The Campaign for the Personal Weapons, Flatly (ouside police corruption) - The Launch of Media Campaigning! Starts now! (2013-10-02)

Germany, starting the media-campaigning on more secure population /with/ personal weapons/non-lethal weapons:

Hitler sits on a special chair, all naked and ready to get a**-licked, awfully enough to very many people, very dubious, dark scene.

Then the pictures run (from the infamous speeches) with Hitler's voice being the siren's song to a "dumbfounded, drooling" person, woman or man, versions?, (by actor of course).

End scene: The two (in the very dark): THIS IS HOW IT GOES WITH A PERSON WHO IS UNABLE TO MAKE THE GOOD MORAL JUDGMENTS, right there, slavishly under Hitler "with Simpson's sounds", hmmm... you're so awfully ugly, but so good tastin' too hmmmmm ¤%¤#%¤%¤%!#¤%! hmmmm

With Eichmann next? The rest of the Nazi-Dachau Physicians next? When will the perversion be stopped?!

(Human Rights now! Realistically too! With the UDHR Art. 3 of Personal Security! To Decency! To Intelligent Living!)

Good enough? You are (hereby) free to follow up making one to YouTube or whatever! "I race you to the finishing line!"

PS: Remember also, please, that we drive this on many levels, trying to make NRA, U.S. Department of State: Consular Affairs, United Nations and Pentagon a part of our campaign, adding their voices on how to best achieve Human Rights throughout the World. THEY HAVE ALSO HARD DUTIES BY THE UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE OF ETHICS (or Corwin Amendment for nations, "in US. style language").

The Campaign is for personal weapons for every population on the planet, flatly, so that no person can be easily obstructed by corrupt goverment (see origin of "terrorism" from France).

The tags then: Art. 3, Europe, Gandhi, Germany, Hitler, Human Rights, Indian regiment to WW2, intelligence, Personal Security, UDHR, Universality principle.

Adding some too: Consular Affairs, NRA, Pentagon, U.S. Department of State, United Nations.

Well, well, not really relevant, but for background still, supporting the whole arrangement:

The Question of Personal Weapon and Personal Security - UDHR Article 3

There's a question to NRA (National Rifle Association) if they are supporting the World in acquiring weapons for all, making it law or making it a Right in their nation...

I expect them to give an affirmative and that they are therefore in-line with the State Department. I want to write this as a heads-up for UN and most/all other nations in expecting a given behaviour from USA in aftermath of "Financial Radicalism" charges to Nazi-Germany, in making their efforts to improve the World, also in terms of humanism/human rights/humanistic progress.

So it goes:
* U. S. (American) State Department gives its public statement for the normative personal weapons rights to everywhere in the World
* So does the NRA.
* So does the UN.
* And Pentagon plays with it, displaying the use of the personal weapon.

This is inline with the sales, Worldwide, of the non-lethal weapons. That USA owes us, outside its nation, these efforts, until we too have achieved it, as far as possible.

In short, I WANT/RECOMMEND MUCH CAMPAIGNING for all and everywhere, having suggested the (mobilised) army to take part, over a 14 days period. Remember that this is about the decent family life for everyone. If not decent families, then life everywhere maybe broken DOWN!

Note: That to mention the (central) Article 3 of the UDHR doesn't necessarily entail only one article. No, the consequences are thought to influence, critically or not, many/all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association , note on singular vs. text above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Department.

This also connects with explanations of universal duties from and to one-another and in being human one-self and bringing this humanity to others as well, from old, "making other people able to _hold_ the Bible" themselves too"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_values.

Universal value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Case for USA above Europe and Everywhere Else

1. Industry production (by reliability also) is high in USA, entailing healthy, functional people with beliefs in their society.

2. I understand the corrupt minds very well and how the guilt from failure to duties abroad influxes into USA on the "macro-scale".

3. USA has now carried out a large social welfare reform gently moved in, to remove much contradiction inside its nation in terms of Human Rights. Importantly too, the legal system ... allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminal scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police.

Sub-point: Insecurity to neighbour... dire consequences.

To cut the usual "smile of idiocy" from European thinking, that the Universality Principle of Ethics as safety-webbing is easily DESTROYED if one sits there trying to say that the Principle and Insecurity to the neighbour (with a possible disposition of acceptance by torture to the neighbour) by refusing to accept the personal weapons (max. 5?) and non-lethal weapons to ALL, denying these bloated psychiatrists these aloof statements over sanity as THEY have allowed "vampires to walk in broad daylight", like "educated torturers" and serial-killers, 10 or more!

The academic usual at the end: Instantly, I submit to the Objectivity and more powerful arguments if they exist as well as the best data-sets to these (academic) matters of political science/legal forensics.

The court issues: theology and psychiatry are traditionally alike banned from the courts in terms of presenting Legal Objectivity. They are only, especially psychiatry now, allowed to enter for testifying as experts to a given (narrow) aspect.

In addition, legal blindness is the Cardinal Sin that condemns either of the acting parties of the court, including the judge. (The judge is continuously under the duty to not become legally blind, i.e., corrupt or "insane".)

Two "missing" sentences above:
3. Importantly too, their legal system has higher standing in terms of crime, allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminal scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police and for deeper intuitions of decency, dignity and human worth (than in Europe, elsewhere, hence the "necessity" of "meat shops", crime you can't talk about, the "necessity" of torture, etc.).

Sub-point ("reiteration"): Insecurity (by physical insecurity, "a door open") as insistence to the neighbour, universally, can have dire, negative consequences.

Additionally and outside, possibly, the campaign: Regarding Elie Wiezel, all respects, in Aftenposten, 2014-01-27, also being of North European descent through several hundred years (esp. 1900 – 1946 and Nuremberg), I’ll choose instead the more factual route for now by “USA Theory”, so to speak, computer-simulating (by USA data-set, inviting both mathematicians, Applied Mathematics and Wolfram, the program) a possible other destiny for our uneducated Hitler, setting necessary Kripke lines by 1925 and 1933 up to 1939.

(Holding of course on to two others, the non-lethal weapons and the neuro-meters, unsettling to read L. Ron Hubbard’s “0 – 8 The Basics” and the Ethics tone scale!)

Over IQ Testing, The Bell Curve and the Future

I have updated the message to you so that it now looks like this:
For political reasons and having entered the US registry first(?), I bring some point of view if you want it:
It should now be noted that the question of intelligence has remained largely/wholly undecided over whether IQ could be connected with humanistic values or not! Now that I've written about insanity and other and achieved reputation more, also for other efforts, I, for one, call for decision IN FAVOUR PRO-humanistic values in connection with the IQ scale that better reflect the actual performance of intelligence with the intellectuals of the World, scientists, engineers, and writers alike, all included!

My latest before the above, "having been involved since the 80s":
In responding to these new "contextual-intelligence" idiots, I just want to say right away that I support the testing standards of intelligence (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Raven's Progressive Matrices, predominantly, also by the usual Mensa notions or conventions) and not these "contextual-intelligence" idiots. That to refer to contextual intelligence is to me a way to disguise a kind of stupidity, and the "contextual-intelligence" stories are all too easy to mock, as much as the story goes with "Magic-Moment-at-Drinking-Beer-at-the-Local-Pub" in saving the World from nuclear holocaust and acquiring this utmost /highest/ "contextual-intelligence" because at this special moment, and having trained for beer-drinking a very long time, and seeing this moment coming too, Beer-Drinking Jack from the local factory scores the "ultimate point" again!
Be this the "John G." spot of Jochum's Pub in Fars(-e)und "kommune" or not!

I also happen to support the notion that intelligence testing is to happen neutrally, in the absolute sense, and that intelligence is NOT a social phenomenon, but a measure to rate the functioning of a (healthy) brain in order to predict who is the most successful, and that, even by the psychologists, that the scale is meant to, as Adjustment-updated, reflect the direct performance in science and ALL f*cking else!

(Not because you ask for permission for taking a test, under the torture -clinic, being socially "allowed" to score this or that! Also, by tech-eyes, that are invalidating, not because of the victim, but because of this implant-administering retard who has rejected ethics and Helsinki-declaration altogether and "plays" this very important GAM(I)E.)

Also, I find this insistence on the Bell's Curve insulting because it has roots in a (racist-)USA (to Palestinians or poor Africans, because USA is so intelligent is actually scores so high that it moves the "quota" from Africa to its (god-d*mn)self! I also hold it to the Bell Curve people themselves in that they are academically demanded to say "peaceful circumstances for testing or be thrown out of the good society!
"Also scoring 151/200 not under the torture clinic!"

So a new approach to testing on a more *precise* and *real* basis can be this:
1. The test as before.
2. An additional test array involving a kind of strongly limited personality testing, determining a kind of self-confidence
3. The testing management (as people, three perhaps) then gives an additional "aesthetic" value for "police code as requirement of corrupt personality"/"monkey-business"
Final: These 3 steps may be/should be necessary in order to spark a new debate over future progress of human kind and that subversion against this kind of (voluntary) research falls (strictly) outside academic standards. Personality is investigated in line with Jungian traditions.
I think there's also good reason to say that US intelligence by fx. CIA and McCarthyism may have been more interested in the personality issues than hitherto known! A slight point on the pre-WW2 suspicions as history writing.

[For the "worried": THIS IS ABOUT THE VERY RESEARCH. NOT THE CINEMA NEAR YOU.]

The "...additional "aesthetic" value..." may be considered set as a kind of "clairvoyance/"seeing the band-track" or other (see Bem of the Cornell University).

Lastly and most easy to start with:
A comment on IQ - The newest read-out - The Neuro-Values from the forehead "area":

We list "by suspicion":
upward...200 - 1010 mA190 - 1009 mA180 - 1008 mA
...
130 - 1003 mA

Match up yourself... "Get your neuro-reader today!"

(First to my Facebook profile, this last comment added.)

Two Very Important Historical Notions to Consider - UN and USA/WW2

It must now be noted in the books out of the US American (strict) context that it is likely that USA has drawn the Satanic Cross over Japan with its two nuclear bombs on the southern cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! I insist here on religious context in comparison to objective history writing given that some may insist that religious terms are to be kept out of history writing.

Nr. 2: It must now be clear also that USA may have had other intelligence than Trygve Bratteli when the Norwegian Secretary General of the UN played the (undemocratic/Hitlerish) trick on the Russians as he erred (in terms of democracy) in granting the US Americans the rights by the UN because the assembly needs all parties gathered in order to obtain validity! This means then, that fundamentally, the decision on giving the go-ahead to the US Americans by UN must be seen as wrong, no matter how "hindsight (idiot) wise" I (and others) may appear by this!

Cheers!