 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
At time 27:07 or so Julian Assange struggles with the POWER of Fake News. At that time in that struggle with Fake News it occurred to me to start publishing here on Facebook a message concerning that power struggle between Fake News and the opposite power that opposes Fake News.
Official Accountability, which is also called due process of law, which is also called the law of the land, and which is also called the common law with trial by jury, instructs us moral people to employ the means to an end of Fake News.
Julian Assange is apparently ignorant concerning the power that opposes Fake News, and in that State of Ignorance Julian Assange clearly struggles: plus he appears to have a cold or flu.
The end of Fake News is accomplished by the people themselves through their process of holding Libelers to account for the Libel published by the Libeler.
Some of the evidence that determines guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of Libel include:
1. The printed lies that cause the injury to the victim: words printed by the criminal.
2. The establishment of fact, established by the country through the jury, unanimously, that the victim suffered, in fact, injury as a result of the criminal act perpetrated by the criminal in that case.
Fake News = Libel. Someone, an individual, publishes Libel. If it is Libel there are victims, at least one.
Example of Fake News: Democracy is Rule by the Majority.
The public rules the public in a democracy. It is that principle that establishes the fact that the government is thereby a democracy: rule by the public themselves.
If the set-up established by the public is such that a direct vote is taken, on any issue, and if the majority say yes, or no, then - and only then - is that democracy a democracy where the majority rule. That, as far as I know, has never happened anywhere, anytime. Also, if it is a democracy, then those who said no, don't have to listen to those who said yes. If the majority enslave the minority, based upon their voting power, then it is a crime scene, the dictatorial majority "enforce" their rule upon the targeted minority who are now slaves to the majority; against their will.
Word play? How about an example? If the majority take a vote and the vote concerns Slavery, and the majority say Slavery is Legal, but the minority say no, then is it a democracy (rule by the public) or is it a dictatorship (rule by the slave traders)? You tell me, as either a member of the public, or a member of a dictatorship.
Fear of Majority Rule type democracies is Fake News. Democracy described as the public separated into 2 camps, those who rule, and those who are ruled, is misdirection.
That (masters and slaves) is called dictatorship, not democracy. Those who rule (majority, minority, or precisely half of the population on one side, and precisely half of the population on the other side) are the dictators dictating what the slaves will or will not do: or else.
Those who are ruled are often just called the slaves, at least everyone can agree on that so long as that confession isn't published on public channels.
Fake News: Democracy is dictatorial rule by the majority.
That is Fake News that is used to misdirect the slaves. That is Fake News that is produced and maintained by the Masters (dictators) of Slaves; in a functioning dictatorship.
In common law the public rule by unanimity.
Example:
Lysander Spooner the Essay on The Trial by Jury.
"To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.
"It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor—that is, with the government.
"It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And as unanimity is required for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained."
It was the common law that was the Revolutionary government apparatus. The Revolutionary War established a common law government which lasted from 1775 (or so) until 1789.
Then the powers of Fake News took over. In those days Fake News was called The Federalist Papers.
Those who were (and now are) accountable for their crimes of Libel, or fomenting violence, or treason, are - by their claims and their actions - above the law: they cannot be held accountable; just ask them.
Since 1789 anyone in "government" can get away with any crime, anytime, so long as they know how "government" really works according to the form of "government" established in 1789: dictatorship.
Dictatorship is Rule by The Dictators, or rule by the minority of immoral, criminal, sociopaths, psychopaths, and sycophants. If by natural laws the dictators can make sociopaths, psychopaths, and sycophants out of everyone, or a majority of the population, then that would be Rule (dictatorship) by the Majority. The natural laws applied in that case are lies beget more lies, and violence begets more violence.
Government means: nip those 2 natural laws in the bud, hold malicious liars and aggressively violent people to account for their malicious lies and their aggressive violence, sooner, rather than too late.