top of page

901. The Most Powerful, Unpopular for a Reason Professionals in Society


Every lawyer is a different person who has different knowledge and motivations.  However, the burden of disproving the extremely credible, almost incontrovertible probability that they were exposed to the issue with the interpretation of our natural rights and everything that follows in law school is on them.  Almost every lawyer is likely knowingly contributing to that top level subversion of our constitution, whereby the rule of law is replaced with judicial power, out of complicity or through active measures.  If your profession is to provide services related to the people's laws, you are responsible in part for contributing to when the system itself breaks the rules if you do not seriously try to stop it.  More specifically, every lawyer who cannot disprove the extremely credible evidence against them in this case is responsible when the powerful have undermined the rule of law!  Unfortunately, many school districts do not teach students about premises, conclusions, and when burdens of proof shift.  When the process of conversation itself is bottlenecked by professionalism, everybody is scared of conflicting views because nobody knows how to distinguish suspicion from conclusion from the unreasonable, and those professionals just exploit that knowledge instead of using it for good.  Maybe we the people need to collect on all of the damage to our legal system from those responsible, and then somehow our laws need to be a public service so government can't produce all of the hardship resulting from their "errors."


The conflicting information published by and about big publishing power is tremendous and extreme.  Serious Americans must agree that our postmodern schools influenced the importance of conclusivity in meeting credible burdens of proof when discussing the accusations about "Hollywood," yet nobody can outrule the things we do not know about what the powerful do together in perpetuation of their power.  Powerful publishers and discrete media partnerships only let out information approved by their hand-picked producers, so getting caught up in narratives produced by the same people only gets as far as it always has.  Instead of looking at all of the examples of short-term political memory on command, let's focus on the results of that propaganda itself.  When so-called serious journalists focus on sensational topics that are hard to prove or just oversimplified instead of any of the more serious things they could be talking about, such polarizing information does not create dialogue outside of a bubble.  Even if Hollywood psychopaths murder babies and drink their blood, questioning such an extreme notion if it is not very well-supported is not unreasonable at all.  Furthermore, we do in fact need more strong evidence of the widespread wrongdoings behind the scenes, instead of the repetitive cycle of breaking-news sensationalism from three weeks ago, from so-called serious investigative journalists.  The problem again comes down to the perpetual bottlenecking of the process of conversation by our education system and the resulting fear-driven tendencies of division.  The level of quality our schools teach at have made it more likely for many of us to mistake conclusive information with a vaguely-produced news story we like on our favorite channel, but worst of all, too many of us refuse to admit to relevant information outside of that narrative.


The primary-source examples of violence, harm, and "corruption" perpetuated against us by our employees at our expense in public records, statements by public officials, and the law itself are endless.  All of the crippling results in our economy and legal system by politicians who lock themselves behind closed doors to do our business can be seen everywhere, from manufacturing ghost-towns shipped elsewhere to the increasing number of parents who cannot afford to feed their kids.  The backwardly unamerican injustices that occurred while special interests have waived their own bribery liabilities so they can pass off their proposals to patronized lawmakers cannot be illustrated vividly enough.  I do not need to repeat more examples of what we already know here when introducing a central proposal that will diffuse special interests in politics.  Instead of elected legislative members of the House of Representatives who naturally spend too much of our time worrying about campaigning and donors, we need elected, executive Direct Representatives with actual powers to untangle governments hands from those they are unjustly burdening as well as appoint willing voting citizens in their district to a publicly-inspected, one-time, jury-like 6-month service term in a House of Constituents.  Spreading out half of the legislative power in a House held by actual, one-time constituents will inherently eliminate the dynamics of revolving-door relationships and take the power to prioritize our agenda away from the biggest donors.  Moving from one extreme of neofeudal elitism to direct democracy will not work.  Maybe then the Congress will pass laws within its specific Art. I jurisdiction, such as to carry the prohibition on a standing national army into execution.


Titles of nobility are special legal statuses granted to the purveyors of a country's perceived greatness.  Various kingdoms over time heavily favored doctrines where this term acquired a meaning interchangeable with the word "aristocracy."  Titles of nobility are prohibited by our constitution, all of them.  The exclusive government immunities and perpetual abuses of discretionary power that are characteristic of titles of nobility have predictably created an unconstitutional governing class in our country.  In no way does the constitution fail to prohibit distinct governing classes regardless of whether they are inherited according to genealogy or not.  In the case of the private elite, the aristocracy criteria for the prohibition on titles of nobility is met whenever elite wealth from the hard work of past generations is inherited by following generations on the back of the working poor (and allowing this has created reactionary extremists).  As we have seen, big government and the elite work together using these not-so discrete titles of nobility to ignore constituents while writing laws to make money off of our serf economy and each other.  Likewise, "reparations" for the theft of slave labor is not a legislative issue, and it has been falsely made the damage of the supermajority of all of us, but that is another, related topic.


In ancient Greece, the famous philosophers were killed for questioning reason itself.  In the 16th century, Galileo was burned at the stake for discovering basic astrophysics.  In the 17th century, Newton was similarly killed for what amounts to questioning government authority.  Since then, the scientific method has been used to prove what they hypothesized by replicating the results from previous tests in following tests.  People who dedicate their lives to a vocation like mechanical engineers have even produced hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles and other forms of advanced jet propulsion!  However, when people dedicate their lives to something, their professional talents may be in high demand to be bought out and then used for all of the wrong reasons.  In fact, think about how a scientist gets paid.  If you are dedicated to a professional science, you need to find an employer who will pay you for your work, so most "professional scientists" are big govt and industry insiders who produce favorable reports for them.  When science is bought out, pizza is a fruit, more waste is eco friendly, power can do no wrong, inflation is a perfect supply-and-demand curve and is good for you, and "science" is final.  The fundamental issue with this labcoat professionalism that statically tells us that theories are final is that it is not science.  The scientific method is fundamentally characterized by the principle of replication, which is where repeat tests produce the same results.  We all know this.  The characteristically unscientific professionalism we have all seen by now conflates replicability with finality and always ignores the possibility for anomaly test results.  The extreme other-end of this worldview is that because replicability is not finality it is all of a sudden ambiguity, which characterizes postmodernism.  Basically, the scientific method is a spiritual manifestation that has produced replicable answers for topics that religions have been fighting wars over for thousands of years, so be very wary of this pseudo-religious labcoat professionalism that is fundamentally opposed to science.

bottom of page