unfettered free thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiHOP2P_NTA Jordan Maxwell - Who Owns You? - Vid WAKE UP! Jordan Maxwell discussing who really runs the United States of America, illuminati, business and family ties among the elite, International ...Maritime Admiralty Law and more exposing the reign of British royalty over the American citizens of the USA including the english-speaking world in general. Also interviewed are Michael Tsarion, Jim Marrs, John Greenwald discussing generally about the New World Order and some other details pertaining to this sort of topic. If you are really interested in International Maritime Admiralty Law in the sense of practical application in a courtroom, the best interview with Jordan Maxwell I have come across on this subject is an interview he did with Laura Lee for her talk show. Laura Lee's show has a website with downloadable past interviews but Jordan Maxwell's is not present there at the time of this writing. However, it is available from file sharing networks such as Emule and BitTorrent. Just search for "Laura Lee" and/or "Jordan Maxwell" and/or "Maritime Law" and you should find it. It is approximately two hours in duration. The one example Jordan Maxwell gives of a person who goes into court, knowing how to defend themselves with knowledge of how the Law of the Sea in imposed upon civilans, is priceless and worth seeking this interview for alone. (less) Added: July 22, 2007

[quote="Diogenes"] 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiHOP2P_NTA 
 
Jordan Maxwell - Who Owns You? - Vid 
[/quote] 
 
"We have proof, beyond any reasonable doubt . . " 
 
I don't know why, but that kind of statement just sets my teeth hurting.

wudda day first vive gets turned into incomprehensible garbage and now this the gremlin have won out
has April first come early?

by c&p

Jordan Maxwell - Who Owns You? +youtube
it was taken to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiHOP2P_NTA

I just c&p'd the above it worked for me
Good luck

I will now go back to bed assume the fetal position and turn the electic blankie up to 9
film at some future point in time
perhaps

We once had a section for spin control put it back!

in the meantime here is a furtherence to you education

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... plindex=61

http://mmsarticle.com/

Amazing what an excellent guide does
I had
lost: this thread and thanks to Dr. Caleb, (Thanks Doc) got directions

Dear Radical Reader,

An interesting dynamic is developing around the CHRC drama now unfolding here in Canada.

Prior to Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn being dragged, kicking and screaming, into a public foray that had, hitherto, been the sole arena of mainly white, Christian players, overall publicity surrounding cases of HRC abuse was heavily influenced in a negative way against the victims, be they Malcolm Ross or Doug Collins or Canada’s most heinous example of all, that of Ernst Zundel who now rots in a German prison cell thanks to the despicable machinations of the Canadian courts, the HRCs, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and their various political courtiers and syncophants. Along with the disgusting actions of these government agents one needs to also include the mainstream media which inevitably joined in the vileness and the calumny associated with such attacks. The media of course, being for the most part exclusively owned and controlled by Zionist Jews, relished roasting Zundel upon their monopolist spit while at the same time enhancing the brainwashing of Canadians into further belief that Zundel was somehow an imminent threat to Canadian security.

Now, for some strange reason (possibly karma or divine retribution?), the tables have been turned and for the first time (from what I’ve been able to glean) we have two Jewish stars on the rise in the new firmament of political correctness who are reluctantly on the defensive rather than the usual offensive as has always been the case with complaints of this nature in the past. As Levant states below concerning Marc Lemire’s chart of HRC victims, even though he finds Lemire’s website to contain “white supremicist overtones” he nonetheless could not find fault with Lemire’s research that proved only white, mostly Christian people were the recipients of HRC vendettas.

But did Levant then go on to elaborate upon how many of those cases such as Malcolm Ross and Doug Collins and Ernst Zundel were instigated by Jews from either the B’nai Brith or the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Simon Weisenthal Centre or some other Jewish organization? Good gosh no! What purpose would that serve other than to draw the public’s attention closer to the ultimate source of all of this conflict in the first place. No, better to divert people’s attention away from the Jews and ultimately their Zionist-induced agenda and onto their pet peeve of the day, the radical Muslim Jihadists and any others of similar ilk lurking about the fringes of truly mainstream, Canadian society.

Why, Levant bemoans, aren’t the HRCs going after radical Sikh secessionalists and Tamil Tigers and the traditional lineage of white, ethnic Christian victims like Ross and Collins and Zundel and Lemire and Topham and other similar “poor shleps” instead of making center-jobs of such noble, law-abiding Jews like Levant and Steyn? Why indeed. As Levant goes on to state, with respect to the forementioned Arab/Muslims, the media has already done such a bang up job of convincing Canadians that these groups are the real terrorists and danger. In his words, “There is no shortage of news on each of those groups....” There never is in the Zionist-controlled media but there is also never a mention of those Jews and/or Jewish organizations who lobby and connive endlessly to superimpose their own political agenda upon the overall Canadian landscape.

So now we have HRCs with a sudden and new twist and a challenge to the very instigators of such tribunals. Blowback time? The time of the Quickening? It will be very interesting to see how Levant and Steyn go about thwarting their “illiberal” enemy and keeping the real culprit in this game of deception (Political Zionism) hidden from the masses of Canadian internet users while they battle the very monster that they themselves created.

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
[email protected]
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
-------------------------------------------------------

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/how-the-c ... ights.html

How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law

By Ezra Levant

The opposite of the "rule of law" is the "rule of man". Canadians love the rule of law so dearly because it makes us feel safe: we know what to expect in life; we know if we follow the rules, the police won't capriciously arrest us. There will be no knock on our door in the middle of the night. We won't be arrested without a proper reason. The rule of law gives us confidence when we deal with the state and its officers, even its policemen, even its prime ministers. Because we know that they are our servants and that, if anything, they are bound by more rules than we are. They only hold the power that we give them, and they only hold it in trust for us.

We are strict with our police; maybe even too strict, but that's a better error to make than being too lax. Besides Internal Affairs officers within police departments, we have additional layers of scrutiny. For example, Ontario's Special Investigations Unit <http://www.siu.on.ca/what.html> does nothing but investigate police who are accused of abusing their powers. Canada answers Juvenal's question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F> ? pretty well.

(As a student at law, I attended a hearing of Alberta's Law Enforcement Review Board <http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/lerb/role_mandate_member.aspx> , the body that considers complaints against Alberta police, ranging from the farcically trivial to the most serious. I was impressed -- and frankly, a little bit irritated -- at the lengths the province went to ensure fairness. As an example, complaints against officers from Calgary were heard in Edmonton and vice versa, to reduce the risk of collusion or even collegiality between police and those who were investigating the police. The particular day I was there, some nuisance complaints filed by prisoners were being heard. It was clear to me that besides the thrill of causing a hassle for the police and for the justice system in general, the prisoners in question had simply found a way to get out of jail for a day and travel, at taxpayers expense, to a hearing in which they were the center of attention.)

But it's not just the police who are countered with enormous checks and balances. The other half of the "Law and Order" duo is hamstrung, too. For example, prosecutors are generally not allowed to tell a jury <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=919600> about an accused's prior criminal convictions at his trial, unless the accused is foolish enough to claim that he has sterling credibility, or otherwise opens the door himself. This might seem frustrating to those who are "tough on crime", but cool reflection tells us such information would likely so overwhelm a jury's views about an accused that they would be likely to convict him even if he were innocent of the new accusations, simply on the weight of the old ones. Even convicted criminals have the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty when they're charged with new crimes. That's a form of rule of law, too. It's not just that the high and mighty (like Eliot Spitzer!) are bound by the strictures of the law; it's that the lowly and odious are given the benefits of the law, too.

Another example in this vein -- and I assure you, dear reader, that I am coming to my point -- is that of the "rape shield" law <http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20001012/ctvnews76815?s_name=&no_ads=> . It's an expression of the rule of law, too. Just as the general rule against adducing evidence of an accused's prior criminal record is done to give even past criminals a fair trial, the rape shield law was designed to give sexually promiscuous women -- such as prostitutes, for example -- a level playing field when they accuse a man of rape. If any and all of a woman's past sexual history was admissable in court, it could prejudice a jury against her in a current case of rape -- that is, her past behaviour could overwhelm the current facts at hand, and falsely acquit a man charged with her rape. I'm not well-versed enough in criminal law to know if the courts and legislatures have found the right balance here -- given that the rape shield law almost exclusively benefits women to the detriment of accused men, it has been called a feminist law that unfairly undermines men's legal rights. I don't know enough to have an opinion on that, but my main point remains: in the name of the rule of law, our police and courts go to great lengths to make sure that everyone has the same benefit and burden under law, no matter their personal characteristics or past behaviour.

Which is all a lengthy introduction to this stunning internal Canadian Human Rights Commission document <http://ezralevant.com/guille.pdf> posted by Connie Fournier of Free Dominion. Here's <http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1156179&sid=80678e297e5d4e5927691e679be345db> her analysis. And here's mine:

Andrew Guille filed a "hate messages" complaint with the CHRC. He complained that a website called Recomnetwork.org, run by an "anti-hate" group, contained hateful messages that contravened section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, by discriminating against people based on race, colour, national origin, religion and sexual orientation.

So what happened? Did the "anti-hate" group in question, with all of the bigoted remarks on their website, become the first defendant ever to be acquitted in a section 13 trial? Or did Guille pull a Richard Warman <http://www.richardwarman.com/> -- slam-dunk a bigoted website and collect a few thousand dollars for bringing the complaint to the CHRC's attention?

Neither, actually. The CHRC refused to take the matter to a tribunal hearing, ruling it a frivolous complaint. But look at the grounds upon which this complaint was dismissed: Andrew Guille, said CHRC investigator Dean Steacy, is the "sibling of both Melissa and Chris Guille", who Steacy implies are racist. Steacy -- whose job it is to investigate complaints of bigotry -- indeed conducted an investigation. But not into the website and its hate messages. He investigated Guille himself. Steacy met with Sgt. Don McKinnon of the London Police Force to get the low-down on Guille; he spoke with "anti-hate" activists with their own axes to grind and books to sell. None of this was done under oath; none of this was done with Guille there to cross examine his defamers (or to challenge McKinnon's right as a government employee to disclose Guille's personal information without permission). But even those offensive procedures aren't the point: the point is the CHRC simply wouldn't accept a complaint from someone they didn't like, for the most tenuous and circumstantial reasons.

Even if their hunches and their gossip was right -- even if Guille was, himself, a racist -- so what? If a website is bigoted, isn't it the CHRC's job (an immoral job, an improper job, but their job nonetheless) to investigate it? Does the offensiveness of the site in question depend on the character of the complainant? Is the question of whether the Canadian Human Rights Act, a law of Parliament, is violated depend on who brings an alleged offence to the attention of the commission?

Compare that sloppy, vindictive, capricious standard to the aforementioned lengths real police and real prosecutors go to, to ensure that the law is applied evenly to all citizens. What Steacy has done here is exactly the kind of arbitrariness the rape shield law was designed to prevent. If a prostitute complains that she was raped, it is improper for the police to say "she has no standing to complain about rape" or "we know that, in the past, she has consented to sex with strangers -- no use investigating." An even more exact analogy would be if a convicted rapist complained of having in turn been raped himself. That would not excuse the police from ignoring the rapist's own complaint.

The CHRC isn't governed by the rule of law. It is governed by the whimsy of men -- in this case, Dean Steacy, who himself admits to making anonymous posts on bigoted websites <http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/answers.pdf> .

Which is the other half of the broken system here. Put aside Guille; what about Recomnetwork.org, the hateful "anti-hate" website in question? Steacy's memo acknowledges that the site indeed had hateful words on it -- including copies of CHRC complaints filed by Richard Warman, which themselves contained bigotred remarks. But Steacy exculpates those sites by stating that the purpose of the website was to "educate the public about racism". That may well be true, but the Canadian Human Rights Act doesn't care about such nuances. Section 13 of that law <http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/h-6/bo-ga:l_I::bo-ga:l_II/en?page=2&isPrinting=false#codese:13> makes it illegal to communicate "any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt." It doesn't talk about "intentions" at all; and, as I've lamented before, the truth of the statements made is not a defence, unlike in defamation law in real courts.

The test isn't good or evil intentions. The test is whether the words are "likely to expose" someone to feelings of "hatred or contempt". The rule of law would hold Recomnetwork.org, and indeed Richard Warman, whose complaints were on that site, to the same standard as the person who originally wrote the hateful words. To excuse them because they have noble intentions is Steacy injecting his own personal views or friendships or biases into the law, which the law does not permit.

By the way, I happen to agree with Steacy on the narrow point that there is a difference between someone uttering a bigoted comment as an epithet, and someone else repeating that epithet, simply by listing it in a complaint (as Warman did); and someone else who writes a report of the whole thing (Recomnetwork.org). But that's not what the law says. The law doesn't care about anything other than the likelihood of hurting someone's feelings, which is one of the reasons the law is so dangerous.

If merely reporting on a controversial communication was acceptable, then surely my own decision two years ago to report the news of the cartoon riots, including showing the cartoons in question, would have been equally lawful, and the complaints filed against me for doing so would have been ruled "frivolous and vexatious", as Steacy ruled Guille's complaint against Recomnetwork.org to be. Or at least you'd expect that, if there was a consistency in these human rights commissions -- if there was rule of law, instead of rule of men.

If these commissions were governed by the rule of law instead of the rule of men, Richard Warman and Dean Steacy themselves would be charged with violating section 13, because the Act gives no weight to intentions, and both men have posted on bigoted websites -- Warman ending many of his posts with a symbol for "Heil Hitler". If these commissions were governed by the rule of law instead of the rule of men, Mohamed Elmasry, the Jew-hating bigot who filed a complaint against Maclean's magazine, would be charged with a section 13 violation himself, for publicly excusing the murder of Jews in Israel.

Marc Lemire has compiled a chart of every section 13 decision <http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Every_Decision_on_Sec_13_cases-past_and_active.pdf> . One of the line items in his chart is the ethnicity of the respondents -- 100% of them are white. When I first saw that chart, I was uncomfortable with that data, especially given the white supremacist overtones of Lemire's site. But with that caveat said, it is still a fact: not a single radical Muslim jihadi has had a section 13 trial; not a single radical Sikh secessionist; not a single Tamil Tiger supporter. There is no shortage of news on each of those groups, just to pick three. But none have been taken before the CHRC tribunal -- even though, unlike the poor shleps who have been, those three groups have actually gone beyond mere words into violent criminal acts.

There are many things I know now that I wouldn't have likely believed a few months ago, before I stared spelunking around the caves of the human rights commissions. I would never have believed that human rights "officers" would go around anonymously planting bigoted comments on websites -- I would have called that a nutty conspiracy theory. But then I saw the CHRC staff and Richard Warman admitting under oath to doing just that.

And, before reading Dean Steacy's memo <http://ezralevant.com/guille.pdf> on the Andrew Guille complaint, I would have thought that the CHRC runs itself at least along some basic concepts of natural justice <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice> . Now I know better.

As a lawyer, I know and accept that not all decisions by the government should be made as formally and rigorously as in a real court of law. But even the most trivial administrative tribunal needs to have basic rules of fair play. I really cannot think of a single element of fair play and natural justice that the CHRC has not violated. And, unlike so many other arms of the state, the CHRC has terrifying powers, from their official powers to fine people and subject them to life-long publication bans (surely an illegal "unusual" punishment under our Charter), but also their unofficial punishments, such as their abusive, costly processes themselves.

There is not a drop of doubt in my heart or mind: Canada's human rights commissions, with their illberal mission of political censorship and their perversion of the rule of law, have become a grave threat to our human rights. We simply must stop them.
-------------

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchi ... /oets0.htm

PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

When OUR ENEMY THE STATE appeared in 1935, its literary merit rather than its philosophic content attracted attention to it. The times were not ripe for an acceptance of its predictions, still less for the argument on which these predictions were based. Faith in traditional frontier individualism had not yet been shaken by the course of events. Against this faith the argument that the same economic forces which in all times and in all nations drive toward the ascendancy of political power at the expense of social power were in operation here made little headway. That is, the feeling that "it cannot happen here" was too difficult a hurdle for the book to overcome.

By the time the first edition had run out, the development of public affairs gave the argument of the book ample testimony. In less than a decade it was evident to many Americans that their country is not immune from the philosophy which had captured European thinking. The times were proving Mr. Nock's thesis, and by irresistable word-of-mouth advertising a demand for the book began to manifest itself just when it was no longer available. And the plates had been put to war purposes.

In 1943 he had a second edition in mind. I talked with him several times about it, urging him to elaborate on the economic ideas, since these, it seemed to me, were inadequately developed for the reader with a limited knowledge of political economy. He agreed that this ought to be done, but in a separate book, or in a second part of his book, and suggested that I try my hand at it. Nothing came of the matter because of the war. He died on August 19, 1945.

This volume is an exact duplication of the first edition. He intended to make some slight changes, principally, as he told me, in the substitution of current illustrations for those which might carry less weight with the younger reader. As for the sequel stressing economics, this will have to be done. At any rate, OUR ENEMY THE STATE needs no support.

Frank Chodorov
New York City, May 28th, 1946

CHAPTER 1

If we look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society and the State. This is the fact that interests the student of civilization. He has only a secondary or derived interest in matters like price-fixing, wage-fixing, inflation, political banking, "agricultural adjustment," and similar items of State policy that fill the pages of newspapers and the mouths of publicists and politicians. All these can be run up under one head. They have an immediate and temporary importance, and for this reason they monopolize public attention, but they all come to the same thing; which is, an increase of State power and a corresponding decrease of social power.
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

Moreover, it follows that with any exercise of State power, not only the exercise of social power in the same direction, but the disposition to exercise it in that direction, tends to dwindle. Mayor Gaynor astonished the whole of New York when he pointed out to a correspondent who had been complaining about the inefficiency of the police, that any citizen has the right to arrest a malefactor and bring him before a magistrate. "The law of England and of this country," he wrote, "has been very careful to confer no more right in that respect upon policemen and constables than it confers on every citizen." State exercise of that right through a police force had gone on so steadily that not only were citizens indisposed to exercise it, but probably not one in ten thousand knew he had it.

Heretofore in this country sudden crises of misfortune have been met by a mobilization of social power. In fact (except for certain institutional enterprises like the home for the aged, the lunatic-asylum, city-hospital and county-poorhouse) destitution, unemployment, "depression" and similar ills, have been no concern of the State, but have been relieved by the application of social power. Under Mr. Roosevelt, however, the State assumed this function, publicly announcing the doctrine, brand-new in our history, that the State owes its citizens a living. Students of politics, of course, saw in this merely an astute proposal for a prodigious enhancement of State power; merely what, as long ago as 1794, James Madison called "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the government"; and the passage of time has proved that they were right. The effect of this upon the balance between State power and social power is clear, and also its effect of a general indoctrination with the idea that an exercise of social power upon such matters is no longer called for.

It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes acceptable and gets itself accepted. (1) When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State's relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way, so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and he should go to the State about it.

Every positive intervention that the State makes upon industry and commerce has a similar effect. When the State intervenes to fix wages or prices, or to prescribe the conditions of competition, it virtually tells the enterpriser that he is not exercising social power in the right way, and therefore it proposes to confiscate his power and exercise it according to the State's own judgment of what is best. Hence the enterpriser's instinct is to let the State look after the consequences. As a simple illustration of this, a manufacturer of a highly specialized type of textiles was saying to me the other day that he had kept his mill going at a loss for five years because he did not want to turn his workpeople on the street in such hard times, but now that the State had stepped in to tell him how he must run his business, the State might jolly well take the responsibility.

The process of converting social power into State power may perhaps be seen at its simplest in cases where the State's intervention is directly competitive. The accumulation of State power in various countries has been so accelerated and diversified within the last twenty years that we now see the State functioning as telegraphist, telephonist, match-pedlar, radio-operator, cannon-founder, railway-builder and owner, railway-operator, wholesale and retail tobacconist, shipbuilder and owner, chief chemist, harbour-maker and dockbuilder, housebuilder, chief educator, newspaper-proprietor, food-purveyor, dealer in insurance, and so on through a long list. (2) It is obvious that private forms of these enterprises must tend to dwindle in proportion as the energy of the State's encroachments on them increases, for the competition of social power with State power is always disadvantaged, since the State can arrange the terms of competition to suit itself, even to the point of outlawing any exercise of social power whatever in the premises; in other words, giving itself a monopoly. Instances of this expedient are common; the one we are probably best acquainted with is the State's monopoly of letter-carrying. Social power is estopped by sheer fiat from application to this form of enterprise, notwithstanding it could carry it on far cheaper, and, in this country at least, far better. The advantages of this monopoly in promoting the State's interests are peculiar. No other, probably, could secure so large and well-distributed a volume of patronage, under the guise of a public service in constant use by so large a number of people; it plants a lieutenant of the State at every country-crossroad. It is by no means a pure coincidence that an administration's chief almoner and whip-at-large is so regularly appointed Postmaster-general.

Thus the State "turns every contingency into a resource" for accumulating power in itself, always at the expense of social power; and with this it develops a habit of acquiescence in the people. New generations appear, each temperamentally adjusted - or as I believe our American glossary now has it, "conditioned" - to new increments of State power, and they tend to take the process of continuous accumulation as quite in order. All the State's institutional voices unite in confirming this tendency; they unite in exhibiting the progressive conversion of social power into State power as something not only quite in order, but even as wholesome and necessary for the public good.

II

http://www.truthpizza.org/importnt.htm

“This is exactly the complacent attitude that the misguided people of the past must have taken, and that so many people still take today. We have to recognize that we can be wrong, that we, too, can be fooled.
How can we prevent it? I only know of one way. We must make a serious commitment to recognizing and understanding the ways that people and propaganda and events can lead us to false and possibly dangerous beliefs. We must learn what sort of information is most reliable, and lacking reliable information, we must be willing to face the fact that sometimes we do not know the answers.
Many of the most serious problems in the world today result directly from people believing things that aren't true - often because they are manipulated by leaders who give them false or misleading information or because they accept cultural stereotypes and assumptions. The results are nationalistic and religious wars, ethnic hatred, and governments that serve the interests of the powerful rather than the general good.
Sometimes I worry that people just don't care very much about whether they have beliefs that are false. Well, we need to care, since the consequences of false beliefs can be disastrous. I hope that many readers will agree and join with me in trying to understand and practice thinking as critically and carefully as possible, and will try to promote responsible thinking as a cultural value. While there is a great deal to be learned, the first step must be to have a culture that puts a high value on thinking and believing responsibly.”

My thoughts
The above “ Stuff “ to get one’s head around is from the second sentence of the second paragraph down