freedom of thought, which amendment protects that?

DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
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?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
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...
we already have technology in our military which utilizes brain waves..it's a helmet device.
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
we already have technology in our military which utilizes brain waves..it's a helmet device.
Click to expand...
i suspect your absolutely correct about that and i would add that imo that technology is being improved on continuously...but that is an example of a 'voluntary' scenario (if you will) because one signs the contract to join the military...
i was hoping we could exempt those types of situations for the sake of exploring 'non voluntary' circumstances?
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
The way our constitution is eroding as we speak, what good would an amendment do us?
Click to expand...
i'm not saying we need a new amendment, i'm saying we already have the first 16 words of the 1st amendment but we tend to abandon such because 'we think' such words are only referring to what club/church you belong to...
'we' cant expect the human rights protected by the constitutional (specifically enumerated or not) contract 'we' all live under not to erode if we dont exercise that contract...
in other words the protections will continue to erode unless and until we understand and exercise the terms of that constitutional contract properly...
so all the blame and responsibility actually boils down to each of us individually, not the corpsgov and its predictable self preserving behavior etc...imo
 
B

beenthere

New Member
DNAprotection said:
i'm not saying we need a new amendment, i'm saying we already have the first 16 words of the 1st amendment but we tend to abandon such because 'we think' such words are only referring to what club/church you belong to...
'we' cant expect the human rights protected by the constitutional (specifically enumerated or not) contract 'we' all live under not to erode if we dont exercise that contract...
in other words the protections will continue to erode unless and until we understand and exercise the terms of that constitutional contract properly...
so all the blame and responsibility actually boils down to each of us individually, not the corpsgov and its predictable self preserving behavior etc...imo
Click to expand...
I'm not quite grasping your point.
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
I'm not quite grasping your point.
Click to expand...
lol i beenthere ;)
all i can say is that i've been involved with the law and the courts in one way or another for the majority of my life and have been generally aware of how the courts and the constitution are exercised etc and from my view 'we' havent even begun to use the 'arguments' (if you will) that are available to us for remedy of many of the troubling issues of the day that 'we' generally throw our hands up and say its beyond our reach to effect...and that we dont utilize such fundamental arguments in part because we dont see the constitution or its amendments for what they actually are...
the cannabis issue is a prime example...
'we' ask for 'legalization'/regulation = another form of prohibition of basic human rights...instead of demanding adherence to the constitutional protections of our most basic and fundamental human rights to grow any plant etc...
if thats still unclear then say so and i'll take another shot at it...
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
If the information offered you from every source, unless you work at the truth, is controled, either by government or some other powerful entity, then your mind IS controled. When PR campaigns are paid Billions year after year it means that their approaches have been proven to work, and after 100 years of experience they work quite well. You are convinced as to what to eat, what to drive, where to shop, who is doing right by you, what is a lie, what is a myth, what is the truth, how to feel and what you should do about it, by those with the money to influence your understanding and perceptions, but above all you are convinced that you have a choice and your thoughts and feelings are all your own.

This is happening NOW, not in some distant future with helmets and energy beams. You have no right to your own thoughts, little you or I will ever think can be original and we go through our modern life having induced feelings and carrying inplanted thoughts.


Or have you never heard that song on the radio long into the night, playing over and over again in your head - think that was your idea? really? then why can't you stop it? Got a craving for a double double wth cheese do you? and then when you eat it it is NEVER EVER as good as you imagined it to be? why do you suppose? Why do most people open a bag of potato chips and cannot quit until the bag is empty? Think that is the consumer's choice?


If you don't know these things you might want to read the history of Public Relations - it is frightening and it is real and your mind is, constitutionaly influenced every minute of every day in America.

So is mine btw, you aren't alone, the only difference is that I can sense a portion of it. There are code words.


"wellington trail mix is packed with natural goodness". did you ever ask yourself what natural goodness is or how much it cost? Well the words cost millions. "we took half the salt out", when in reality what they did was to leave half the salt in. the list is endless and it is pointed directly at your head.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
lol i beenthere ;)
all i can say is that i've been involved with the law and the courts in one way or another for the majority of my life and have been generally aware of how the courts and the constitution are exercised etc and from my view 'we' havent even begun to use the 'arguments' (if you will) that are available to us for remedy of many of the troubling issues of the day that 'we' generally throw our hands up and say its beyond our reach to effect...and that we dont utilize such fundamental arguments in part because we dont see the constitution or its amendments for what they actually are...
the cannabis issue is a prime example...
'we' ask for 'legalization'/regulation = another form of prohibition of basic human rights...instead of demanding adherence to the constitutional protections of our most basic and fundamental human rights to grow any plant etc...
if thats still unclear then say so and i'll take another shot at it...
Click to expand...
So, we need to go back to the pre-1937 position on cannabis, i.e. federal law is utterly silent on cannabis and the feds have no say in it whatever. Is that about right? If so, I agree.
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
If the information offered you from every source, unless you work at the truth, is controled, either by government or some other powerful entity, then your mind IS controled. When PR campaigns are paid Billions year after year it means that their approaches have been proven to work, and after 100 years of experience they work quite well. You are convinced as to what to eat, what to drive, where to shop, who is doing right by you, what is a lie, what is a myth, what is the truth, how to feel and what you should do about it, by those with the money to influence your understanding and perceptions, but above all you are convinced that you have a choice and your thoughts and feelings are all your own.

This is happening NOW, not in some distant future with helmets and energy beams. You have no right to your own thoughts, little you or I will ever think can be original and we go through our modern life having induced feelings and carrying inplanted thoughts.


Or have you never heard that song on the radio long into the night, playing over and over again in your head - think that was your idea? really? then why can't you stop it? Got a craving for a double double wth cheese do you? and then when you eat it it is NEVER EVER as good as you imagined it to be? why do you suppose? Why do most people open a bag of potato chips and cannot quit until the bag is empty? Think that is the consumer's choice?


If you don't know these things you might want to read the history of Public Relations - it is frightening and it is real and your mind is, constitutionaly influenced every minute of every day in America.

So is mine btw, you aren't alone, the only difference is that I can sense a portion of it. There are code words.


"wellington trail mix is packed with natural goodness". did you ever ask yourself what natural goodness is or how much it cost? Well the words cost millions. "we took half the salt out", when in reality what they did was to leave half the salt in. the list is endless and it is pointed directly at your head.
Click to expand...
i couldnt agree more...and bernays was instrumental in laying some of that foundation...
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

but even then it can be argued that you 'chose' whatever, so i guess im speaking more to technological advances in that area which leave much less to chance no matter how good the current model has worked etc...
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
So, we need to go back to the pre-1937 position on cannabis, i.e. federal law is utterly silent on cannabis and the feds have no say in it whatever. Is that about right? If so, I agree.
Click to expand...
thats not what im saying in that example dd, im saying 'we' should reach for our human rights to grow any plant (which imo is protected in the constitutional contract) and force cesar to be limited to regulating commerce (as the constitution provides), not what i grow for my own use regardless of what plant species it is...
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
i couldnt agree more...and bernays was instrumental in laying some of that foundation...
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

but even then it can be argued that you 'chose' whatever, so i guess im speaking more to technological advances in that area which leave much less to chance no matter how good the current model has worked etc...
Click to expand...

In truth there is no free choice. If you are given a series of options, each of which is essentialy actually an option within a set they you have no choice, not really, all you have is the illusion of choice. "you can get the red car or the blue one or the yellow one". "but I want the one that gets 57 miles per gallon". Well, that isn't - "an option". When asked why, we are told that the public is not interested in that. In reality the public is told what they are interested in, not the other way around. You are given options and rarely anything else but made to think that these options to be able to purchase is your god given right to free choice.
 
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
In truth there is no free choice. If you are given a series of options, each of which is essentialy actually an option within a set they you have no choice, not really, all you have is the illusion of choice. "you can get the red car or the blue one or the yellow one". "but I want the one that gets 57 miles per gallon". Well, that isn't - "an option". When asked why, we are told that the public is not interested in that. In reality the public is told what they are interested in, not the other way around. You are given options and rarely anything else but made to think that these options to be able to purchase is your god given right to free choice.
Click to expand...
ok so now that we are conscience of all that you have stated (which i agree with btw) do we not then have the choice to accept such as 'the only way' or can we choose another way?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
DNAprotection said:
ok so now that we are conscience of all that you have stated (which i agree with btw) do we not then have the choice to accept such as 'the only way' or can we choose another way?
Click to expand...

It is too late for most of us. We have been sufficiently cornered. One sense of what is real is not enough, those who want your mnd will constantly discover new ways to capture it. You are pretty much stuck with the food you eat, you are stuck being offered only what others want you to select from and being told that those things are what you yourself wanted ini the first place "we make what the consumer wants" - is one of the largest lies. If it were true then you might hae a choice, agenuine choice. If I only have cocolate and vanilla in my icecream shop, even though you know that those are but options you have 4 options. Chocolate, vanilla, both or neither. in this world neither is a rare state and even neither gets you nowhere.

I suppose you can go off grid, grow your own food, drill your own well but even these things are limited in scope and possibility. You could also place all your energy in growing rich enough to be one of those who sways other's minds but I am quite certain that even then there isnt the "just over the next hill" effect. Even the rich never really feel sucessful because there is always yet one more club that they are not allowed to join, by virtue of their not being quite special enough. Even they are told what to think and believe and feel.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
I recall once (when I had quite a bit more money than I do now), I, being a high roller, was invited to the opening of a four star desert casino. I was offered a glorious room that had never ever been used before. I felt (as we all are prone to do) special and above all the others who didn't have the wherewithall to have what was offered to me for free.

But you can upgrade to the top floor suite, adjacent to our magnificent and exclusive bar, a waterfall eminates from there all the way down to the pool. how much more exclusive! how marvelous for me that people will know when I push my platinum card into the slot above all the buttons in the elevator.

"but you can upgrade still furhter to one of our casitas that sits right next to the endlessly swirling pool" "yes, I said" thinking that NOW I would be superior to those who had that now sad little suite on the top floor.

But if you look, you will see two double casitas,you may have one of those if you desire - think of it, all the people in those other plain casitas would envy me my one of two supreme casitas.

But if you opt for one of those you can also have a buttler. I was offered nothing further but I am certain that had I opted for what they presented as the ultimate, there would be yet another option, and another after that and one after that. This is they way of America and it strikes the rich as much as anyone. Why would any person wish for two yachts? Because only the commoners have but a single one.

We are not free, our minds are not our own, our desires are not our own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top