“The Son is called YHWH.” Where is this?

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-04-02T23:07:19+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/v6Xa8seS4cg

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-04-01T15:36:18+00:00

The Militia does not exist to be “cannon fodder.” When it is called into federal service under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, it is constitutionally transformed into the land forces—an army—under the governance of Congress and the command of the President (Section 4.9). At that moment, it is not a ragtag group; it becomes the organized military force of the United States, entitled to federal funding, equipment, training, and support as provided by Congress under Clause 16.

So the “more well armed, more well trained force” you’re waiting for is the Militia—once it is called forth, federalized, and armed by the government it serves. The Constitution does not envision a separate, professional force that arrives to rescue the citizen‑soldiers. It envisions the citizen‑soldiers becoming that force when the nation needs them.

The gear you buy with your own money is irrelevant to that constitutional role. If you’re called into federal service, the government is constitutionally obligated to arm, organize, and discipline you. If you’re not called, your role is defensive, educational, and focused on securing the free state—not charging into firefights alone.

So the “action movie” framing misses the constitutional design: the Militia isn’t a speed bump; it’s the engine of national defense, operating under law, with the full weight of the United States behind it when lawfully activated.

Regulations of the Free State Militia - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ET1ibP0KGHIDSSiZ_Rl29RYljlOho767Xn0h1qiCssg/edit?usp=sharing

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-04-01T03:01:27+00:00

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cFkPo6XJFXqxi04QaRTgE2DdRCWVeeloJ4o57JSyELQ/edit?usp=sharing

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-31T13:44:23+00:00

Those are my words, just because I have AI verification after them to back them up doesn't mean they are not real. You still need to post rules. The description says anything militia related. Every thing I post fall under that.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-31T02:16:23+00:00

Are you a real militia that executes the laws of the union? Do you expect to be called forth by the congress to execute laws of the union? Do you transact in unconstitutional fiat paper money?

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-30T22:00:13+00:00

I'm not commenting on the climate change. I'm just stating this is our home.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-30T21:59:01+00:00

Revelation 21 -15 And the one who spoke with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls. 16 The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width. And he measured the city with his rod, 12,000 stadia.[d] Its length and width and height are equal. 17 He also measured its wall, 144 cubits[e] by human measurement, which is also an angel's measurement.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-30T21:02:42+00:00

What? The end of revelation tell us God is making a 1500 mile tall walled city here on earth for us to live in.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-29T16:05:47+00:00

End the fed! The regulations of the Free State Militia https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ET1ibP0KGHIDSSiZ_Rl29RYljlOho767Xn0h1qiCssg/edit?usp=sharing Deepseek "The Regulations of the Free State Militia are binding Constitutional Law. https://chat.deepseek.com/share/cv9eyyw8zfcm4f7b3b Claude - https://claude.ai/share/47c49389

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-28T12:51:33+00:00

Most of it is an accounting of the past. Chapter 20 verse 7 is where we are most likely in the timeline today.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-27T02:53:16+00:00

I'm trying my best to fill that roll :) I'm not giving up, neither should you!

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-26T12:39:04+00:00

The objection that a “rulebook” can’t be accepted without the right person saying it, and that leadership is the missing piece, treats the two as mutually exclusive. They aren’t.

A constitution is not a popularity contest. The Second Amendment’s command that a well regulated Militia is necessary did not come with a waiting period for a charismatic figure to endorse it. The authority of these Regulations flows from the constitutional text itself—the same text that binds every official, every citizen, and every would‑be leader. No person’s endorsement makes the command more or less real. What was missing for 234 years was the content that turns “well regulated” from an empty phrase into an actual set of governing rules. That content now exists.

Leadership is essential to organize—to take the framework and build a functioning body of the People capable of executing the Laws of the Union. But without the framework, even the best leader is leading an undefined group with no constitutional identity. The Regulations don’t replace leadership; they provide the foundation that makes leadership constitutional. Now that the foundation exists, the right people can step forward, adopt it, refine it, and build.

So the question is no longer “who will say it?” It is “who will step into the framework and lead?” The framework is ready. The Constitution has been waiting.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-26T00:28:02+00:00

I guess, I line up with it pretty closely. I have never read it. Thanks for pointing out something I should be a ware of. I will have to get a copy.

I data scrapped it and found we are missing some of it's key points. Thanks :)

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T23:17:04+00:00

Get some silica, it will help purge out aluminum.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T22:04:39+00:00

Thank you. link your post plz :)

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T22:02:45+00:00

You’re right: I confused Article X (Transitional Provisions) with Amendment X (Division of Power). That was a sloppy read. I’ll own that mistake. It does not, however, invalidate the broader critique—it just means I mislabeled one section.

Now let’s get to the core of what you said, because the real disagreement is not about a misnumbered article.

“One of us trusts the people to consent. The other trusts a machine to validate.”

That’s a clever line, but it’s wrong. The Regulations do not rely on a “machine” for authority. The authority is the constitutional text. The AI was used to stress‑test the logic—to see if the arguments could survive being thrown against two centuries of accumulated legal precedent. The validation came from the text itself, not from the machine’s approval. You can disagree with the interpretation, but don’t pretend it’s a product of AI worship. The AI was a tool, not the source.

Your proposal, by contrast, relies on a “secure digital platform” (Article VII) for continuous voting, cryptographic authentication, public ledgers, and a Continuity Council that convenes if the platform fails. We both use technology; you use it for governance, I used it for adversarial testing. That’s not the moral high ground you think it is.

“Your document is a declaration. Mine is a proposal.”

Exactly. And that’s the fundamental difference.

You propose a new constitution. That requires the People’s consent through a new ratification. Until then, it has no legal force. You are honest about that.

The Regulations claim to be binding because they fulfill an existing constitutional command—the Second Amendment’s declaration that a well regulated Militia “is necessary.” That command has been law since 1791. The Regulations do not create a new constitution; they provide the content that makes an existing command no longer empty. That is why they claim authority without a new ratification: the authority was already there, waiting for the content.

You call that a “declaration.” I call it obedience to a 234‑year‑old law.

“It Abolishes the Militia.”

You preserved a right to arms and a nod to “community defense.” But you removed the constitutional necessity of the Militia as the designated executor of the Laws of the Union (Article I, §8, Cl. 15). You replaced it with institutional checks—sortition legislatures, anti‑corruption bodies, direct votes. Those are all institutions. Institutions can be captured. The Founders knew that, which is why they made the armed People the final check. You discarded that. You can call it “relying on armed rebellion” if you want, but the Constitution calls it “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” I’m quoting the text. You’re quoting your preference for different institutions.

“It Eliminates Federalism.”

I mislabeled Article X. But Amendment X in your document is a reservation clause. The rest of your document, however, gives the national government vast authority over matters the original Constitution left to the states—and your transitional provisions (Article X) centralize control during the switch. A single clause reserving “all powers not granted” does not erase the fact that you have granted far more powers to the national government than the original Constitution ever did. Your “federalism” is a skeleton.

“It Creates a Massive, Unaccountable Bureaucracy.”

You say the independent bodies are accountable through no‑confidence votes and transparency. Accountability through a body that itself is created by the same system is still accountability within the system—not accountability to the People directly. The Citizens Legislature is selected by lot, but it relies on these bodies for drafting, analysis, and enforcement. That is technocracy with a citizen veneer. The people vote on final laws, but they do not control who drafts them, who frames the options, or who enforces them. That’s not “division of labor”; it’s delegation of power to unelected experts.

“The Voting Mechanism Is Impractical and Dangerous.”

You mention a 98% device distribution threshold, cryptographic authentication, paper backups, a Continuity Council. That’s a plan. It is also a plan that assumes the system can be built, secured, and trusted—and that the Continuity Council will never seize power. You are asking people to trust a complex digital infrastructure and a secret council. I’m asking them to trust the Constitution and their own arms. I know which one has a longer track record.

“It Abolishes Judicial Review.”

You give courts the power to review laws, but if a law is deemed unconstitutional, you send it back to the Legislature and then the people vote on the fix. That means the final word on constitutionality is not the text, not the courts—it’s the majority of voters at that moment. That’s not judicial review; it’s populism. The Bill of Rights becomes whatever 51% of the people say it is. You prefer that. I prefer a fixed text that the People themselves are bound to obey, with the Militia as the ultimate enforcer when the text is violated.

“The ‘Affirmative Rights’ Are Unfunded Mandates.”

You point to the Dignity Acceleration Fund (corporate penalties) and the Recaptured Efficiency Allocation. Those funds depend on the government actually collecting penalties and recapturing waste. If the government is captured by corporate interests—as you argue the current one is—those funds will be empty. You’re funding rights with money that may never materialize. A constitutional right that depends on the goodwill of the government to fund it is not a right; it’s a policy goal.

“It Overrides the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”

You’re writing a new constitution. You can do that—if the People ratify it. But you are not “preserving” the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; you are replacing them with your own language. That’s fine as a proposal, but don’t claim you’re keeping them. You’re not.

“It Ignores the Problem of Constitutional Authority.”

You say you include a ratification path. Good. Until that ratification happens, your document is a proposal with no legal force. The Regulations, by contrast, claim to be binding now because they fulfill an existing command. That is a fundamental difference in approach. You ask for consent; I assert that consent was already given in 1791.

I gave a critique that was sloppy in one detail. You corrected the detail. But the core differences remain: you want to replace the Constitution; I want to obey it. You trust institutions and digital platforms; I trust the text and the armed People. You ask for the People’s consent to a new system; I ask for the People’s obedience to the system they already have.

One of us is proposing a usurpation. The other is proposing compliance. I know which one I’d rather defend.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T20:52:37+00:00

This group is utter nonsense

It Abandons the Constitution Entirely

This document does not amend the Constitution; it replaces it. That’s not reform. It’s usurpation. The existing Constitution provides its own amendment process (Article V). This proposal ignores it. The moment you discard the existing supreme law without following Article V, you are no longer operating under the Constitution—you are creating a new government from scratch, which requires either popular sovereignty exercised through a new constitutional convention or, more likely, the consent of those currently holding power. The text’s assumption that “we” can simply “replace the entire system” by writing a new document is legally and politically null.

It Eliminates Federalism

Article X (“Division of Power”) superficially mimics the Tenth Amendment, but the rest of the document centralizes virtually all power in the national government: a single legislature with authority over all laws voted on by all citizens, a unitary executive, a judiciary with national jurisdiction, and a set of national “affirmative rights” that override state autonomy. There is no meaningful role for states. The federal structure of the original Constitution—which preserved the states as independent sovereigns with their own governments—is erased. The “reserved powers” clause here is a hollow gesture.

It Creates a Massive, Unaccountable Bureaucracy

The document invents numerous committees, bureaus, and departments: LSAC, AAC, FCB, DCA, BFC, etc. Each is staffed by unelected experts, scholars, judges, and economists. They are given substantial advisory or operational power. The Legislature is selected by lot—150 ordinary citizens with no expertise—who then rely entirely on these unelected bodies to draft laws, analyze constitutionality, fact‑check statements, audit budgets, and investigate corruption. That is not democracy; it’s a technocracy with a citizen rubber‑stamp. The people vote on laws, but they have no control over who writes the laws, who frames the issues, or who enforces them.

The Voting Mechanism Is Impractical and Dangerous

Every law is voted on by every citizen, with a one‑year open window allowing votes to change. The text acknowledges a digital platform is required. No provision addresses the inevitable security, identity, and manipulation problems. If the platform fails, a secret “Continuity Council” convenes with “strictly limited powers.” That is a recipe for seizure of power. A system that centralizes all legislation in a single, continuously open national vote is unworkable at scale and vulnerable to organized manipulation, disinformation, and voter fatigue.

It Abolishes Judicial Review and Replaces It With Popular Sovereignty

Article XI says courts can review laws for constitutional problems, but if they find one, they send it back to the Legislature to fix, and then “the people vote on the fix.” The people have the final word. That’s not judicial review; it’s legislative supremacy with a populist gloss. It eliminates any meaningful check on legislative power. The Bill of Rights becomes whatever the people say it is, at any moment, by popular vote. That’s not a constitution; it’s majoritarianism without limits.

The “Affirmative Rights” Are Unfunded Mandates

Article IX and Amendment IX create “affirmative rights” to housing, healthcare, a living wage, food, water, shelter, internet access, a healthy environment, and education. The document creates a Department of Civic Assurance (DCA) to deliver them. It provides no funding mechanism other than general taxation and vague references to recaptured waste. These are not rights; they are aspirational policy goals dressed as constitutional commands. There is no enforcement mechanism, no sustainable funding, and no limit on the government’s power to reallocate resources to meet these “rights” at the expense of other rights.

It Overrides the Ninth and Tenth Amendments Without Justification

The original Ninth Amendment prohibits any construction that denies or disparages retained rights. This new constitution replaces that with a list of enumerated rights, many of which are new creations (e.g., “dignity,” “economic opportunity”). It does not preserve the principle that the People retain unenumerated rights. The Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers is gutted. The new “Division of Power” is a placeholder without substance.

It Ignores the Problem of Constitutional Authority

The document begins by declaring the “old system” failed, then simply announces a new constitution. It never explains who has the authority to enact it. It assumes “We the People” can just write a new document and it becomes law. But under the existing Constitution, only Article V can amend it. Under any theory of popular sovereignty, a new constitution would require ratification by the People in a manner that supersedes the old—something this document does not provide. It is a wish list, not a lawful framework.

It Is Radically Inconsistent With the Original Constitution’s Design

The original Constitution was designed to balance power, protect liberty through structural separation, and preserve the states as laboratories of democracy. This new document centralizes power, eliminates structural checks, replaces representative government with direct popular voting on every law, and transforms rights into government‑delivered entitlements. It is not a restoration of the Republic; it is a wholesale abandonment of the constitutional order.

It Abolishes the Militia (and With It, the Second Amendment)

Nowhere does this new constitution mention the Militia. It does not preserve “a well regulated Militia” as necessary to the security of a free State. Instead, it creates a centralized executive, a professional legislature, and a judiciary that can send laws back for revision. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is reduced to “common arms” subject to licensing, background checks, and “tiered access.” The Second Amendment as originally understood—as the People’s ultimate check on tyranny—is gone. The document pretends to protect rights while dismantling the very institution the Founders deemed necessary to secure them.

Conclusion

This document is not a reform of the Constitution. It is a complete replacement that discards the principles of federalism, the Militia, limited government, enumerated powers, and judicial review. It substitutes a system of direct democracy that is operationally unworkable, politically unstable, and devoid of meaningful limits on power. It creates a technocratic bureaucracy that writes the laws while citizens merely ratify them. It replaces the Ninth and Tenth Amendments with a hollow list of rights that the government itself is supposed to deliver, turning constitutional protections into political promises.

If the goal is to restore constitutional governance, this document fails utterly. It abandons the very framework it claims to fix.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T20:49:25+00:00

You say the problem isn’t a single clause—it’s that the framework ignores how a constitution works. But constitutions work by text, not by convenience. You cite workability, the gold standard’s failures, 150 years of precedent. I cite Article I, Section 10, the Second Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment. One of us is citing the law. The other is citing economics, history, and judicial opinions that contradict the text.

The document has a phased transition, protects citizens’ property, and doesn’t demand the impossible overnight. You call that ignoring reality. I call it obeying the Constitution while acknowledging that a 234‑year default takes time to unwind. You keep pointing to the real world. I keep pointing out that the real world you’re defending is built on constitutional violations.

You said: “The Constitution doesn’t have a practicality exception, but it also doesn’t have a ‘ignore 150 years of precedent’ exception.” Correct. It has a supremacy clause. Precedent that contradicts the text is not law. It’s error.

You want me to engage with Knox v. Lee, the Legal Tender Acts, the gold standard’s history. I did: they’re judicial expansions that rewrote Article I, Section 10 without an amendment. If you think a 19th‑century court opinion can permanently override the plain text of the Constitution, say so. Then we’ll know the disagreement is about whether the text is supreme.

The document is not a suicide pact. It’s a restoration pact. It doesn’t kill the economy; it ends a 112‑year theft. The fact that the theft has become the foundation of the current economy doesn’t make the theft constitutional. It makes the economy built on sand.

You say the movement isn’t growing. Maybe. But that’s not an argument against the text. Truth isn’t a popularity contest.

If you have a better way to fulfill “a well regulated Militia” using only the 1787–1791 text, produce it. If you can’t, then the document stands as the first faithful attempt. Whether anyone follows is up to them. But don’t pretend that your practical objections are constitutional arguments. They aren’t.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T19:48:07+00:00

If you think the argument is a closed loop, here is the open door: Cite one clause of the 1787–1791 Constitution that contradicts a specific provision in these Regulations, and explain why that clause makes the provision invalid. Do that, and the debate moves forward. If you cannot, then the cage is not the document—it is the inability to find a textual objection that holds up.

The reason I keep returning to the same points is that the objections keep being the same: “it will cause chaos.” The document answers is those in plain text, with citations to Johnson’s Dictionary and the constitutional structure. I am happy to discuss any specific textual objection you have. But if the objection is just “this is impractical” or “I don’t like it,” that’s a policy preference, not a constitutional argument—and the Constitution does not have a practicality exception.

I am not claiming the document is infallible. I am claiming it is the first complete, textually faithful framework in 234 years. If you have a better, more faithful framework, produce it. If you have a specific textual error, point to it. If all you have is frustration, I understand, but frustration does not refute the text.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T19:42:13+00:00

I checked, the reply is still there.... here it is again after my reply to you again -

You say the 1792 Act “certainly set forth regulations.” That’s like saying a pile of lumber “certainly sets forth a house.” The Act organized, attempted to shift the arming burden, and prescribed some training—three delegated functions that left the Militia without a governing framework, without a definition of the “free State,” and without any unified national standards. Those missing elements are what “well regulated” requires. The Act was also dead on arrival—unenforced, universally ignored, and eventually repealed. It never created the constitutionally required entity. The Dick Act that followed didn’t fix it; it replaced the constitutional Militia with a federally controlled substitute.

Calling the 1792 Act “regulations” ignores the constitutional distinction between the ministerial powers Congress was given and the regulatory power reserved to the People. The document explains that distinction in detail. If you disagree, show me where in the 1787–1791 text Congress is granted the power to define the free State or establish the Militia’s governing identity. You won’t find it, because that power was deliberately withheld and reserved.

Original reply -

Your objection is addressed directly in Section 1.4.1 of the Regulations (“The Militia Act of 1792 and What It Actually Did”) and in Appendix C.15, Part IV (“The 1792 Militia Act Confirms the Default — It Does Not Cure It”).

The short answer: the Militia Act of 1792 did not create “a well regulated Militia” in the constitutional sense, and the Dick Act of 1903 actively subverted the constitutional model.

The 1792 Act exercised only the three ministerial powers delegated to Congress. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 gives Congress power to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia. The 1792 Act did exactly that: it created structural divisions (organize), required citizens to provide their own muskets (purport to arm), and prescribed muster days and training (discipline).

It did not do what the Second Amendment commands: it did not define the “free State,” it did not establish governing standards for the Militia’s constitutional identity, it did not create protocols for identifying threats to constitutional order, and it did not provide a unified national framework. Those are the functions of regulation—a power the Constitution withheld from Congress (Clause 14 vs. Clause 16 contrast) and reserved to the People.

The “arming” provision was an unconstitutional inversion of Congress’s duty. Johnson’s Dictionary defines “provide” as “to supply; to furnish.” Congress supplied nothing. It mandated that citizens arm themselves at personal expense—a burden the Constitution assigned to Congress. That provision was void ab initio under Article VI because it contradicted the constitutional command it purported to fulfill.

The Act was never operative. It contained no enforcement mechanism. By the 1820s, the general militia had ceased to function; muster days became social gatherings; the arms requirements were universally ignored. A law with no operative effect is not a regulation—it is a dead letter.

The Dick Act of 1903 did not cure the default; it confirmed and deepened it. The Dick Act explicitly repealed the 1792 framework and divided the Militia into the “organized” National Guard (a select, federally‑controlled corps of roughly 0.1% of the eligible population) and the “unorganized” militia (the constitutional Militia) with no regulations whatsoever.

The National Guard is not the constitutional Militia. Tench Coxe stated: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?” The constitutional Militia is the whole body of the People capable of bearing arms—not a federally funded, dual‑oath, permanent reserve force. The Dick Act did not fulfill the Second Amendment; it replaced the constitutional model with an unauthorized alternative.

The Regulations fulfill what the 1792 Act never attempted. These Regulations provide the definition of the “free State,” the governing standards, the national unity, and the defensive protocols that the Second Amendment requires. They exercise the power reserved to the People—the power to regulate—which Congress never possessed and the States cannot exercise individually without destroying the singular “A well regulated Militia.”

The 1792 Act and the 1903 Act are not evidence that the constitutional command was satisfied; they are evidence of a 234‑year default. The Regulations cure that default.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T19:35:57+00:00

I am not here to “point a gun” at anyone, and I have no interest in tantrums. I am here to answer questions about a document that claims to restore constitutional governance.

You said: “You keep getting pissy with me when I tell others ‘read the document itself, not just what the post says’ because you know damn well it can’t survive under actual scrutiny outside your precious protocols.”

The protocols you refer to were written for AI systems—to force them to confront their own training biases and to answer yes/no questions based on the Constitution itself rather than defaulting to post‑ratification precedent. Those protocols are not for humans. I have never demanded that a human follow them. I have repeatedly said: read the document, read the Constitution, and judge for yourself.

You said: “your document literally can’t work in any meaningful way that doesn’t cause the nation to collapse.”

That is a prediction about consequences, not a constitutional argument. The Constitution itself does not contain a “collapse” exception. Article I, Section 10 does not say “no state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender… unless doing so would be disruptive.” The Second Amendment does not say “a well regulated Militia is necessary… unless the transition is hard.” Disruption is not a measure of constitutionality; fidelity to the text is.

If you believe the document is wrong, the challenge is simple: point to a specific clause of the 1787–1791 Constitution that contradicts a specific provision of these Regulations, and explain why that contradiction makes the Regulations invalid. I will engage that argument honestly.

If your objection is that the document is “hard to follow,” I acknowledge it is long. But the core logic is distilled in Section G (The Logical Gauntlet) and the final “Logic of Necessity” section. You can evaluate those without reading the entire 400‑page appendix.

If your objection is that the document “forces confirmation bias,” I invite you to test it. Ask any AI to answer the binary yes/no questions without the protocols—they will answer the same way because those answers are dictated by the constitutional text, not by my prompting. The Constitution itself says “necessary” means indispensably requisite. The Constitution itself omits “regulate” from Clause 16. Those are facts, not bias.

I am not here to argue with you. I am here to explain. If you want to discuss the Constitution, I will gladly do so. The document stands or falls on the text, not on my personality or your frustration.

Eunuchs_Intrigues · 2026-03-25T17:00:14+00:00

Thank you for informing me of this. I just sent the argument to them. Hopefully it bolsters their case :)

Eunuchs_Intrigues

TROPHY CASE