your right to speech has come in direct conflict with the owners right to run his business as he sees fit. One side or the other must give, and accommodation is most reasonable to ask of the one speaking, since it is not protected. It is protected with any state or government entity (State since the right was incorporated a long time ago) but it just isn't a 'right' between two private individuals.

(Of course...SOME expression is finding they can force themselves upon a private venue by way of the court...but that is another thread entirely, and limited in scope)

This statement is just more proof that there is no truly free speech.

As an example, government doesn't provide for free speech either. You cannot speak freely about the President of the United States. If you make certain statements about him the SS will pounce on you.

I'm feeling kind of personally attacked here whether I should feel that way or not. To be clear, I'm just participating in this discussion, not asking for special privileges or complaining.

Well IF we get down to the Basics its like this !

FACT You can't 'Read' a BOOK if it 1st hasn't been Written !  8)

<Undo> knows this better than anyone ...  :)


The 'Reader' behaves a bit like a 'sheep' by following or reading the Book of the Author !   8)


In other words, WHAT each of us experience, is 1st 'Written' as a Program, before we experience it.

ALL our 'options' and 'outcomes' are 'Written', before we entre the Experience.


<Undo> knows about ''Gaming Software'.

In 1st person,  2d or 3rd Person 'gaming software' all the 'options' and 'outcomes'
are determined within the boundaries of the 'software'.

So too, is our experiences in this Little universe.

After all, the Universe we see and experience, is just the 'Environmental Program' of very Sophisticated
gaming software of LIFE (NOT a physical source.)


So we are all 'SLAVES' of LIFE's 'Gaming Software'.   ;D

So where is your/our Freedom.


We do have 'Freedom' but only in the boundaries of the 'Software'.   :)


See if one can Prove otherwise ?

Quote from: VillageIdiot on October 18, 2014, 07:11:44 PM
This statement is just more proof that there is no truly free speech.

As an example, government doesn't provide for free speech either. You cannot speak freely about the President of the United States. If you make certain statements about him the SS will pounce on you.

I'm feeling kind of personally attacked here whether I should feel that way or not. To be clear, I'm just participating in this discussion, not asking for special privileges or complaining.

I'm not sure I'd class the laws regarding deadly threat to the President or other members of the National Command Authority in the same way as any other speech. If you walk out and tell a store clerk he pissed you off and you'd like to kill him? You're likely going to be arrested for assault, if not terroristic threats these days. Same as yelling fire in a crowded theater or other incitement to riot or violence that is criminal and not protected.

Technically, it comes back to the same legal logic as the private website. Your right to speech has now violated my right to pursue life and happiness by creating a crisis with potential for injury over a nonexistent issue. (A fire that doesn't exist, for example). Hence..conflict between citizens who each have a right to assert, and favor going to the most representative of the public good. (The guy trying to watch a movie and mind his business wins over the guy trying to turn the quiet theater into a panic).

I suppose I won't dispute the idea that free speech has never existed, if by free we mean by what each of us would define in our own words and not necessarily what the nation and society defines it as, under the 1st amendment.

*BTW .. I hope I'm not causing any feelings of being pressured? I get a bit intense in debates, but toward subjects. Almost never personal, and when that finds an exception, there is never anything subtle to it. It's a good discussion. :)

It's cool to disagree and argue passionately.  There is no point in debating if we all just agree about everything or never tell each other anything new.  Nobody should feel uncomfortable about it. :)

Quote from: VillageIdiot on October 18, 2014, 07:11:44 PM
This statement is just more proof that there is no truly free speech.

IF you define free speech as the ability to say anything you want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE  then yes you are 100% correct

However must sane people  :P understand the political concept we call "Freedom of Speech" to mean "Say what you will so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another"

One has to remember that Newton's Law applies here... "For every action there is a reaction"

So if you scream out "Kill the President"  you should expect the reaction of being taken to a back room for "correction" 

8)

Quote from: zorgon on October 18, 2014, 11:50:40 PM
IF you define free speech as the ability to say anything you want WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE  then yes you are 100% correct

However must sane people  :P understand the political concept we call "Freedom of Speech" to mean "Say what you will so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another"

One has to remember that Newton's Law applies here... "For every action there is a reaction"

So if you scream out "Kill the President"  you should expect the reaction of being taken to a back room for "correction" 

8)

As the resident lunatic, I concede.  :P

Quote from: undo11 on October 18, 2014, 01:53:03 PM
well if you read the book at the link i gave on the prior page, it suggests that rosicrucians are sheep as well, just cleverly disguised to them

Well there is a difference between sheep and educated followers.  And that difference is realized in the difference between a despot dictator and a benevolent leader


Take a small example for a minute. 

I wear a Crown... (as do several others in the Medieval recreation groups)

So WHY do people bow down to me and do my bidding? I have no power over them. I have no army to force them. So WHY do they choose to follow me?

The answer is simple. I have something they want... and to get that they are willing to pay the price. The price in this case is voluntary vassalage. In return they get to participate in cool events, have camp space and amenities supplied, get meals and get to have a lot of fun without having the responsibility.

And when one does good they get the added reward of a pretty piece of paper that says they did good, but more important, they get called up in front of their peers.

You have NO IDEA the power of that... being singled out in front of your peers

So in that small example the 'sheep' KNOW they are sheep, but they are willing to pay the price the shepherd asks

The DIFFERENCE between an Evil  Despot Dictator  and a Good Benevolent King is simply that the Dictator rules by force while the Good King rules by giving the sheep what they want.

The Church knows this to be true... that is why Christians are a flock  :P  "The Lord is thy shepherd... though shall not want..."   It's not even hidden... even Jesus is called the Lamb

The Catholics tried scaring people into being sheep. Worked pretty good for a long time because they could send in an inquisitor to explain it to you if you had doubts

::)

As for your Rosicrucian example.... yes ALL the members below the Imperator would in effect be "educated followers"  The difference again is that they KNOW they are followers and are willing to pay that price to gain the rewards.  As in my Medieval case with the Pretty Paper... they too have awards  called DEGREES

Quoteso that they view it as some higher calling to the wisdom of the ages, which in reality is just the words and commands of whoever the current superior jesuit general happens to be.  lol

This is spoken like a true uninitiated  person who reads stuff that may or may not have any basis in fact. Just because someone writes something does not make it true.  But in the end  until you walk a mile in the shoes, you cannot make a blanket statement as to what higher calling initiates may or may not have.   ::)

You toss in "rosicrucian' at every opportunity to stir the pot  LOL  Just like any other religion or secret order, they too have their dark side and those that work for the light. The choice of which side to join is up to the initiate.

Generally an 'informed follower' will choose the LIGHT whereas a 'mindless sheep' will just hop onto any wagon that has a good speaker

Don't forget that Hitler became so popular because he had the GIFT to talk to people and make them TRHINK they were doing the right thing 


More when I get back.... I will cover the mechanics of this

Quote from: undo11 on October 18, 2014, 01:53:03 PM
p.s.  it was pimander who gave me the link, btw, so you can't accuse me of dredging it up from some fanatical evangelical website. hehe

There is some interesting material in that book.  It is easy to underestimate the power of the church, even within Rosicrucian groups.  They have eyes everywhere and a hand in many things.

ETA: Zorgon has read that book I think. ;)

Quote from: zorgon on October 19, 2014, 12:19:12 AM
I wear a Crown... (as do several others in the Medieval recreation groups)

So WHY do people bow down to me and do my bidding? I have no power over them. I have no army to force them. So WHY do they choose to follow me?

The answer is simple. I have something they want... and to get that they are willing to pay the price. The price in this case is voluntary vassalage. In return they get to participate in cool events, have camp space and amenities supplied, get meals and get to have a lot of fun without having the responsibility.

What you are essentially doing here, is exploiting a condition of developmental immaturity in other people; and the fact that you call them sheep, implies to me that you are doing so consciously.

As I've mentioned before, I have had experience with successful leadership myself; and it can be addictive for both ruler and ruled, I know.  The difference between you and myself, however, (as I have also said before) is that I recognise that whether or not leadership is a necessary evil, it is still an evil.

As Martin Luther King indirectly observed, the long trend of history points away from monarchy; and this is not, as Mencius Moldbug claimed, mere Whiggish interpretation, but empirically observable fact.  Monarchy is as vestigial as the appendix was formerly believed to be, and potentially equally harmful.  The entire reason why the state of slavery which exists today, is almost totally psychological rather than externally legal, is because of the degree to which humanity has historically demanded its' freedom.  While I will admit that I am as distressed as anyone else, that the march of Liberty has apparently almost completely stalled at the current time, I can hope that we are merely experiencing a temporary roadblock, owing to the sophistication of contemporary governmental techniques.

The foreign, Satanic reptiles and their laws have incrementally been pushed back, and back, until at last they are currently making their final, desperate stand; and if in said stand they are defeated, then they will have had their chance, and they will be forced to accept exile from this planet for ever. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY

I greatly look forward to the day when this happens; its' anticipation is one of the primary reasons for my existence at the current time.

The 'human Primate' doesn't want to face WHAT really 'Controls', nor do they want to know WHY ?

But in no way does this change anything, or the outcome.    :)

When we realise the 'human Primate' is part of the 'Story' being experienced, then we learn
to know LIFE, and what the reason for all we experience, (most are totally unaware of,
or simply don't want to know) is totally different than what we all previously imagined.  :o

All our reasoning (Involving 'Double Logic' present in the human genome :(  ) and belief
has absolutely no affect whatsoever on what is taking place or WHY.

Even IF one can convince every one in this Program (Earth) of anything, this still does NOT change
what is going on or WHY !.

We each experience our own 'Story' but the outcome is still the same.

What we believe will happen won't happen, and what we think will never happen, shall happen.    :)

It is NOT what happens to the Earth that profits anything but rather something entirely different !

Quote from: petrus4 on October 19, 2014, 06:24:05 AM
What you are essentially doing here, is exploiting a condition of developmental immaturity in other people;

You mean like they would rather do the vassalage than the physical work to make it happen?  How is it exploitation if it is by mutual agreement?

Quoteand the fact that you call them sheep, implies to me that you are doing so consciously.

No I call them educated followers. The sheep are those that follow blindly

QuoteThe difference between you and myself, however, (as I have also said before) is that I recognise that whether or not leadership is a necessary evil, it is still an evil.

Well when anarchy takes over after the SHTF... who do you thing will rule the roost?  Yeah most likely evil gang overlords will step up first... and the sheep will follow because they will need a protector  and the whole thing will start all over again

That whole thing about the meek inheriting the Earth... NOT gonna happen   :P

QuoteAs Martin Luther King indirectly observed, the long trend of history points away from monarchy;

Hmmm wasn't he assassinated?   :o  Also interesting to note he took the name of a Rosicrucian  :-X

QuoteThat whole thing about the meek inheriting the Earth... NOT gonna happen   :P

Yes they do.

and the BRAVE and stout of heart inherit the heavens.  ;D

I saw this in my daily trawl of the news sites and immediately thought of this thread. It's not uncommon these days to find people who look at the problems across America and allow themselves to imagine it at a level far far worse than the reality of daily life here actually is.

This is what it looks like in a nation that gives no lip service to free speech. Here is a nation that has no institutional respect for it, or laws to protect it at the State level.

QuoteKUWAIT CITY (AP) — The Kuwaiti Cabinet stripped citizenship from 33 people this year, including at least three who were vocal critics of the government, Human Rights Watch said Sunday.

The New York-based rights group said Kuwait announced the latest batch of 18 people who were stripped of their nationality on Sep. 29. It called on Kuwaiti authorities to stop the practice against those exercising free speech and to ensure that people who lose their citizenship have the right to an independent review of the ruling.

"Instead of targeting their critics in a back-door way, the Kuwaiti authorities should come clean and stop revoking their citizenships once and for all," Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.

The group said "revocation decisions are not subject to any judicial or administrative appeals process," but that courts did examine five citizenship revocations since 2010 of people born to Kuwaiti fathers.

Source (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/68fc7eda5ffc47c4b774100b67d02d35/rights-group-says-kuwait-strips-33-nationality)

Harsh penalty for unpopular opinions. I wonder what happens to them if they don't happen to have dual citizenship somewhere else? Join the Bedouin tribes perhaps?

Anyway, it never hurts to see a control example for perspective. I can't voice feelings of wanting to physically harm our top leaders....and that really is how it needs to be. Someone can't threaten to kill ME without criminal penalty either. Its simply a different charge and handled with far less urgency.  I CAN call the President a fool, a tool and the dumbest thing to walk the earth since Howdy Doody. Nothing bad will happen to me and I need not fear anything as a result of my political opinions.

Call the Monarch of Thailand a silly old fool with no sense, and you'll be spending time in a Thai prison. No kidding. Call the Kuwaiti Royals a bunch of crooked fools and you lose your nation and right to have a home at all. Ahh.. Perspective. It is important to check occasionally, eh?

Quote from: zorgon on October 19, 2014, 09:30:49 AM
That whole thing about the meek inheriting the Earth... NOT gonna happen   :P

The meek tend to have limits, Zorgon; Jesus lost his temper once.  The other main source of danger for the psychopaths, is the fact that they are a very, very small minority.  That is the entire reason why they want to do the Georgia Guidestones purge, in the first place.  They need to radically reduce the non-psychopath to psychopath ratio, if they want to stay in power.

All the psychopaths really have, is their ability to brainwash the police and military as effectively as they have, in order to keep propping them up.  Let them lose that, and let the majority know that they've lost it...even for a brief period...and watch what will happen.

Quote from: petrus4 on October 21, 2014, 12:47:52 PM
The other main source of danger for the psychopaths, is the fact that they are a very, very small minority. 

I hate to say it....but research and studies have proven that the line between normalcy and psychopathy is a very thin one that most of us are capable and fully willing to cross. We'll say we won't. We'll tell ourselves 'I'd NEVER do........(whatever it is)' but the research says otherwise. Put in a position where sociopathic or psychopathic behavior is not only witnessed but expected or allowed as the norm? It seems we really do have a good and bad side. Carl Yung may have been right after all. Duality seems a norm for man.

QuoteWelcome to the Stanford Prison Experiment web site, which features an extensive slide show and information about this classic psychology experiment, including parallels with the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? These are some of the questions we posed in this dramatic simulation of prison life conducted in the summer of 1971 at Stanford University.

Source: Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/) (it's well worth reading the whole thing. It's a fascinating study of human nature)

I imagine they would have loved to run that experiment out for the full 14 day period they planned. However, the situation between Guard and Inmate for the simulation produced such horrible conditions by the 6th day, they had to shut the whole thing down before someone got killed. This was strictly a sim run in the basement of one of the buildings on Campus and using converted rooms off a hallway. As generic as it comes, and as general for result as they could make it. The normal college kids assigned as inmates became truly victimized and were showing signs of psychological trauma after that short period. The students assigned as guards became abusive, violent and sadistic, again, in that short a period.

In fact, in reading what they have for detail? In less than 36 hours, the prisoners had effectively lost their identity as students in an experiment, as the guards had lost their sense of the same. They had both begun, if not fully taken on their roles of serious adversaries with goals of either breaking or asserting control with whatever it took to achieve. They note that by this time, the guards literally DID see the student prisoners as honestly out to get them, and a true threat to them within the context of the experiment or not. That included a student who they learned by censored mail, had joined the experiment to expose it, having totally misunderstood what it was for. Even he was fully drawn in and engaged to the point of personal pride for fictitious achievements within the fiction of the scenario.

This is how I believe we see good men and women join the Police force or Military (among positions of authority in society) and, sometimes, turn bad. Sometimes...turn VERY bad, and in less time than we might want to believe it could happen.

The psychopaths are not a comfy "them". They are very much "us". Every last one of us...if put in the situation for it to flourish, and without foundation to resist and fight it on sight, IMO. Foundations are weak in the modern age. :(

Quote from: Wrabbit2000 on October 21, 2014, 05:36:15 PM
Source: Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/) (it's well worth reading the whole thing. It's a fascinating study of human nature)

I've always enjoyed this experiment, I would like to see it repeated, whilst changing some variables..

Quote from: petrus4 on October 21, 2014, 12:47:52 PM
The meek tend to have limits, Zorgon; Jesus lost his temper once.

I would not classify Jesus as 'meek'

::)

QuoteThe other main source of danger for the psychopaths, is the fact that they are a very, very small minority. 

NOT true... but Wrabbit said it better than I was going to.  ALL of us have the psychopath within us. It merely needs the right trigger to release it

There are other experiments  using electric shock buzzers... we should post those results here too. The caveman within us is not that deeply buried

QuoteThat is the entire reason why they want to do the Georgia Guidestones purge, in the first place.  They need to radically reduce the non-psychopath to psychopath ratio, if they want to stay in power.

This supposed 'purge' is something only conspiracy nuts talk about. IF they really wanted to eliminate 80% of the population they would have done so already  It is so easy to do  we have literallt thousands of ways to wipe out mass groups of people in an instant.  Just look at what Saddam did to the Kurds with the gas Reagan sold him

::)

The 'psycopaths' NEED the numbers of people... because based on the Laws of Attraction... the more minds you have to control, the stronger your power. Its like a computer  One that has 30 megabytes capacity can do very little whereas one that has several terabytes capacity is a powerful machine

Back in the good old days the rulers that knew this TRUTH were few and the Secret was well guarded... so you only had a few (relatively speaking) despots

But today the Secret is out and any wannabe Cult Leader can use it to gain power.

The secret is in the numbers. You cannot control that which you destroy. They do not want to wipe out the numbers... they want to control them

If you want to take over a country... would not having a huge army of mindless sheep that you can convince to run up a beach into certain death be a useful tool?

It worked at Normandy

::)

QuoteLet them lose that, and let the majority know that they've lost it...even for a brief period...and watch what will happen.

The Majority would be totally lost and helpless without their controllers

The ONLY solution to all our problems is to replace the bad leaders with good leaders...  the sheep will always be the sheep.

Re. my comments on/about the OP

Interesting thing; When sworn in (By Western governments and others)  they lay their hand on a bible !



And in the same bible it is written ..... QUOTE;

"Though Shalt NOT swear by anything."



The 2nd point is; Many human churches, would have you believe that the WORD of God is the bible.

This is WHY thy put their hand on the bible when sworn in or to give evidence in court procedures.   :o



Now it is Written in this same bible, QUOTE:

'In the Beginning was the WORD and the WORD was GOD !'

Which is actually Correct BUT;


NOTE:

It is NOT written:

In the Beginning was The WORD and The WORD was bible !



IF that bible was the WORD of God, it would be written as such, and it plainly  isn't !

It is written, that the WORD was GOD .... and NOT bible !

Now some refer to their Lord as 'The Architecture of the Universe',






such as in 'Free Masonry' and religious groups, (human churches and others.), yet they FAIL
to recognise, the 'Geometric' form that make up the 'letters' and 'numerals', within Languages
or Communication ! ::)

To understand the WORD GOD, one has to look at the 'Architecture' of the WORD GOD,
and NOT the understanding 'of the human Species', having "Double Logic " present
in their 'Genome' and other 'species'.



There is nothing at all which is NOT 'expressed' in form, including the 'Non-Dimensional',
expressed in terms of Concepts which also involves 'Form' !

Even such things as 'Emotions' and others involve form .....  :)



So the Lie being told by 'Human Species', is that the WORD of God, is the bible.

The 'Swearing In' process is a LIE, an Insult to LIFE and a Mockery of the process,
and the human species !



So as for 'Free Speech',    How far should it go ?

ALL the way !

But all is accountable and has its Consequences.


IF one exposes the TRUTH, then their lives might be short in this Program, 'Earth', as the TRUTH is NOT
in the 'human Species' or any other on the Earth, but instead from another source, which is LIFE.

But those who do expose the TRUTH know this and accept it.   :)

Quote from: zorgon on October 21, 2014, 08:27:01 PM
The Majority would be totally lost and helpless without their controllers

Well I'm not lost - I'm always right here, right now! Never anywhere else at any other time.  8)

QuoteThe ONLY solution to all our problems is to replace the bad leaders with good leaders...  the sheep will always be the sheep.

And the Shepherd....



It chanced once on a time, while I was meditating on the things that are, my thought was raised to a great height, yet my bodily senses had been put under restraint as in sleep, though not such sleep as that of men weighed down by fullness of food or bodily weariness. Methought a Being more than vast, in size beyond all bounds, called out my name and said:

"What would you hear and see, and what have you in mind to learn and know?"

"Who are you?" said I.

"I am the Pymander, Divine Mind of the Sovereignity, the Shepherd of Men. I know what you desire, and I am with you everywhere."

"I long to learn the things that are, " I replied, "and comprehend their nature, and know God. This is what I desire to hear."

"Hold in your mind all you would know," the Shepherd answered back to me, "and I will teach you."

Pimander at your service. ;)

The Vision of Hermes:

Full of knowledge and Wisdom ...   :)

I love these 'writings' as they confirm what I have found myself.   :)

"I am the Pymander, Divine Mind of the Sovereignity, the Shepherd of Men. I know what you desire, and I am with you everywhere."

That is my favourite line.  It tells me all I need to know. ;)

Tells me you misspelled your name 

::)

Quote from: zorgon on October 22, 2014, 02:01:46 AM
Tells me you misspelled your name 

::)

Appropriately enough there are three ways to spell it. :)

Pymander, Pimander. Poimandre..... at least three.  It isn't English so its down to translation.

QuotePoimandres (Greek: ??????????; also known as Poemandres, Poemander or Pimander) is a chapter in the Corpus Hermeticum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poimandres

QuoteTo quote (John Everard translation):

    Then said I, "Who art Thou?"
    "I am," quoth he, "Poemander, the mind of the Great Lord, the most Mighty and absolute Emperor: I know what thou wouldest have, and I am always present with thee."

And in the G.R.S. Mead translation:

    And I do say: Who art thou?
    He saith: I am Man-Shepherd [??????????], Mind of all-masterhood; I know what thou desirest and I'm with thee everywhere.

And in the translation by Salaman, Van Oyen and Wharton:[3]

    "Who are you?" said I.
    He said, "I am Poimandres the Nous of the Supreme. I know what you wish and I am with you everywhere."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poimandres

The Everard translation of that line is most accurate from the point of view of initiation - in  the opinion of someone with the nous. ;D

Quote from: zorgon on October 21, 2014, 08:27:01 PM

There are other experiments  using electric shock buzzers... we should post those results here too. The caveman within us is not that deeply buried

Now that you mention it, I happen to have that material handy from something unrelated here recently. It was called the Milgram Experiment. The details and results are far worse than the Stanford Prison Experiment. No one died at Stanford. A good many people died at Yale......or at least, they sure did to the certain knowledge of the person who physically engaged the machine that "killed them".

Following World War II, folks were confused a bit, to say the least. Were the Germans THAT different? What of the myriad of people, many lesser players, who cited 'following orders' as their reason for conduct? Not all who were tried there, died there. In fact, many got years of imprisonment to then essentially go on with life afterward. Many of those used that very reasoning for why they didn't do anything to stop what they were a part of.

Some suggested Germans were predisposed to obedience under authority somehow. (recall, Eugenics had been a hot concept in the US within just a short time prior to World War II starting. All kinds of wacky beliefs back then) Others just wondered, period. Hence, the need to test a theory. Could it be, the Germans were special to have been a part of all that....or could it be anyone could have done the same things?  Dr. Stanley Milgram set out to find out....and he did. Oh...lord, did he ever find out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr5cjyokVUs

The above is a quick video of the experiment. Below are the written results he found. As the video shows, it was a blind experiment for one person involved. The button pusher believed it was entirely real. This is how they reacted.

Quote65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e. teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.

Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study.  All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).

65% of them wantonly "murdered" another human being after a period of torture, on nothing but the perceived authority of another and the belief of it being an experiment to direct liability back to.

Milgram's overall conclusions?

QuoteMilgram summed up in the article "The Perils of Obedience" (Milgram 1974), writing:

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.  I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."

Source (http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html)

That experiment has also been re-run at different times and in different ways since. This is a more modern version having been done in somewhat less controlled conditions, but looks just as ugly to me.

Discovery Channel Curiosity Experiment (http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/videos/the-milgram-experiment.htm)

Given the guy's laughter in that one by what I'd take a wild guess at being growing fear as he realizes what he's doing, yet....keeps doing at higher levels? I'm going to make a prediction that finding the rest of that episode will show a similar outcome to what Milgram documented at Yale.

We may hate what these experiments show about human nature, but they are what they are and it is what it is. The trick, IMO, is realizing and accepting that to do the right thing anyway, even when if seems wrong in the moment. Just my two carrots on that.

Divine Pymander

Divine Pymander of Hermes Trismegistus, or Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus: His Divine Pymander; also, The Asiatic Mystery, The Smaragdine Table and the Song of Brahm, edited by Paschal Beverly Randolph, the Yogi Publication Society hardcover reprint from the 1871 Rosicrucian Publishing Company edition, is part of the collection at the Reading Room.

(http://library.hrmtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/hermes-trismegistus-divine-pymander.jpg)

Yes, the Milgram experiment is a bit of an eye opener.  Petrus take note.  I am fairly sure that I would have refused but it definitely changes the way we see people and is an interesting guide regarding what level of trust to have in humans generally.

Zorgon, here are a lot of interesting writings here too: http://gnosis.org/welcome.html

Obviously, us hard headed science types don't read that stuff much but just in case anyone else is interested.....  ;)