Defend Innocence The American Experiment
by Joe Kelley
1-28-2022

The natural law dictates the absolute necessity for adaptation. Nature does not always keep everything in a straight line.

Always ready to accept the inevitable oddball stepping out of line, nature provides.

Rather than descending upon the oddball with the full destructive force of nature, nature demands that the oddball power itself to defend against the full destructive force of nature as nature travels that straight line from complexity to the one simple natural goal known as nothing.

Nature, it turns out, goes both ways.

Scientists have attempted to explain how the process works in nature. At least one oddball scientist managed to survive long enough against the full force of nature, the full force of nature aligned in a straight line so as to destroy that one scientist. That one oddball scientist left the rest of us with the English word entropy. We now know about entropy, thanks to the one oddball who escaped for a time, escaping his discovery.

English, by the way, was one oddball stepping out of the Latin line and offering mankind an odd form of language now called English. Not too long ago, in human documentation of human travels through time and space on earth, in history, or her story, and against the full force of natural destruction that moves all things back into nothing and nowhere, English was born out of the ashes of The Roman Empire.

Or so we are told.

Another oddball managed to step out of line long enough, against the full force of nature's destruction, to offer mankind a method of translating English into older, established, languages, and newer oddball languages, such as the codes in machines built by arranging fictional ones and zeros.

Something and nothing in expanding code going beyond individual human comprehension.

Expressions of collective agreements made between ones and zeros.

An oddball mixed up the line of ones with the line of zeros and that mixing process has continued to create new lines of mixtures, all lined up in neat rows, not allowing any oddballs to mess up the existing codes. Those perfect mixtures of ones and zeros work to give mankind ubiquitous streaming video networked to everyone all the time, all around the planet, and any oddball codes injected like a virus in the stream will face the full force of the assertively defensive malware programs.

Who defends against viruses counterfeiting malware programs?

An unwanted problem designed to create a demand for a more destructive solution.

The Final Solution to the Final Solution problem.

Now you know the Revolutionary Idea, the American Experiment, which was merely the latest adaptation of a Ancient effort by collective mankind to deal with oddballs stepping out of line in order to save mankind from the entropic forces of nature.

Effective defense against the virus called crime.

I pulled the following out of Google’s collective ass:

“Entropic penalty is when you have a loss of disorder (YOU'RE BECOMING MORE ORGANIZED) when water molecules must arrange themselves in an orderly manner around a hydrophobic group. So the question is saying in what scenario are we becoming LESS ORGANIZED (aka increasing entropy).”

Previous to those in America defending the innocent from the guilty between 1774 and 1789, which is the Revolutionary Period, or the Federated Period, of American History, when the innocent were more powerful than the guilty, and when the innocent were defended against the guilty by those individuals forcing each other to take the straight and narrow path toward peace and harmony, toward organized complexity, which is another way of saying toward peace, harmony, liberty, free markets, individual competitors offering everyone else a better mousetrap, at a lower cost, and everyone eager to help the next best producer discovering the better mousetrap sooner, and anyone stepping out of that line, was going to face the full force of human law based upon natural law. Those who step outside the Golden Rule, doing to others that which they themselves would defend against, are discovered soonest, and accounted for accurately, as Rats in the Ranks of the defenders defending natural innocence from oddball psychopaths hell-bent on destroying innocence seen to them as a weakness not a strength.

Case in point:

“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

Why would anyone living today want to suppress the knowledge of defenders effectively defending the innocent from the guilty in an established way from Ancient human history to this day right now on this human-infested planet?

Who says that planet earth is infested with a virus called the human species?

Is that not an inhuman, even psychopathic, accounting of the selective facts that matter in the case where the prejudged conclusion is built, and founded, upon the prejudicial selection of only evidence confirming the prejudged conclusion, and no amount of evidence proving the opposite conclusion is allowed to be entered into the stream of human consciousness, because doing so would unleash the ire of the collectively psychotic, descending upon the one who steps out of the orderly line to rip the oddball conspiracy theorist domestic terrorist limb from limb after torture in the effort to extract a false confession?

June 17, 1788
George Mason:
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

Charles Heston acted a part in the movie Planet of the Apes, and at the end of that movie the Statue of Liberty was buried from the last Aggressive War for lining the pockets of the psychopaths running Treasonous Fraud examples of so-called government.

Who blew it up? What was blown up, exactly, and when exactly did that happen, exactly? How would one know if one were to refuse to accept the facts that matter in the case? If one does not know these defensive answers, in the effort to defend the innocent from the guilty accurately, with a process tried and true for that purpose, then how would one know friend from foe? One might fund those people who kill those people who dare to step out of line, rather than funding those people who step out of line so as to build the better mouse trap sooner, and with less cost, on the shelves filled with an abundance of necessary things, each competitor offering an even better version at a lower cost for those who find the better and lower cost stuff sooner, and those too late, may have to settle for the next best at a slightly higher price, on the shelves overflowing with abundance.

No?

My boss says obey, and do not question the order.

Really?

That is the American Experiment according to your boss?

Which boss, exactly, said that to you, and why do you stay in that line as ordered? Is it because you accept the accusation that you are as guilty as everyone else, and there is no more innocent people in need of any defense, let alone you?

Does that not seem a little odd, itself, if you are so ready to descend upon the Conspiracy Theorist Domestic Terrorist with the full force of the collective defenders of blind obedience, removing all the oddballs as soon as is inhumanly possible, or at least pay someone else to do that dirty work?

Which line is Standard Operating Procedure for you?

The line leading mankind back to carbon atoms or the line daring to make things better even at the cost of more complexity?

June 14, 1788
Patrick Henry:
“Mr. Chairman, it is now confessed that this is a national government. There is not a single federal feature in it. It has been alleged, within these walls, during the debates, to be national and federal, as it suited the arguments of gentlemen.
“But now, when we have heard the definition of it, it is purely national.”

One might claim that too much complexity in areas of human law enforcement renders the individual incapable of knowing the magic words that may set him free in a Court of Law, so the line I am on leads back to simple, base, principles, where everyone can know their place on the moral, legal, lawful, line, with their own sense of moral judgment, and anyone making that base understanding of law more complicated, stepping out of that line, is making the complexity so as to consolidate all the power of defensive law into the hands of one dictatorial central power that excludes all but that one power from access to the power to enforce the rapidly growing complexity on the one official list of things humans can or cannot do, in that line made that way, and anyone stepping out of that line, despite no one knowing where the boundaries actually are, may be tortured for confession until murdered for either confession or refusal to confess, and all the while every bit of value is taken from the oddball conspiracy theorist domestic terrorist slave, and used to please the central command officers, and pay them to do the work of enslaving you, at a rate they exclusively determine as they please, raising their pay more rapidly then they inflate their Central Bank Laundered Money.

Cost of Living Increase, or price charged for stupidity and servility?

Why would anyone want to make a better mousetrap if the simple mousetrap works to keep the psychopaths out of public office, and the simple mousetrap actually proves to work, the cheapest, to then afford everyone the opportunity to make better mousetraps for purposes other than identifying the psychopaths before they make sociopaths out of all of us, leading us back to carbon atoms soonest?

Which line?

The line made complex on purpose to fool the slaves, or the line asking for accurate accounting of criminals in defense of innocent victims sooner before it is too late, but make it simple enough everyone can use it, but not simpler to a point at which it does not prove to work each time.

If the tried and true can be used by a slave in Massachusetts in 1788 to allow that slave to set herself free, then why is that line swept under the rug in favor of making the Human Trafficking Markets a government-subsidized institution?

Really?

You bought that African Prince story-line, hook, line, and sinker, and you are still eager to pay more to your overlords, or turn in those who don’t pay as fast as you do? They step out of line, not loving it, not leaving it, because it saves you from your conscience? It is Nationalism, and it cannot be admitted that it is National Socialism since 1789, as a matter of fact? You did that despite the fact that Patrick Henry smelled out that rat for you, giving you the path to liberty, and you called him a Conspiracy Theorist Domestic Terrorist the minute your knee jerked when hearing about his unique ability to smell out those rats? He was smelling you out before you were even born, and you take offense?

Don’t step out of that line.

One must Defend the Slave Trade at all cost?

Did I miss something in Publik Skewl?

“The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
“Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."
Garrison's Constitution
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made
By Paul Finkelman, 2000
[archives.gov]

Caveat Emptor