What Happens When We Create Stories? Titelbild

What Happens When We Create Stories?

What Happens When We Create Stories?

Jetzt kostenlos hören, ohne Abo

Details anzeigen

Über diesen Titel

 It is February 14. Welcome to Yestohellwith.com. A system that does not require proof is not a legal system.A system that replaces authority with narrative is not just.A system that maligns truth to ensure compliance is hostile to freedom.When Mr. Allen says he “cannot support” someone based upon alleged moral failings, he adopts the same posture used by federal apparatuses when they malign defendants to secure compliance. The discussion shifts from lawful authority to moral condemnation.That is not resistance. That is participation.The Constitution does not protect liberty only for the morally approved. It does not extend due process only to those who satisfy public opinion. Rights do not depend on commentary.When law is replaced by narrative, liberty retreats.When moral judgment replaces proof, justice collapses.Now let me address Mr. Allen respectfully and directly.You are free to withhold your support from anyone. But you are not free to treat allegations as settled truth while demanding that others defend themselves against prejudicial narratives that have no bearing on lawful authority.You object to the requirement that individuals study the Liberty Dialogues before engaging in extended debate. That requirement exists to protect disciplined discourse. It ensures that conversations begin from shared structural understanding rather than fragmented assumptions. You would not provide unlimited professional time without compensation. I protect my time and framework the same way. The principle is identical.You state you cannot support anyone who allegedly failed to pay child support. That is your moral boundary. But if you accept allegations as conclusions without first examining authority, jurisdiction, procedural posture, and statutory applicability, then you have already abandoned structural analysis in favor of narrative.Firmness is not defensiveness. And defensiveness is not guilt. I am curious if Mr. Allen were told by a judge to defend a man accused of failing to sign a city filing, if Allen would refuse becase the defendant did not pass Allen’s character test, if he allegedly hid money while he failed to feed his dog. I can imagine Mr. Allens declaring, “No, Judge, I cannot defend a man who is innocent in this case, because I deem him to be morally bankrupt in other areas of his life.”Now let me address another topic. Yes, I went to prison.It is reality and not the product of cowardice. It was the result of a corrupt judicial posture that preferred narrative over jurisdictional proof. I did not concede to what I believed to be unlawful overreach simply in order to preserve my comfortable life with my children. I stood on principle — and I paid the cost.I did not endure that experience for vanity or spectacle. I endured it because I believed — and still believe — that the structural issues at stake affect every American, to include Mr. Allen. Authority, jurisdiction, status, standing, and obligation are not academic abstractions. They are restraints on power. When those restraints fail, everyone is vulnerable.Today, I educate those who seek disciplined understanding. If Mr. Allen knew of my financial condition, and if he understood that books belong to the publisher, he might be slower to imply profit motive. The Liberty Dialogues are not a profit center. They are a structured body of work for serious study. Thankfully, when my students learn and apply the Liberty Dialogues with AI, they will not need the services of those like Mr. Allen.As for Mr. Allen’s professional posture: I say this without hostility but with clarity — I would not seek his counsel. His reasoning mirrors too closely the posture of modern judiciary: narrative accepted as probative, suspicion treated as leverage, structural inquiry subordinated to personal judgment. We can see where that mentality has taken this country.If we replicate that posture in private discourse, we become indistinguishable from the systems we criticize.My children did not suffer for anything. Curiously, by the world’s standards, I did not allow them to have cell phones, x-box, or media distractions. We had no television. NO. We read book, told stories, played, wrestled, kickball, soccer, hide and seek, flashlight tag. I invested my time into my children. Now consider this, Mr. Allen. They suffered because a system weaponized narrative to discredit and to secure outcomes. They lost a father for four years. Ask yourself honestly: who deprived them? The man who challenged structural authority — or the system that insisted on narrative compliance?If Mr. Allen understood how and why child support entered the courtroom narrative — and the procedural posture under which it was inserted — he would not treat it casually. He would recognize it as tactical prejudice. And he would be ashamed, personally and professionally, for equating prejudicial insertion with moral failure.I remain committed to truth, to structural analysis, and to ...
Noch keine Rezensionen vorhanden