"What was the breakthru?"
You see the answer, as far as I can tell. The concept of power includes the power of knowledge. The concept of wealth is much less powerful.
"I do not understand what those words are to mean. In the morning someone has more strength? They are fresh and ready for work?"
I was not choosing my words well. The phrase about the hammer is part of a song.
I think there is another song that comes to my mind on this subject of tools. Any weapon is a tool that can be used for defense against someone using tools to perpetrate crimes.
The breakthrough has to do with the tool of lies compared to the tool of factual, accurate, perception.
"And if I ever lose my hands, lose my plough, lose my land,
Oh if I ever lose my hands, Oh if.... I won't have to work no more."
"The cost of the lies paid forward is that there is a Missouri Milk Board and I assume that the Legal Criminals would also have an immobilizing device."
What are lies?
"But then, the milk farmer could have been ready to immobilize the criminals first."
Those who think that the authorities are in any way authorities (at the federal level) are defenseless?
"I guess it would have been nice if the Davidians had an immobilization device too."
I figured something out a long time ago, and it is one of the steps that help me understand the current breakthrough with wealth and power. The Libertarians spoke of the wrong of the use of offensive force. I took that to be the truth for some time.
Then I figured it out.
That is half true. The power of violence is powerless without the power of falsehood. I had that figured out already: I mean already as in before I read Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn.
"We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
So, in context, I think your video of what is happening at the milk farm that was being destroyed by lies despite the defensive efforts of the milk farmers is a case of the milk farmers giving credit to the concept of a Federal Government and The Constitution.
Do you see?
Do you see from my viewpoint?
Do you see how effective the lie is, in fact?
The lie is The Constitution. The False Fronts are The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights.
The accurate understandings of facts, in regard to duties of free people, in both The Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights are words, written on papers, and words, in people's minds, that ring true, are true, but they cover, like a Despotism Sandwich, The Constitution, which is a lie.
The lie is now 2 centuries old, so Mark Twain's words can be taken literally.
“A century of lies, leads to another.”—Mark Twain, The Daily Paul, 2013.
1788 to 1888
1888 to 1988
How about 3?
A century of lies leads to another century of lies and then another and then another?
"Since you have been studying Common Law, do you see it as something that could help that Milk farmer?"
That is the point. See how the Common Law people accurately discriminate the difference between Admiralty Law and Common Law? I have not studied this as much as I can, and I'm not sure why, but my interest in it is waning.
Common Law predates any Constitution, and it includes Trial by Jury.
As far as I know any 100 people can get together and arrest any presumed to be innocent person, such as those "government" criminals who were "only following orders", and they could hold a Common Law Trial by Jury to try those usurpers on the spot.
Whenever the Legal Criminals become aware of any group of any number gaining the power of knowledge they know that they have to do something before that number reaches a point at which the truth will reach critical mass.
How many people were in Waco?
What, exactly, was going on in Waco?
Do you have any first hand knowledge?
Who is afraid of The Angry Mob?
Show me an example of The Angry Mob?
That is called organized crime, if English means anything.
Show me an example of The Angry Mob.
How about this:
Is that an example of The Angry Mob that We The People are afraid of when we are told to be afraid of "democracy"?
How many people that you know personally are afraid of democracy and the angry mob, and if you ask them to show them any example of any angry mob then please return back to me with those answers.
"I wonder if the threat of violent force would cause people not to use their immobilization devices?"
The Routine can be broken down into 3 things as such:
Threat of Violence
When human beings use those three things to injure targeted innocent people then those willful actions can be called, in English, CRIME.
If English can convey accurate meaning, then one person, theoretically, could share knowledge.
If not, then not.
"I’m on page 122 out of 185 in bookwork. I am hoping to finish this week…actually hoping to finish before February. I would feel good about it if I make that goal. I shall not call it a deadline."
If you do not make the best of what you are given, then who is held to account for that failure, and what power holds you to that account?