Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Prison Planet  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Apr 10th, 2011 06:00 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

First publication

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am trying to get into the Prison Planet Forum (have been for years) so as to discuss political economy, to discuss the socialism versus capitalism mind game, discuss the actual history of the constitution, and discuss the methods by which capitalism (economy) and socialism (politics) combine to help people move toward higher standards of living at lower costs, rather than allowing, or enabling, or financing, the legal criminals who gain power in the work of destroying competition for power.

A Swiss model Republic, as far as I understand the design, is not a Nation State, since the Swiss model Republic intends to empower the individual people within the Republic with the power to vote with their feet and move from one separate and sovereign State to another when one State becomes too oppressive, too costly, and therefore the separate and sovereign State governors must work toward higher quality government at the lowest cost to the consumer, or failing to satisfy consumers, the tax payer market, the free market of tax payers, walk, and power flows to the higher quality, and lower cost State governments.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I have tried to get registered on Prison Planet a few times, over the years, and failing to do so until today is a significant event for me.

My usual effort was sending registration information to the Prison Plant Forum registration web page, and the failing to receive a response via e-mail.
This first publication of my comments went to the comment section of a new item, a Blog format, not a Forum format, and that Blog format comment above required a separate effort to register, one that is required in addition to the Prison Planet Forum registration.

The Prison Planet Blog format registration worked, I did manage to get words published on that web page, and now the effort to gain access to the Forum, and access to, possibly, reasonable people, willing to discuss political economy, is in someone's hands, some one, will open the door, or keep the door closed, and locked.




Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 6th, 2011 04:34 am
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
05-05-2011

Listening

"The American Public will hold you accountable."

"Regime change"

"A second America Revolution"

Dr. Steve Pachenic

When a person, such as myself, works against the power of falsehood there comes a moment of truth, a breaking point at which the power of falsehood lowers and is overpowered by a willful refusal to settle for less than reasonable understanding. Once past that point reality dawns, and a person begins to understand personal vulnerability. In other words: the false sense of security that is a huge power within the power of falsehood, once it no longer has any power over a person's mind, leaves a vacuum that is filled with thoughts that are no longer clouded behind a nebulous sense of security, and without that blanket of fictional safety, thoughts of vulnerability are realized.

Do you worry, at all, about personal injury, including the personal injury of loss associated with injury to people close to your heart; at the hands of someone with, or someone without a badge?

Who has the power to overpower your worry?

If you get to a point where you no longer worry, and your mind begins to calculate the measure of your vulnerability, or the vulnerability of those close to you, you will at some point realize that honest productive people are your only source of defensive power against any injury that threatens you, or those close to you. Dishonest people lie for a reason, and the reason is not likely explainable as a desire to transfer power to you from them, lying to be charitable, hardly likely, and a serious mistake, the wrong direction, if you care to think about it for more than a sound bite.

If you get past the point where you worry about being on a list, tracked by some nebulous evil power, and you begin to measure threats by applying genuine concern, for your own life, and for the lives of those close to you, you may begin to realize the truth about the fear, the worry, where it comes from, and how it can be overpowered; and why, since it is in fact a measure of injury to you, and to your loved ones. Why be struck with fear? Why not move from paralyzing fear and move to reasonable concern?  

Unreasonable fear just so happens to remove your capacity to defend against injury effectively.

In context:

Paul Craig Roberts asked a question concerning the report by Dr. Steve Pachenic whereby Dr. Pachenic blew the whistle on the False Flag, inside job, whereby Dick Cheney, Bush Jr, and Donald Rumsfeld planned on and then followed through with the plan to destroy the 3 Buildings in New York on the 11th day of September 2001, blame the capital crime on innocent victims, and then conduct a war of aggression based upon that lie.

Paul Craig Roberts wondered why Dr. Steve Pachenic would risk his life by blowing that whistle, knowing, that such a tale of the truth, of that magnitude, would inspire the legal criminals to seek action designed to censor the message, to kill the messenger, literally, or worse, after all, those legal criminals are also guilty of massive torture, added to massive murder, and added to willful acts that threaten the survivability of the human species - including those close to you, and including your own butt.

Dr. Steve Pachenic was then asked to respond to that concern by Paul Craig Roberts.

Are you understanding the gravity of these current events? Paul Craig Roberts is not Joe Kelley the laborer turned self taught political economist, no, Paul Crag Roberts was in with the insiders, close to the beast that is what I call Legal Crime, and he was expressing a concern for the safety of Dr. Steve Pachenic, who is also not Joe Kelley the worn out laborer adapting to a less powerful personal living situation, no, Dr. Steve Pachenic is a professional with a long history of experience in the work of covert Regime Change.

Joe Kelley is concerned about writing things that may increase the chances of having his sorry butt injured, by people with badges, or without, and Joe Kelley is also concerned about writing things that may increase the chances of having people close to him injured also, but, I never threatened a sitting president with a warning as Dr. Steve Pachenic just did on a public access radio broadcast.

What reaction did Paul Craig Roberts experience, what were his thoughts, after hearing the words from Dr. Steve Pachenic?

Not only did Dr. Steve Pachenic not care to be silenced by possible injury to himself, or those close to him, concerning the fact that the crime in New York was a False Flag operation conducted by Bush Jr. and the other Legal Criminals, not only did that not silence Dr. Steve Pachenic, the report by Dr. Steve Pachenic went from a history lesson, to a personal warning aimed at The President of the United States of America, a.k.a. U.S.A. Inc. (LLC).

I heard Dr. Steve Pachenic, a member of a network of people who are professionals at covert regime change, if I have the information understood correctly, warn The President to cease and desist, stop committing these serious crimes, or suffer the consequences; which were not specified in great detail, but where clearly enumerated, sufficiently enumerated as to be understood by any person of sound mind and body.

Got that?

A member of the U.S. military covert operations, regime change, community, serves the current President, a public warning, to stop committing crimes, or else.

I can back up from that edge, that razors edge, that measure of the "Thin Blue Line", and offer a personal example of my history in this context.

When I passed that moment of truth, defeating the power of falsehood, sufficient to stop being subjected to fear, and I began applying reasonable concern toward fact finding, and applying those facts into action, such as running for congress, I reached a point where very few people took me serious, as if, then, I was one in a million, or one in 100 million people, on this path, and then, as if out of nowhere, I started reading words on a newsgroup (early internet message board) that was also one in 100 million words, a viewpoint that I understood, and a viewpoint that was few and far between most of the viewpoints I encountered, then, on this path.

Then I read the name of the author, and then I read the title of the author writing on that newsgroup, awhile back, back when very few people were the least bit aware of the crimes being committed by the Legal Criminals.

Dr. Ron Paul Member of the House of Representatives

If Dr. Ron Paul, as a Member of the House of Representatives can write, and speak, against the wrongs committed by the people abusing the force of law, power, and survive, then I may also be capable of writing, and speaking, against the wrongs committed by the people abusing the force of law, and I may too survive a little longer.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri May 6th, 2011 06:46 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente67.1.html

On Wednesday, April 27th, just four days before Bin Laden was killed, a new Public Enemy No.1 held his organization’s first ever press conference. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the world that the United States would continue its low interest rate polices and, in effect, continue to flood the world with cheap money.

If there is such a thing as a competition working then there will be a force working whereby the competitors are forced to offer higher quality at lower cost, failing to do so, moves power to the competitor that does not fail to do so, as each individual chooses higher quality at lower cost.

A. Higher quality at lower cost
B. Lower quality at higher cost

Which is chosen when competition works?

If lower quality at higher cost is chosen, ask anyone, why?

Hi

Hi

How are you?

I am fine.

Why did you choose lower quality at higher cost?

What?

Why did you choose lower quality at higher cost?

What are you talking about, are you nuts?

No, I'm just asking, to find out, so as to know, so as to avoid making false assumptions, so, why did you choose lower quality at a higher cost, when you picked the money you prefer to use?

You are nuts.

I rest my case?

What is the quality of money?

What is the cost of money?

Why do people fail to understand money?

Example:

On Wednesday, April 27th, just four days before Bin Laden was killed, a new Public Enemy No.1 held his organization’s first ever press conference. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the world that the United States would continue its low interest rate polices and, in effect, continue to flood the world with cheap money.

Is it me?

I'm going to check to see the latest news according to a Google Search concerning the competition between Islamic Finance money and the competition.

I am going to do that so as to measure, if it is possible, to measure the gains being made by a money producer, on the Global Market, whereby this money producer network, is constituted as a money that does not pay interest, and does not pay interest because the people connected in this network express the idea that interest is immoral, wrong, or even criminal.

These people, connected by this idea, that interest is criminal, may be right or wrong, left or right, and that doesn't matter for this measure, for this measure what matters is the force of competition.

Which money product is the higher quality product, at the lower cost?

A. Islamic Finance (which does not charge interest)
B. The Competition

Finding out why the cost of this money is low is another thing on the list of things to do, while knowing that the cost of this money is rock bottom, or competitively at the lowest possible cost, is a measurable fact, not an assumption, and not necessary to know why it is rock bottom, if the idea is to see who is winning the competition, who is gaining the most market share, who is offering higher quality stuff, at a lower cost.

Cost is low.

How about quality?

The quality factor is also knowable, measurable, as a secondary consideration, in the realm of "why" a competitor is winning the competition. The measure of winning, the measure of who is gaining the most market share, is what it is, and another thing, such as why a competitor is gaining market share, is another thing.

A. Who is gaining the most market share
B. Why is that competitor gaining the most market share

I can type in a Google Search the following words:

Islamic Finance Market Share Gains

I will do that now.

I get about 2 million results for that search, and I can browse through the first few pages so as to find something that may measure the money market competition as Islamic Finance, without interest, offers a competitive money to the Global users of money.

Here goes.

http://dinarstandard.com/challenges/islamic-finance-years-away-from-its-ideals/

That is old news, but I picked that source because the introductory summary reported on the Google Search page appears to address the context of my writing here, and I can confirm that the current measure of how well, or how poorly, non-interest bearing Islamic Finance money is performing against the competition, is not going to be reported in a report that is dated in 2006.

A relevant quote from the link above:

Despite the much touted $250 billion or so in assets under management at Islamic financial institutions the industry as a whole is undergoing a considerable amount of soul searching.

That link offers a measure, converted to dollars, which is itself a measure, since it isn't converted to Euros, or Yen, or Yuan.

I can't find any recent news.

2007

http://www.alhudacibe.com/newsletter/1march-07/emerging_market_12.html

Saudi Arabia's Al Rajhi Bank, the world's largest Islamic banking group, yesterday unveiled an aggressive plan to expand its operations in Malaysia to 50 branches by 2010. Al Rajhi has set up 12 branches since it opened for business in Malaysia with a soft launch in October last year. The bank was formally inaugurated yesterday.

How about cutting off the word Gains from the Google Search?

http://www.islamicfinance.de/?q=node/1460

Islamic finance in Algeria has 15 % market share
Mon, 11/08/2010 - 14:06 — IslamicFinance.de

Currently three Islamic financial institutions exists with a market share of 15 %: El Baraka Bank, Salem Banque and Salama Assurance. The figures are quoted by Hideur Nacer, secretary general of El Baraka, saying that the sector is about Dinar 100 bn annually, 15 % of the private market and 1.5 % of the public sector market.


Enough of that? Here is the thing: I am only connected to the network that is the Global Financial Network via Google, and via my use of the dollar currency. I am not privy to the most accurate numbers that report gains and loses of each competitor, and my concern here is such that Islamic Finance fails to be reported, as if it does not exist, in Main Stream News.

Why?

http://www.islamicfinanceasia.com/article.asp?nm_id=18651

Not to say that Indonesia�s Islamic banking and finance sector is even anywhere close to being shabby � so far, the industry has witnessed IDR7.73 trillion (US$864.16 million) in corporate Sukuk issuances, comprising 45 corporates since 2004. However, this still only represents 3.3% of the nation�s total market share on a macro level.


For your consideration:

My view is such that The Dollar Hegemony Legal Crime competitors have accurately identified the potential demise of their monopoly power as Islamic Finance continues to gain market share by offering higher quality money at a lower cost.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the producers and consumers of the competitive money practice a religion other than Christianity, and this has nothing to do with the fact that the producers and consumers of the competitive money are genetically constructed as a different race other than Anglo Saxon.

On one side of the power struggle are those who are networked into the connection of dollars, which are produced by the people who run The Federal Reserve legal extortion racket, and on the other side are all the people who are working toward disconnecting from that dollar network.

The Dollar Hegemony is on one side, and on the other side are all the people who are working toward avoiding the cost of being connected to The Dollar Hegemony.

One of the major networks that are making gains in the work of disconnecting from the costs of being connected to The Dollar Hegemony is Islamic Finance.

Headlines:

The Dollar Hegemony accurately identifies a major power gaining ground in the struggle to avoid victimization by The Dollar Hegemony, and that powerful major power is called Islamic Finance.

The reason why that is not a message that is broadcast by anyone other than me, in that way, is unknown by me, and for it to be known, someone else would have to confess why they do not report the news in that way.

If someone does figure out a way to defend against victimization by the people who run The Dollar Hegemony, then such a way to defend against victimization by the people who run The Dollar Hegemony may spread to other people, and then such power spreads exponentially. One person tells two people. Two people tell two more people. The way to avoid victimization by the people who run The Dollar Hegemony becomes a competitive force, a force that becomes powerful enough to take down The Dollar Hegemony, rendering The Dollar Hegemony powerless.

What happens to people who can see this coming, and what does a person who is heavily connected to The Dollar Hegemony do, once such a person does see this coming?

Does such a person spread the news, or does such a person move his measure of surplus wealth out of dollar denominations first, before spreading the news?

Those who move their measures of surplus wealth out of dollar denominations last, are those who are left holding the bag, and the bag is empty, or worse, the bag is full of fecal matter, and the smell is difficult to remove, the smell of fecal matter lasts a long time, and it can't be scrubbed off with detergent.

Gold is not a currency, Silver is not a currency, a currency is liquid, the more liquid the better, liquidity is a quality of currency, more so than liquidity is a quality of Gold or Silver money, business thrives on high quality and low cost currency, the best does the job, the worst costs too much.

These are just words.

Here are the numbers that count:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Islamic Finance may not be a contender to that throne, the throne that is measured with those numbers linked at that web site. You may not have a choice to get your surplus wealth out of dollar denominations before the fecal matter truly hits the fan, and move your surplus wealth into Islamic Finance, even if you wanted to, which is a long shot, a stretch of my imagination, but what are your choices, assuming that you can even recognize a need to choose something before you have no choice?

Gold?

Silver?

Solar Panels?

Electric Cars?

Food?

Bullets?

A good book or two?

You may be in a similar state of your own Union as many are, whereby your surplus wealth is non-existent, where your surplus wealth is negative, where your surplus wealth is a surplus of debt that everyone, and their mom, says you owe to someone you don't even know, more debt than the debt that you think is accurately, and legally, recorded on a mortgage, and a car loan, in the fine print, much more than that paltry sum of debt, you owe even more than that, you owe past, and current, and future tax debt, local, county, State, "Federal" (Fascist), and Global debt too.

Which measure of debt is the greatest, according to everyone else, and their mom?

Local or Global?

Check your tax returns?

What is the denomination?

Dollars?

You have surplus wealth and you may not even recognize this fact, but you may want to know that other people know the measure of your surplus wealth, your power, very well, even if you fail to recognize the measurable facts.

If you pay taxes, you are the source of surplus wealth, by that precise measure.

How much do you produce (what is your total income - denominated in dollars), what are your total expenses (how much does it cost you to keep on living - denominated in dollars), and if you subtract all your costs from your income you will arrive at a number that is either positive or negative. You are either producing more than you consume or you are not producing more than you consume, and if you are not producing more than you consume you are dying, you are failing to sustain your life, and therefore you cannot be paying taxes, your life, if it continues, will be sustained by some other person's productivity by some transfer of some kind, charity, subsidy, fraud, threat of violence, and actual violence.

Tax collectors know who produces more than they consume, that is a documented fact, it is recorded as transfers of dollars, within The Dollar Hegemony (legal extortion racket), and if you don't know, if you don't know if you produce more than you consume, you are ignorant, and that doesn't change the fact that tax collectors do know this fact.

If you do know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that you do produce more than you consume, then you can know exactly how much of your surplus wealth flows to people who you would prefer not to be getting your surplus wealth, as those people who get your surplus wealth may very well be the same people who use that power they get from you in the work of making sure that you keep sending that power to them, even if you no longer want that power flowing to them, because you know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that your power flowing to them is then used to make you suffer.

Like this:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Here:

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Each measure of your power, your surplus wealth, your ability to produce more than you consume, denominated in dollars, flows to people who then use that power to make you suffer that much more, each dollar, another dollar, yet another dollar, weakens you, and makes them more powerful, and you take it, and you take it, and you take it, and they want you to bend over and spread your cheeks, and they want you to thank them, or squeal like a pig, and you thank them, on cue, and you squeal like a pig, on cue, and when they ask you for your daughter, you thank them for taking your daughter, and when they ask you for your son, you thank them for taking your son, and when they ask you for your wife, you have her already for them, bathed, and scented, and you thank them, or you remind your wife to squeal like a pig when they demand that she squeal like a pig, and they they want you to dig your own grave, and you thank them for that work, you love to work for them, then they demand that you get in your grave and start filling it in, you thank them for that work, and then just before you suffocate, you realize a need to defend against them. Good luck at that time.

When you get tired of squealing like a pig, you may see the wisdom behind Islamic Finance, for those who choose it, not for you, you are Anglo Saxon, more or less, and you are Christian, more or less, and they are not, more or less, but they are figuring out how to disconnect from The Dollar Hegemony, and what are you doing?

Shooting messengers?

How is that working for you?

Where can you find a better money, and will you know one if you see it?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu May 12th, 2011 07:51 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

On the Alex Jones broadcast (entertainment?), Dr. Steve Pieczenik is reporting his unique viewpoint on the current "Geopolitical" situation.

He said something along the lines of: The National Debt is the greatest threat to America.

I am not quoting, but that is the basic message.

Why isn't anyone solving that greatest threat to America?

Why, when the solution is so obvious, and the solution is so simple, are all these intelligent people failing to offer the solution?

Honest productive people are connected to the legal criminals by way of The Dollar Hegemony.

Why is it difficult to know, without the least bit of doubt, that the solution is to disconnect the honest productive people from The Dollar Hegemony?

I can offer a competitive answer to the question asked (the answer is competition - competition is the answer).

The people who fail to offer the obvious solution to The Dollar Hegemony problem, are either ignorant, or they are supporting it.

If they are ignorant they make a serious mistake by which they falsely associate all that is good about America, the honest productive people, the innocent new generations, the demand for liberty, etc., associate all that is good, with The Dollar Hegemony, as if all that is good with America, and The Dollar Hegemony, are one and the same thing.

The Dollar Hegemony, The FED, The World Bank, the legal criminals, The Elite, The New World Order, "the government", the U.S. Constitution, are one thing. All that is good within the legal fiction of America, from sea to shinning sea, is anther thing.

1. Parasites
2. Host

The ignorant of the division above, which is clearly a division, can't remain ignorant about that clear division, once they have been informed of it, and if the response to the information that reports the clear division between the parasites, and the host, is a refusal to admit the truth, or a demand to remain ignorant about the truth, then there are few possible reasons for such an egregious, or even criminal, error.

1. They are stupid for willfully choosing to remain ignorant in the face of overwhelming, self-evident, knowledge.
2. They are fellow parasites covering up the lie

Anyone with a brain, and a working conscience, and willful intent, can arrive at the obvious problem, and then move quickly toward the obvious solution.

The obvious problem is reported to you, anyone, in many ways, such as the report by Dr. Steve Pieczenik on the Alex Jones broadcast, or show, or the follow way:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The "Globalists" use The Dollar as a medium by which they connect to the source of their power, and the source of their power is the only source of power, which is the honest productive people of the world, who, exclusively, produce surplus wealth, or power, and through that connecting medium, power flows from the source of power, from the honest productive people of the world, to the "Globalists" who produce, and maintain, The Dollar Hegemony.

If the victims grow too strong, learning too much, about The Dollar Hegemony, learning that The Dollar Hegemony is a criminal parasite, will the host move to disconnect that connection to the parasites? Will the honest productive people, once they know how to accomplish the task, disconnect from the parasites, the legal criminals?

"Stop treating us like dummies", says Dr. Steve Pieczenik

So, answer the questions, asked?

If the victims move to disconnect from the parasites, what can the parasites do to keep that connection intact?  

1. Convince the victims that there is no other possible connecting medium, that the only connecting medium that can exist, is The Dollar.
2. Threaten the victims with a bogus enemy, an enemy that threatens to destroy the dollar, which is, according to them, the only connecting medium, The Dollar is sacred, it is the only possible connecting medium, and it is threatened, so the legal criminals convince the victims that it is in their own best "interest" to defend The Dollar against any, and all competitors.

Do you see how such a thing could disarm the victims and such a thing misdirects the power of the victims in such a way as to cause the victims to perpetuate their victimization as every effort to defend against victimization actually causes more injury. Every measure of power spent in defense is a flow of power from those who produce power to those who steal it.

"What do we do about the private central banks...", says Alex Jones.

This is simple, it does not have to be complex, the solution is as easy as American pie, easier, have you ever baked apple pie?

How easy is it for the Bank to cut your credit?

Why can't you see that it is just as easy to cut the credit card that connects the legal criminals to the honest productive Americans?

Just do it.

Cut the medium by which the power produced by honest American producers of surplus wealth flows to the legal criminals, which is The Dollar, but before doing that, have something in place, to replace it.

If you are so fond of the word "Dollar", then use that word, call your official money "The Dollar", but know what it is, know where it comes from, know who it benefits, know in whose interest it is produced, know in whose interest it is maintained, and know whose power goes to whom, from who creates it to those who spend it, who makes the power, and who spends the power, know these things, and if you can't afford to know, then hire someone who is honest, if you want less of your power flowing to people who then use your power to harm you. if you hire someone to lie for you, they will do what you ask them to do, and when you ask them to tell the truth, who are you going to blame, when they lie?

Hire someone who knows who produces power, credits those who produces power, and someone who will not steal from those who produce power, and therefore those who produce power can make more power, until power flows like sunlight.

Once power flows like sunlight the price of power will be lower than it is today and the result of that will be what is known as "deflation" (your money will be worth more) because power reduces the cost of production (including the cost of producing more, and more, and more power).

The legal criminals know that they must keep their victims stupid, and broke, and powerless, and to do that they have to make sure that power remains scarce.

Why is this difficult to understand, at all?

There is great power in falsehood.

It is past time to declare a new war on falsehood. How is that for a campaign slogan?

Use your own brain, please.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri May 13th, 2011 01:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
anthonyc,

My comment about economy was not specifically directed at the use of Nuclear Fusion as a power to demolish the buildings in New York in 2001.

My comment about economy had to do with the possible explanation for so many Nuclear Power Plants being constructed, not to make electricity, but to make weapons grade Nuclear fuel, so as to use Nuclear Devices to help construct DEEP UNDERGROUND MILITARY BASES, the economy of using a Nuclear Bomb for excavation may be incredibly thrifty.

I'm not sure if you missed my point about the economy, and I want to make sure that I try to disconnect my viewpoint from any misunderstanding.

I listened to the reports by Dimitri Khalezov.  I understand what he reported. It makes sense to me, and that is why I think it would be a good idea to get a copy of the legal document that was filed in New York, and in Chicago, in the city government offices, whereby those legal documents document the plans to demolish the buildings with Nuclear Demolition devices - as Dimitri Khalezov reported.

A. There are things that can be found and published that prove the validity of the case - so long as the things found are not fake.

B. The use of Nuclear Demolition devices in construction (of Deep Underground Military Bases) may explain the high demand for Nuclear Power Plants, so as to make the fuel for the Nuclear Demolition devices, so as to make it easier, and less costly, to construct things underground.

Those are my thoughts generally.

I'm not claiming to know that Nuclear Power Plants were forced into lawful production (given license) despite the dangers of The China Syndrome, because the real purpose of those Nuclear Power Plants isn't to make electricity, the true purpose is to make Weapons Grade Nuclear Material, I'm just reporting what I learned when the Nuclear Power Plants were first being constructed, awhile ago, that was the story then, and I have yet to see anything that refutes that story. What is, and what I know, may not be the same thing, and I know that to be true, because I am only human.

Look, if you are about to go into business, and you want to make money selling electricity, you have many options and look at just two:

A. Nuclear Power, fission (not fusion), whereby the cost of a mistake is exemplified, right now, in Japan. You make a  mistake, many people die miserable deaths.

B. Solar Power, Wind Power, Coal Power, Natural Gas Power, Algae Fuel based power, Tide Power, or even Nuclear Power Plants using fusion not fission. Less liability.

If someone chooses A, might there be an ulterior motive, other than profits from selling electricity, considering the high risks, and on the subject of risks, are Nuclear Power Plant licensee's, the people who run the Nuclear Power Plants, held liable for damages, and made, in advance, to purchase insurance in case of catastrophic errors?

The ulterior motive for making Nuclear Power Plants (fission), may be the motive of making weapons grade Nuclear Material, as I first learned way back when Nuclear Power Plants began popping up all over the world, and so far I have yet to see anything refuting that understanding; whereby the main product made at a Nuclear Power Plant (fission) is Weapons Grade Nuclear Material, and a by-product is electricity as water must be used to cool the process of making Weapons Grade Nuclear Material, and Electricity carries away all the excess heat.

I think what people need to begin to get in their heads is that the legal criminals do not need money. They can print as much money as they need, when they need it, and they can take money away from you, even when you need it desperately, and so they do not need money, they do not need the power to purchase, hell, they can purchase torture, and they can purchase mass murder, which means they can find, and hire, torturers, and they can find, and hire, mass murderers, so they don't need no stinking money, they need power.

A torturer, and a mass murderer, is man made, not god given, it seems to me, and they cost a lot to make, and maintain, they cost a lot of power to make, not money, power.

Example:

How much will a TSA agent (employee) charge the employer for sitting at a desk pushing papers?

How much will a TSA agent (employee) charge the employer for groping children if the TSA agent is a moral, decent, honest, productive person?

A. There is no amount of money that can inspire a moral, decent, honest, productive person to grope innocent children, it is as wrong as you can get, just short of torturing innocent children (it is measurably psychological torture).

B. Some people will stand in a long line, and pay a large amount of money, to get a chance to grope an innocent child, so long as they won't be punished for doing so.

So, with that explained above, how difficult is it, how costly is it, to alter society, over many hundreds of years, to literally change the nature of human existence, to a point whereby morality of the majority changes from intolerance of the destruction of innocence, to not only tolerating the destruction of innocence, but actually working longer hours, and sacrificing every luxury, to pay for, enable, support, finance, accept, demand, make sure, cause, perpetrate, aid, abet, condone, desire, want, and enforce the willful destruction of innocence, such as, groping little children, then torture, then mass murder, and then, joining the club headlong, threatening the extinction of the species.

What we are seeing, we the people, are witness to, is the demarcation, the division, and the discrimination between to opposite poles, in our time.

Those who will not tolerate evil are being polarized on one side, and those who step over that line, are being moved onto the opposite side, and this is a power struggle of numbers.

Read Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, please, there is a tipping point, when one polar opposite overpowers the other, and all hell breaks loose.

It is not caused by accident, it is a willful process by which the few, of the worst, work to move power to them, from the only source of power, which are the honest productive people, and once enough power flows to them, the worst, they have enough power to make power scarce, and once they have that power, the flow of power to them, from the honest productive people accelerates, because they then have the power to fix the price of power, as the producers of power no longer have the power they alone create, and then the legal criminals have the power to create, and maintain, their business cycle, whereby all the power flows to them, fast, as each Boom is followed by each Bust, and all titles to everything valuable, all forms of surplus wealth imaginable, flow from those who create power, to the legal criminals.

The legal criminals get honest productive people to compromise on morality, one little bit, then one little bit more, moving an otherwise moral person to their side, where they destroy care, where they destroy meaning, where they destroy sympathy, and destroy empathy, and they reinforce greed, and they reinforce avarice, and they reinforce, and support, and reward, crime, and they recruit the worst, and they hire the worst, and they train the worst, and they grow more, and more, powerful, in the absence of a force to deter them.

If you do this thing for me, you don't have to pay as much taxes to me. Just this little thing, for me, and you can be less beholden to me - [size=6pt]for now.

So...if you were a member of the growing club of immoral legal criminals, people on the collecting side of the enforced, criminal, debt based monopoly monetary system of extortion, and you were moving up to the top of the pyramid, stabbing everyone in sight in the back, climbing the ladder, you might get to a point at which you want a ticket into one of those Deep Underground Military Bases, a ticket for you exclusively, so that you now have effectively purchased an insurance policy, in case the levels of toxins on the surface do reach an intolerable level.

So...there you are, one of the elite of the elite, and the number of tickets to the Deep Underground Military Base are few, because there are few Deep Underground Military Bases, so, as one of the elite, you may have the power to build one, with the power you have, while you have it, and so how do you do it, efficiently?

You may already have a ticket into one of the Deep Underground Military Bases, just in case, but how do you recruit new members, when there are so few tickets?

Chipping rock off of rock, and then excavating the rock chips, cost a lot of time and energy (power).

Setting off a Nuclear Fission Demolition Device, apparently, turns a whole lot of rock into a neat little pile. The pile can then be moved by the disposable workers, and the new room inside the rock can be scrubbed clean by more disposable workers, and before long you have a new home under ground, just in case, for yourself, or your closest fellow legal criminals.

Just in case those on the top of the pyramid lose their heads, not you, just those guys at the top, since you, a member of the elite too, are only half bad, or half good, according to the script. You wouldn't ever push the button, to cause the deaths of millions, but you sure could use a few short cuts, on your way to wherever you are going, so there is one, one good short cut, one that works, in the thing known as a Nuclear Power Plant, where a few things are made.

A. Nuclear Demolition fuel (for Deep Underground Military Bases, or, for demolishing skyscrapers)
B. Electricity (to carry away all the power of heat built up during the process of making Nuclear Demolition fuel)

That is what I was thinking when I commented on the news reported by Dimitri Khalezov; I was not confusing what was reported by Dimitri Khalezov with an economic decision, by those who did it, to use Nuclear Demolition to bring down the 3 buildings in New York in 2001, if that is what you thought I was confusing.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 13th, 2011 03:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
chopperscfl,

You wrote:

To Josf, if you think it's a stupid question, don't then waste time and space with an elongated answer of what has already been said simply to try to take a cheap shot at the end. Spare us that.

A. If I think something, I think something, and that is the truth.

B. If you only want to hear the things you prefer to hear, please consider saying so when you publish your questions. Don't waste your own time reading things you don't want to read.

C. I have been writing on forums for decades, and I keep writing on forums because, to me, it isn't a waste of my time, and it isn't a waste of my space, and if you, or anyone, have a problem with me taking up space, take it up with the moderators, they can certainly ask me to stop publishing on this forum, and I will stop taking up space here.

D. Cheap, to me, is wanting something for nothing, as if no one ever has to pay for someone getting something for nothing.

You ask a question about torture, and if you have not thought about it, then it is accurate to say that you are ignorant about it, which is a factual measure of reality. If you don't like being called ignorant, even if you are ignorant, if you think it is a cheap shot, then, to me, you are ignorant about that too. There is no shame in being ignorant, or innocent, but failing to know things that must be known, so as to remain innocent, is stupid, or criminal, in my opinion.

I write things that fall under the category of "if the shoe fits" you wear the shoe.

If you are learning, then you were ignorant before you learned something. That shoe fits.

If you now know the truth about torture, but you refuse to acknowledge the facts, and in response you strike out at someone offering you the facts, then what are you, what shoe are you wearing at that point in time?

You tell me.

Or

Attack me for offering you what I think, and attack me for offering you possible angles of view that are accurate angles of view in response to your questions, even if you prefer not to know a more accurate angle of view, and even if you take it personally.

Why would you take what I wrote personally, unless you are wearing the shoe of being stupid?

What exactly do you think is a cheap shot concerning the actual words I wrote, and not the meaning you injected into the words I wrote?

Do you think you can come in here and ask a question about torture, in this world, where torture is paid for by honest productive people, in the form of involuntary taxation, and get away clean, and innocent, as if you have no hand in it? Do you think you can get something for nothing?

People may want to look in the mirror, if people are paying these taxes, in dollars, to the legal, torturing, and mass murdering cabal, because that flow of power constitutes psychological as well as material support, an accurate physical account, a paper (digital) trail, connecting you, the tax payer, to the next pound of flesh removed from the next victim, innocent victim, or victim who is just as guilty as the persons torturing him, or her, including all the little innocent children slaughtered on our dimes since who knows when, what did they do to deserve U.S.A. made, and delivered, torture?

You expect what, when you ask your questions?

My question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives? I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism? Is it the slippery slope? Again, I'm new here and although I have my own opinions on this subject which I have not stated yet, I'd like to learn the opinions (not saying they aren't fact just because I call them opinions) on this specific subject. Thanks.

Why is it a problem for someone, anyone, you, me, your neighbor, or the "CIA", to bla, bla, bla, bla, torture, for any reason under the sun.

If you now know more than you knew when you asked that ignorant question, and if you continue to think in terms of that ignorant question, despite the evidence that proves that the question itself is ignorant (or willfully deceptive), then you are choosing ignorance, which is stupid, or you are willfully being deceptive, or some other, measurable, condition that isn't painfully obvious to me.

Here is an ignorant question (or willfully deceptive):


My question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives?


I give you the benefit of doubt, and I assume that you are not willfully deceptive.

The question ignores crucial facts, as if the crucial, vital, facts don't exist.

If information is needed so as to save many lives, as the ignorant question proposes, then the obvious vital fact, is to answer the following question:

What is the most effective way in which to get information from someone?

Your question:


My question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives?


Where does such an ignorant question come from? It comes from you. Have you been watching a lot of T.V.? That is not a cheap shot, even if you feel bad about the question, it is a question, it isn't meant to be insulting. The question is an example of vital information that I wish to get from you, so as to save many lives. I want to know why honest productive people become accessories to torture and mass murder, so I'm asking a vital question, and the answer must be true, or the answer will be false, and if the answer is false, and I "go with it", as if the answer was true, then what happens?

Example:

You want information from someone, so as to save many lives. You feel the need to torture, so as to extract that information, just like the movies, or the television shows, and therefore you do extract this vital information from this terrorist scum, this sub-human beast, this 2 year old, or 5 year old, this woman, or whatever, and now you think you have all you need to accomplish your worthy goal of saving many lives, but, as this example intends to illustrate, your information isn't true, your information is false, so, how does that work for you, as you try to save many lives with false information?

So I'm asking.

How do you come up with such a question? Do you watch a lot of television, and is that how you come up with your question?

This question:


My question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives?


You asked that question. Not me. You asked that question on a public forum. What do you expect to get out of asking that question? You want to feel good, maybe?

I don't know. I'm asking.

You go on:

I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism?

You are not saying that it isn't okay or that you don't agree with saving lives by torturing people to extract information, you now want to finger other people with the capital crime of allowing the guilty to go free?

I'm asking.

The majority of people in here may not believe that the people being tortured have NOTHING to do with guilt, of any kind whatsoever. What does the majority rule, in here? What is meant by the term "Due Process"?

What is meant within the words "Presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

Is your question ignorant, or stupid? You tell me.

This question:

I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism?

A cheap shot, I'm reaching here, according to you, is what - exactly? Someone calling a spade a spade, is a cheap shot to you? A cheap shot to me is someone who fabricates a lie and then uses the lie to injure someone else, someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing, so that the cheapness of the event is measured as a gain by the person perpetrating the cheap shot at the expense of the targeted victim of the cheap shot.

Did I construct a false version of anyone, in anything I have written so far, and if so, quote those words, and if I am guilty of this "cheap shot" then I can know of my guilt too. As far as I know, in a state of ignorance for me, I'm telling you how it is, and I am not guilty of any cheap shots, whatsoever. If you want kid gloves used to handle your questions, then you may want to announce that fact before you go public with your questions.

You go on:

I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism? Is it the slippery slope? Again, I'm new here and although I have my own opinions on this subject which I have not stated yet, I'd like to learn the opinions (not saying they aren't fact just because I call them opinions) on this specific subject.

I can tell you a story, and you can skim past what I have to offer to you, or you can speed read past, trying to get something for nothing, or you can peruse the words I type, so as to extract the meaning intended, so as to answer your questions asked.

The slippery slope phenomenon was first introduced to me 30 odd years ago, and I've been working night and day, day and night, since then, on this very problem. A person who does expend their time and energy, and their space, in this work, is a person that can be spotted, recognized, known, measured, and understood, like Alex Jones, or Noam Chomsky, or Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, the list is not as long as it could be, there are many people, the majority, who have better things to do with their time.

Things are learned on this path of information gathering, and information deciphering, and you may understand that on this path of information gathering, and information deciphering, concerning that slippery slope, the investigator can recognize, and know, and realize, what things can be done to go up the slope, and what other things can be done to go down the slope.

When torture is employed, for whatever stated (claimed) reason, the willful act, the premeditate act, constitutes a clue, a good clue, as to which way that person is going on that slope.

It may be a good idea to pay closer attention to the claimed reasons being claimed by the willful employer of torture, just in case the torturer is also a liar.

You can do what you will with what you have now, and I can too. If this exchange between you and I appears to you as moving closer to torture, more uncomfortable, this is distasteful, then, that is your viewpoint, but to me, this type of exchange is the stuff that is missing, the stuff that moves the torturers back under their rocks, back down to their self-made hell holes.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat May 14th, 2011 03:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente68.1.html

Bailouts were not gifts, but debt traps – loans at interest rates lower than the private sector but still unmanageably high.

Anyone,

The concept of credit can be measured. The concept of debt can be measured. How does the concept of credit measure up in competition with the concept of debt? Put on your thinking caps and work on it, if you please, this a challenge, and you can be capable of meeting the challenge, you don't have to depend upon the authorities to solve your problems for you, getting something for nothing is possible, in theory, but in practice, measurably, someone will get the smelly end of the stick.

The concept of debt, in competition with the concept of credit, is a fight for your power, and a fight that will make or break you, and everyone else tangled up in that battle, so solve the problem. No one else will. No one else can. The problem will remain your problem until such time as you solve it. The view from someone else, aiming at you, is that your problem is their solution. They get something for nothing, and you work harder, and harder, to make sure that they keep getting something for nothing, since you fail to know the facts, and since you fail to do something about it.

I'm speaking about real things. I'm speaking to anyone who has ever paid for a home mortgage, even one dime, 10 pennies, you earn, and then you send those 10 pennies to someone else, and someone else grows that much more powerful, and you grow that much weaker - but only 10 pennies, so who cares?

Suppose, for illustration, the objective viewpoint focuses awareness to a time in history just after G.I. Joe was financed and sent to torture and murder the enemy of the day, who was also financed by the same cabal of legal criminals, and the time is 1945, and all the Government Issue Joe's return home, in boxes, or in bandages, or on drugs.

Suppose, at that time, every debt collector decided to credit honest productive people instead, on the subject of home mortgages, not yet on the subject of business mortgages, and not yet on the subject of productive enterprise loans, or productive entrepreneurial mortgages, for now, focus attention only on home mortgages, whereby the former debt collectors decided to abandon their pyramid scheme, and instead, the honest productive people filled the void left void by the exodus of the legal criminals, and the void was filled with the beginning of the age of credit, a regime change of moral significance.

What happens in this illustration after that regime change, after the legal criminals crawl back down under their rocks, through their self-made Hell holes, and return to their devil god from which their minds spawned? What happens, after World War II, if instead of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports being written, published, and shared by the legal criminals, instead, the void left by the absence of legal crime was filled with a honest productive and credit worthy, voluntary, connection among fellow producers of surplus wealth - instead of legal crime?

How can an age of credit compare, competitively, in stark contrast with an age of debt?

It may be interesting to note, that following the money helps, and without interest flowing from those who create wealth, to those who steal it, the numbers add up much differently in one case, starkly contrasted against the other.

Example A (Income Tax):

Since World War II, according to the exposures of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, a flow of surplus wealth, from those who create it, to those who steal it, is documented, and that flow has made the people on the short end of the stick weaker, and that flow has made the people on the long end of the stick stronger, and that is as easy to see as a simple math problem, if you want to look.

Example B (Monopoly Banking Interest):

Forget about the simple math problem, that you would have to do, you would have to learn, you would have to ask, and then you would have to solve, in your own mind, math problems concerning Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, as surplus wealth went from those who create it to those who steal it since World War II, and instead, consider working on something less complicated.

Each new honest productive person entering the social network of America since World War II is thrust into a situation whereby the honest productive person must sink or swim, and swimming requires a toll charge, and the toll charge is a mortgage interest payment, which is the focus of Example B (Monopoly Banking Interest), presented before you right now, but have little fear, this is easy.

Since World War II, honest productive people have been buying houses, and business properties, but this objective viewpoint, this accurate viewpoint, can focus attention on the home purchases, for now, and when an honest productive person, since World War II, bought a home, they paid for two, and they got one, roughly speaking.

The math part of this problem is already solved.

The honest productive members of American society, race X, race Y, race Z, young, not so young, old, male, female, something in between, it does not matter who paid more, it does not matter who paid less, not right now, right now the focus of attention concerns the average and the average since World War II is roughly one home owned, but two homes purchased.

Who gets each extra home?

The math goes beyond comprehensibility, there are two many zeros, since World War II, as all the honest productive Americans, any one of them, and all of them, paid, on average, one extra home, for the privilege of keeping, and maintaining, the home they buy in livable condition, which is yet again another money pit. Pay for two, get one.

How got all those extra homes?

What difference would it make if instead of that having happened, something else happened?

Instead of debt being the regime in force since World War II, what happens if credit is the regime change that occurred right after VJ Day, which was soon, but not soon enough for some, after VE Day?

1945 to today, honest productive people have been buying homes, paying for two homes, getting one home, and sending the second home to the people running the Monopoly Banking Cartel, or Cabal, or Extortion Racket, or whatever word is printed on their stationary, and note, that the value of the extra home didn't go to the honest productive employees of the Banks, who themselves where buying homes, paying for two, and sending the extra cash, each month, to somewhere, where that money was then spent.

G.I. Joe, or G.I. Jane, or whomever, the waitress, the burger flipper, the car mechanic, the firefighter, the carpenter, the taxi driver, the peace officer, the movie theater attendant, the nurse, the movie theater owner, the doctor, the gas station owner, the bridal shop salesperson, whomever, doesn't pay for two homes, they pay for one, what happens?

Each month, each person, works, and works, and works, and pays, and pays, and pays, each payment, each month, since World War II, and each month each person pays for their home, and each person pays for a second home, sending one entire extra home price to the Banking Monopoly, in the debt based social network, the way things are, and in the illustrated way that things can be, those people, since World War II, pay, each month, their earnings, after working, after eating, after expenses of life, after working more, and working more, pay, and pay, for only one home, in the credit based, proposed, solution to the problem, social network.

What happens?

What is the measurable difference between the debt based social network and the credit based social network as all the workers who did earned two entire costs of each home, buying one home, and sending an extra home cost to the Banking Monopoly Profiteers, stopped sending all that power to that one place, and they all, instead, kept all that surplus wealth that they created, they earned it, they kept it, to the tune of one entire home price, on average?

What happens?

Make it personal, if you are having any trouble at all, with this concept.

Start today, if you are paying a home mortgage, start thinking in terms of today, and make it personal, consider stepping in someone's shoes who was someone like you, living in American, just after World War II, you look ahead to 1946, you look ahead to the next decade, 1950, and you have to pay for two homes so as to get one, or, you have to pay for one home to get one home.

A. Debt based
B. Credit based   

How does one stack up, in stark contrast, competitively, against the other one?

Back to the quote that inspired my above rant:

Bailouts were not gifts, but debt traps – loans at interest rates lower than the private sector but still unmanageably high.

What is the interest rate? What is the meaning of the word unmanageably? Who has to pay? Who receives the pay? Why is the price set by the producer? Why does the producer have the power to dictate the price? Why are other producers not offering a lower price, and higher quality, and therefore why is the power to set the price not in the command of the honest productive people who produce the stuff that the seller wants in exchange for what the seller makes?

You can't solve a debt based social network problem with debt based social network solutions; decapitation is not a cure for a headache, or ignorance.

If the problem is a lack of surplus wealth, not enough people producing more than people consume, then the solution isn't to consume more in the process of making sure that honest productive people can't produce anything. That is not a solution to the lack of surplus wealth problem, that is a solution to the I am having trouble getting something for nothing, problem, or, the problem any criminal encounters when the victims run out of stuff to steal.

Problem: The victims are bled dry.
Solution: Turn on your fellow criminals, bleed them dry too.

There are other names for the same solution.

A. Race to the bottom
B. Rat race
C. The final solution

This isn't news. This is well known stuff, as well known, by anyone who figures it out, as the certain knowledge that the problem is, generally speaking, on average: ignorance.

Example:

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/203714.Henry_Ford

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

If you benefit from a debt based social structure, it may be well enough, that things keep flowing in that direction.

If you earn credit, because you are an honest productive person, why do you have to pays someone else for that accomplishment?

What happens when good behavior is punished, while, at the same time, lying, stealing, torture, and mass murder is rewarded?

How about a score board?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

You don't have to play that game, really, it is meant to self-destruct, that is the purpose of it, it will, eventually, no longer be a choice, therefore it may be a good idea to find, and then start using, higher quality stuff, at a much lower cost, sooner, and it may be a good idea to avoid settling for something even less as good as that abomination.

Or not

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun May 15th, 2011 05:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,


I do not sign onto the idea that people have to behave in this argumentative, something for nothing, tit for tat, aggressive, destructive manner, and since I don't agree to behave that way, I happen to notice when other people behave that way.

A discussion to me, can be, a subject, and the subject is viewed from an angle of view, and words are used to convey the angle of view that the subject is viewed from, and then, another angle of view is introduced into the discussion, and if the next angle of view is exactly the same as the first angle of view, then the same exact words would be used to describe the second angle of view, and so the discussion, by the introduction of the second angle of view, would be mere repetition.

The value of a discussion, when not conducted by people who agree to be argumentative, as a goal, is in comparing competitive differences between one angle of view that expresses one way of seeing the subject, and another angle of view that is not the same angle of view as the other angle of view, and therefore it is possible, through competition, to increase the quality of the perception of the subject.

The value-of-competitive-discussion angle of view can illustrate, and exemplify the concept, as it compares to argumentation-for-the-sake-of-argumentation, personal attacks, for the sake of argumentation, so as to be "better" at injuring your opponent, with lies, threats of violence, and if need be - torture.

Compare the two:

A.
Discussion as a method of getting something for nothing, discussion as a method of gaining at the expense of someone else, discussion as a political means of injuring someone by lying about them, discussion as a method of dragging someone through the mud by publishing false statements meant to discredit a targeted victims, discussion as a method of publishing false propaganda and then shoot all the messengers who challenge the false nature of the false propaganda, discussion as a method of modifying the behavior of the participants in the discussion, discussion as a method of conditioning the responses of the participants in the discussion, discussion as a political tool to reinforce a specific agenda - such as legalizing torture.

B.
Discussion as a method of increasing the quality of perception as many competitive viewpoints are entered into the discussion so as to directly compare the various viewpoints, finding the differences, and the similarities, and moving the perspective, theoretically, closer to the truth, or moving the perspective from a less accurate perspective, to a more accurate perspective.

The A Path, above, focuses attention on the people involved in the discussion, not the subject.

The B Path actually intends to focus attention on the subject.

If the subject is: What is the purpose of discussion? - then having only the Path A to parrot, to know, to disseminate, communicate, and inform, is lacking a comparative competitor. Having both Path A, and Path B, as two competitive examples of: What is the purpose of discussion? - offers a competitive viewpoint to the one viewpoint, instead of a monopoly viewpoint, there is, by introduction of a competitive viewpoint, a competition of viewpoints, not one viewpoint, and therefore the subject can be viewed from both, not one, angle of view, so as to see which one works best for whom?

Torturers, in secret prisons, may prefer one, and only one viewpoint, and they may actually be working toward the goal of making sure that there is only one viewpoint ever heard, while, on the other end of that power struggle, there are the victims, who have a very hard time swallowing the one viewpoint, since the one viewpoint appears only to apply to those who have the power to torture, and the one viewpoint appears not to be well suited for those who happen to be getting the screws - for some strange reason.

Back to this subject.

QuoteMy question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives?
If the viewpoint intends to support the use of torture, as a means of accomplishing some goal, then that could be confessed, and it could be confessed openly or it could be confessed covertly.

Such as:

QuoteCan you relax or should we meet up??
Now this fellow forum member, who has the handle chopperscfl is painting me as a nervous person who, according to my fellow forum member, needs to relax, while my fellow forum member suggests that, failing to relax on my part, constitutes a requirement that we meet up.

QuoteJosf, let's keep things peaceful.
I am not un-relaxed, therefore I can't relax from a non-un-relaxed state. I can see this right here, in my peaceful home, right now. How is the peace, here in my home, threatened, now?

Path A:

QuoteCan you relax or should we meet up??
I wish to take Path B instead. I'm not going to settle for the path of lies, it isn't good enough for me, no thanks.

I think that the focus of attention upon me, is unwarranted, typical but unwarranted, and as for the thinly veiled threats, or promises, who can ever know? - I can inform the threatening forum member that I've lived a fairly good life so far, and a sudden end now, or even a drawn out torturous end now, at his hands, as he tortures me to death, if that is his true intentions, so as he can get whatever he wants, when I fail to relax, to his satisfaction, and then my failure to relax causes him to meet me, to get whatever he wants, well, that is how I end the living thing - if that happens.

That is Path A - focusing attention on me, not focusing attention on the subject.

I prefer Path B.

On Path B someone asks this:

QuoteMy question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives?
It matters not to me who asks the subject question, unless the person asking the subject question begins to travel down Path A, then the unwelcome introduction of lies, and threats, from that person, turns the discussion into something personal, unfortunately.

What matters to me is that the subject question is a self-contained monopoly viewpoint, or falsehood, if it is not merely ignorant. The subject question reports that many lives are in danger, now just mine is in danger, as an example, and the subject solution to the reported subject problem, of many lives being in danger, is torture, so the obvious competitive viewpoint is a competitive viewpoint that points out that torture doesn't save lives, not by extracting information from the torture victim, or any other method, when compared to a more effective method.

When only torture is reported as the method of extracting information as a means of saving lives, there is a monopoly of methods, call it method B, by which the reported problem will be solved by the people reporting the problem, and by the same people reporting the one, and only, solution. The lack of a competitive solution, call it method A, ignores the value of competition, therefore it is ignorant of the value of competition. When the value of competition is then reported, by way of anything, anyone, anywhere, just so long as the competitive viewpoint is in view, and when in view the competitive viewpoint is rejected, and personal attacks are chosen instead of the competitive viewpoint, what is that - exactly?

Is one answer good enough, the official answer is the only answer needed, and failure to relax about being "given" the official, single answer, constitutes a required visit from someone, out of the darkness, so as to bring about a confession - perhaps?

Yes, of course, I see now, torture saves lives, yes, yes, of course, how could I have been so blind before, it saves my life, so long as I relax, and so long as I parrot the official line, I can avoid the visit, and save my life, and my wife's, and my children's, just so long as I relax, wow, yea, now I'm calm, I was sooooo nervous, I'm calm now, thanks, I see the light.

Torture saves lives.

Torture saves lives.

Confess or else.

I got it - thanks so much. Now I can relax - whew!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun May 15th, 2011 05:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

In case anyone is soon informed about Joe Kelley committing suicide. I am Joe Kelley, and I can confirm that I have no death wish. I am not suicidal. This is a public announcement of that fact. I am not under torture to say that I am not suicidal, to confess a lie, I am relaxed, as always, happy, as I can be, under the current circumstance, which are not idea circumstances, since, apparently, there are many more people who prefer torture as a solution than can be expected of a civil society.

I am not suicidal.

Joe Kelley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue May 17th, 2011 05:38 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan163.html

Anyone,

Along the path I have been on, for decades, I once gained membership in the John Birch Society, thinking at the time that my viewpoint could be improved, made more accurate, and less costly, by that association with that group. I've since allowed my membership to lapse. I've also allowed  my membership to the U.S.H.G.A lapse, my membership to the N.R.A. lapse, and so the reasons for being members of those groups are no longer powerful reasons; for me

Pat Buchanan was a name I heard a lot when I was a member of The John Birch Society, if my memory serves me, so I read what Pat Buchanan writes, this time it pays off for me.

Here is a quote:

With the World Bank, the IMF was birthed at Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944. In the monetary order established there, the U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.

All would contribute funds in their own currency to the IMF. America would make the largest contribution. As its birthday gift, Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold.

When member nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue, the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans. The loans would be repaid as the troubled nations' reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports.


Money is a conduit, much like a road is a conduit, and much like an ocean is a conduit. It has never made sense to me to buy something half way around the world, such as something Made in China, then shipped to America, when the shipping costs must be added to the thing shipped, and therefore the same thing could be Made in America, and sold for a price that did not have to pay for the shipping.

A. Made in China
Price of the thing plus the price of the shipping adds to total price of the thing.

B. Made in America
Price of the thing, without the price of the shipping, lower price of the thing.

There are some explanations that help explain the lower cost of a thing Made in China, plus the shipping costs, compared to a thing Made in America, without the shipping costs, priced higher - whereby a shopper in America has a choice, at the store, on the shelf, to choose something Made in China (plus the price of shipping) at a lower price, next to, something Made in America (without the price of shipping) at a higher price.

A. Made in China
Lower quality

B. Made in America
Higher quality

That is not one of the explanations that help explain the lower cost of a thing Made in China, plus the shipping costs, added to the lower quality, compared to the thing Made in America, without the added shipping costs, and the higher quality, at the store, the shopper isn't likely to choose the lower quality just because it is less expensive.

If you want to buy something you want to buy it, you don't want to buy something that pretends to be something, something that fails to be the thing you want to buy - logically, and reasonably.

What is a good reason for the lower priced thing selling in America where the thing includes the cost of shipping half way around the world?

A. Made in China

Workers are paid very little, in China, as there are very few employers (scarcity of employers) and very many workers (over abundance of workers) and therefore workers have no power to set the price of labor other than to become employers, to stop being workers, and start being employers, which could conceivably, logically, and reasonably move the power to price labor out of the hands of the employers and into the hands of the laborers as the number of employers rise and the number of workers fall as more workers become employers.

What stops workers from becoming employers in China? Is it a lack of easy access to start up capital; which isn't easy for workers on purpose? Is easy access to start up capital in China only easy if you are a member of an exclusive group, so as to keep the number of the exclusive group low, so as to retain the power to set the price of labor in the hands of the exclusive group, and so as to keep the power of setting the price of labor out of the hands of the workers? Does that sound reasonable to you?

Workers in China are beginning to be paid more and more, as more employers move from America to China - is that true?


B. Made in America

Workers are paid less and less, adjusted for inflation, in America, as the number of employers are few, as many employers move to China, and as many more workers here in America compete with more workers moving to America. The power to set the price of work is not a power held  by workers as there are too many workers competing to buy too few employers. The power to set the price of work is a power held by too few employers, an exclusive club of few employers, more and more, as fewer and fewer employers have work to sell to more and more workers here in America. Employers, in the exclusive club, are moving to China.

What stops workers from becoming employers in America? This is easy. If Elon Musk has a hard time acquiring operating capital, in the form of affordable loans, in America, as he starts making affordable Electric cars in America, actually here in California where I live, with his Tesla Motors company, then what are my chances of getting affordable start up capital? What are the chances of anyone in America of borrowing a no-interest loan, let alone a Bail-Out gift of free money, in America, so as to stop being a worker, and start being an employer, so as to stop having the rate exchange of work-for-pay discounted down by the fact that there are so few employers and so many workers? The story I hear, over and over again, is a tight money policy. Tight for many, while trillions move effortlessly to a select, exclusive, few, for some reason.  Not for good, unless you are reading from the false script.

That doesn't explain why someone in America will be buying a cheap, worthless, knock-off, Made-in-China, thing, at a very low price, compared to something no longer on the shelf, of higher quality, and higher cost, Made-in-America version - or does it?

Returning to the  words of Pat Buchanan:

With the World Bank, the IMF was birthed at Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944. In the monetary order established there, the U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.

All would contribute funds in their own currency to the IMF. America would make the largest contribution. As its birthday gift, Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold.

When member nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue, the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans. The loans would be repaid as the troubled nations' reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports.


What I don't like about that story above, is the pat answer, the given, and the to-be-assumed-as-true Big Lie. That story assumes that the IMF is legitimate, as if it is a moral, legal, just, right, and good thing, and from that assumption, the story follows. They, at the IMF, do this, for good, and this happens, cause and effect, and so the story goes. If bad happens, it is an accident, they meant to do good - seriously - and there is a bridge to Brooklyn for sale.

Look at the actual things reported:

1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.

2.
Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold

3.
nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue

4.
 the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans

5.
The loans would be repaid

6.
reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports

Before I am going to even begin to get any meaning out of those words I am going to build a sold foundation from which to start that process. I have to get rid of the assumption that the IMF is a force for good, which it isn't, so that has to go, and in place I can remain neutral, and then build understanding from that neutral foundation.

Starting with number 1:

1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.

That is two nails in the coffin, already, since I know that Gold was confiscated from the American people during the Federal Reserve willful crime of causing a massive boom and bust cycle soon after those criminals stole the power over American money, which they perpetrate in 1913, which was followed by their BOOM part of their Business Cycle Extortion Racket Crime of the Century, which was falsely advertised as The Roaring Twenties, when the people at The FED (false name since The FED isn't, in any sense, Federal), increased the money supply (of dollars) by roughly twice what it was before they increased the supply of dollars, and they, those people at The FED, are the people who hand pick the people who get to spend the new money, and then those hand picked people get to hand pick the people who get to spend the money, as the new money is sold as loans, and the loans only go to the hand picked people, on down the line. The second nail in the coffin is the reference to the free world, which isn't free, unless by using the word free the meaning is that the legal criminals are free to torture and mass murder at will, and that is what free means - an obvious deception.

The businesses that do BOOM, are also the businesses that are tied with The FED connection of hand picked people on down the line, while some of the excess money does, eventually trickle down to the victims, as the victims are also victimized with inevitable rising prices - during the BOOM part of the fraudulent Business Cycle, in this case of this history, here in America, where then the BUST cycle was caused by the people running The FED, and make no mistake, here, the people may starting the crime of the century at The FED may be different people now, as criminals are often killing each other in their own turf battles, while the organized crime ring continues, as the BOOM is moved to BUST, as the criminals remove roughly half of the dollars in circulation, as they alone can, which isn't simple, but that doesn't stop it from happening, just because it isn't easy to take half of the money supply out of circulation: does not stop them from doing it. So the Great Depression followed The Roaring Twenties, as if everything was by accident, which it certainly, and measurably was not an accident, and during the bust cycle the so called "government", actual people, not a thing, actual people produced an order, and then enforced the order, to confiscate all the gold in America.

Look it up.

Back to number 1:

1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.

The only people who have control of gold are those few people running the crime ring, and so they come up with this great idea to fix the value of the dollar based upon the value of gold which they control both values, so whose idea is this, who does this idea benefit, and who pays the price of this idea?

The one group controls the value of gold. They can let some of it flow, or all of it flow, return it back into circulation, making it less scarce, and therefore making it less expensive to buy, because, as we all know, when something is abundant, the price goes down, and then when something is scarce, the price goes up.

The one group controls the value of the dollar. They just tested their control over the value of the dollar, they added double and then they took out half of the total number of dollars to cause The Roaring Twenties, and then to cause The Great Depression, so they definitely have the power to control the value, and the price, of the dollar - no question - a measurable fact. They also have the power to write the script, as The Roaring Twenties wasn't scripted as a confession, such as, The first test BOOM by the legal criminals running The FED, soon to be followed by the first test BUST, brought to you, again, by the people who stole your money power. The headlines could have read: Thank You. The details on page one.

1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.

What does it mean to say "all at fixed rates of exchange"?

I can't answer that question. I have to assume. I have to assume that a control is placed on the rate of exchange between one money supply, such as the German Mark, and another money supply, such as The English Pound; whereby the exchange rate changes as a direct result of which money is higher in quality, and lower in cost, as more people decide to pick the better money, that money becomes more valuable, and as less people begin to pick the worse money, that money becomes less valuable, and therefore the better money no longer exchanges for the same number of the worse money, if at all. A bad money may not be picked at all, compared to a good money - leading to a thing called Gresham's law. It is not likely that anyone, other than a criminal, would want to fix rates, since the force of competition works very well at fixing rates, and the power to compete is in the power of the producer, all the producer has to do is increase quality and lower cost, and the power to fail, is also in the hands of the producer, all the producer has to do to fail is to produce lower quality at higher cost, thereby producing themselves out of business; so what is this fixed rate if it isn't competition?

I can't speculate further on what "all at fixed rates of exchange" means exactly. I can say that I smell a rat. I smell a ratified control over the force of competition, which is a force that moves quality (the quality of money in this case) higher, and competition is also a force that moves price (or cost) down, and I smell a ratified control that destroys the force of competition, and it is done on purpose, so as to empower a money monopoly; which is something that cannot exist while the force of competition does exist.

Therefore "fix rates" is code for eliminate competition, as far as I can smell a rat.

Moving to 2:

2.
Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold

Why would I give myself something I already have? The only possible answer is deception. I pretend to transfer the power I have to someone else so as to hide something that I want hidden from the victims viewpoint. Ask yourself why do the same people show up with a government title, after they have moved from a corporate title, and then through the revolving door, into another corporate title, back into another government title, like a silly game of musical chairs?

The answer is simple. The criminals must create a legal fiction. The purpose of the legal fiction is to shunt any power that is meant to hold the legal criminals to account, as the victims intend to defend themselves against further victimization at the hands of the criminals. Shunting is like grounding, like an electrical circuit with a short in the circuit, as the power that normally runs the light bulb, and the motor, doesn't get to the light bulb, or the motor, and the power "goes to ground" instead of reaching the light bulb and/or motor. The legal fiction is the ground, the short circuit, the place where all the defensive effort is focused and wasted; while the legal criminals get away with torture, mass murder, and extinguishing the human species, and lesser crimes like fraud, rape, cannibalism, who knows?

They may be eating toddlers while they rape them and doing so with your money, on your dime, and you seriously can't expect them to confess as much, since you hired them to lie for you in the first place.

You find out about their latest crime, and you blame The Government, or you blame Socialism, or you blame Capitalism, or you blame The FED, or you blame the IMF, or you blame Monsanto, or you blame Halliburton, or you blame Blackwater, or you blame Goldman Sachs, or you blame U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), or you blame the Nazi's, and that works, and it works every time, since the actual criminals just move to another title (false front base of criminal operations) while you blame the fictitious being.

Every watt of power that could  have been used to stop the legal crime spree is sent to ground, grounding out, and doing the job of ensuring that the crime spree perpetuates.

How neat can it get?

Gold is confiscated by one group, which was done, it is a historical fact, and then gold is transferred, for free, a gift, to another place, for a specific reason, and the reason makes no sense, unless you start from a logical foundation, and avoid starting from a false foundation, such as the false foundation that the people reporting these things are people who intend to do good things.

Onto 3:

3.
nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue

Any group of people, working together honestly, equitably, reasonably, logically, with good sense, will increase their power, as a direct result of good investments, and the proof of this is measurable, and when this does not happen, when a group of people fail at producing more than they consume, there is an exceptional cause for such an event to occur, such as natural disaster, or man-made disaster, such as war, or such as something called a business cycle which is a fraud and an extortion of surplus wealth perpetrated by a few people as the exclusive group of a few people victimize the many honest productive people, and even in these cases, the honest productive people are often able to produce more than consumption despite the parasitic force of legal crime in the form of a perpetuating, man-made, disaster, thing, crime, called a Business Cycle.  

Devaluation relative to yesterday is caused by the relationship between how many units of legal monopoly money circulate relative to how many things of value (surplus wealth) circulate, and the man-made disasters occur when the legal criminals increases in the money supply, and the new money is then spent on things that make the honest productive people weaker and therefore less able to produce more surplus wealth. If the increases in legal money were spent on making the honest productive people stronger the result would be more surplus wealth produced, because honest productive people like to work and make good things, that is what they do, when they are powerful, and the criminals know that, and the criminals know that they cannot allow the honest productive people to get too powerful.

If you were a legal criminal you would also have a vested interest in keeping the victims weak, as you cannibalize them, rape them, torture them, and mass murder them for your enjoyment. If they get powerful, they are no longer easy to victimize, and worse for you, they may actually stop holding your legal fictions to account, and they may actually hold you to account, for the number of people you have tortured to death, or eaten, or whatever else you have done while you perpetrated your crimes as a member of the legal crime cabal.

4.
the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans

Why wouldn't a group of people choose a better source for money, such as their own selves, instead of choosing to buy a loan from the same people who have caused their distress in the first place?

There is an answer. Here is a short list of possible answers:

1. Fear
2. Ignorance
3. I have the power to choose to take the offer I can't refuse, because I am also a criminal, just not as high up in the pyramid scheme, so I will take the loan, and I will sell the loan to other members of my club, and we will all get our own piece of the action, so long as the victims remain fearful and ignorant, and so long as the higher up criminals pick me as their good boy, and so long as the victims, err people, remain ignorant, desperate, powerless, and fearful.
4. You tell me

Moving onto the Fifth thing reported by Pat Buchanan:

5.
The loans would be repaid

Would interest be added to the repayment of loans from those who are victimized by the money monopoly scheme as the honest productive people struggle to produce more than they consume while their power is parasitically drained from them through these crimes of legal extortion, in addition to the loan principle, that they could have borrowed from themselves, and could have become their own employers, and could therefore have employed many of the people seeking work, and could have therefore moved the power to set the price of labor from employers to employees, as the number of employers grow more and more and as the number of workers grow less and less, reaching a point at which too many people will be looking for too few workers, and therefore the workers have the power to discount the price of buying the higher quality employer?

Well, I'm the one who can't write things that make sense, so why do I keep writing nonsense?

I based my foundation on neutral ground. So it makes no sense to someone who reads from the script that says that "they" are intending to do "good", or some other fiction.

On to 6:

6.
reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports

Which is it better to be, A or B, in your mind, if you use your own mind, and to do so you may have to stop borrowing the minds of the legal criminals.

A. China (controlled by legal criminals)
A population of too many workers and not enough employers whereby the few powerful employers darken the skies with poison, and poison the water, so as to meet a growing export demand, while the imports that do flow into the country go directly to the few powerful employers while the many workers struggle to produce just enough to stay alive, miserably,  suffering from health problems caused by too much work, not enough rest, too much stress, poisonous air, poisonous water, not enough nutritional food, and little or no fun.

B. America (controlled by legal criminals)
A population of too many workers and not enough employers whereby the few powerful employers move their employment opportunities offshore, to poison the water offshore, and too poison the air offshore, so as to meet a shrinking demand for imports, and an anemic demand for exports, as the number of  workers increase while the number of employers decrease, because the supply of surplus wealth flows from the honest  productive population to the few employers moving their employment opportunities to China with bail-outs, and giveaways, of trillions of dollars that may someday return to America and cause massive inflation.

Number 6 of the things I took from the report by Pat Buchanan, who may or may not be associated with The John Birch Society, explains, to some extent, the reason for things Made-in-China, being shipped to America despite the cost of shipping being added to the cost of the things sold in America, in competition with things Made-in-America, things that are made in America don't have the shipping costs added, which has to be a large amount of costs, since China is on the other side of the Earth.

1.
U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange.

 6.
reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports

What  fixes the rate of exchange. Who has the power to fix the rate of exchange, which leads to the situation whereby things Made-in-America are no longer Made-in-America, and instead things Made-in-China are shipped half way around the world to be sold in America?

Whose story makes sense, to whom, and why?

I have yet to read the rest of the report by Pat Buchanan from the Austrian Economics web site produced and maintained under the name Lew Rockwell.

I will edit this first and post it. Editing consumes a huge amount of my very limited power.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu May 19th, 2011 05:50 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I see the Author of that writing had a hard time understanding that people do work together without many problems, especially today.

thegreencity,

I do not attach that idea to the work of that author, and since I don't do that I am now at a loss as to why you do that, since you don't explain how you arrive at that idea. You do not support your idea with quotes from the author of the book from which you form that idea - an idea that appears to be baseless, and opposite my own viewpoint.

That's what people in our current society would say, "They are self reliant.  They don't need anyone else."  Right?  Well, they are wrong.

Based upon what you have written, so far as I have read, I am going to guess that you are speaking for "everyone" so as to support an idea that you are going to propose. I don't know why the voice of "everyone" has to be speaking to help you do that, especially since "everyone" does not sound like anyone I know, as I know that people know that having access to each other, by some means, is a whole lot better than having no access to anyone ever.

What is the quality of the connection?

A. Equitable
B. Criminal
C. A mixture of equitable connection (no one gains at the expense of anyone else) and criminals (criminals are connected to their victims while innocent people are connected to innocent people equitalby)

I think that many people are living their lives while many people believe things that are opposite the truth, but I don't think that the one idea you are attaching to "everyone" is true - certainly not for everyone.

This one:

For instance, I don't know what you do for a living, but lets just say for kicks and giggles that you are a Futures Trader, one that makes a living doing so.  Ok?  You would think that this type of person is very independent, very self-sufficient because they don't work a 9-5 job or enslaved by a small business right?  That's what people in our current society would say, "They are self reliant.  They don't need anyone else."  Right?

I don't think that people in our currency society would say that a Futures Trader is self-sufficient and very independent, since a few things must occur in order for a Futures Trader to be a Futures Trader (a successful one is one, and an unsuccessful one is pretending to be one - is not one).

A. Access to the people who know how the game works, so as to learn the game
B. Access to the inside information, so as to remove the odds of losing (access to the people who have the inside information)
D. Connection to all the buyers and sellers through various mediums of exchange (money, stock exchange, etc.)
E. Access and connection to all the people who actually produce the wealth, which would transfer to the winners of the game, since without them the speculators would have nothing to work to gain.

If the idea here is to suppose that "The People" are all, every last one of them, too stupid to realize that most, if not all, human work involves human interaction, then that idea, to me, fails to explain a few obvious facts.

A. Human beings are smart enough to create abundant wealth in spite of massive powers working to destroy human life, and destroy the power human beings have in the goal of creating abundant wealth.

B. Human beings are smart enough to survive and increase the number of human beings in spite of the massive powers working to destroy human life, and the power human beings have in the goal of creating abundant wealth.

If people are too stupid to realize that human beings must connect with each other to survive, as I think is your idea, then what explains the results of the power struggle to date, whereby honest productive people continue producing a surplus of wealth despite the massive power behind the criminals as the criminals, legal or otherwise, slaughter honest productive people by the millions on a regular basis, and torture them too?

A. Human beings are too stupid to see the nose in front of their faces (every one of them, except me)
B. Human beings are not too stupid to see the nose in front of their faces, despite what is claimed to be their entire level of intelligence.

I do not think that A is true, rather, I think that B is true, and I think the evidence proving B to be true is abundant, and I think that the evidence proving A is absent.

I appreciate your messages as your messages agree with my viewpoints, whereby people may do well as people choose to disconnect from destructive things and as people maintain productive connections, moving further away from thoughts and actions that result in human misery, and moving toward thoughts and actions that result in increases in the power human beings have to make the best of human life. I can most certainly agree with anyone who understands that goal, and anyone who has a competitive method of moving down that welcome path.

I do not agree with things that do not ring true to me, and unless there is supporting evidence to help me know better, I can't know better, without blind faith in something I do not know.

I'll read more of your reply, gladly, to see if there is anything more in your words that inspires me to use my time and energy to respond.

See, he depends upon others in order for him to produce the income that he does.

The concept of "income" is a focal point. If that concept can be less ambiguous, and therefore that concept can be more accurate, I think the path away from misery, and the path toward happiness (for lack of a more accurate and less ambiguous word) would be taken in a measurable way. If more people understood the need to make "income" more accurate, and less subject to unwelcome, negative, costs, then, it seems to me, there would be more income for less cost, logically, and measurably.

I think that my viewpoint is well covered in the .pdf file that you appear to misunderstand. I base my viewpoint, about you appearing to misunderstand the .pdf file because you wrote this:

I see the Author of that writing had a hard time understanding that people do work together without many problems, especially today.

I think the Author of that writing reported the opposite of your claim about the Author of that writing.

What if instead of being in a tall building on the phones pushing papers around the people were instead growing organic food, recycling products from nearby communities and producing art work such as glass art, traditional art, quilts, metal, clay, pottery, etc. and using money they obtained from the monetary systems surrounding them but did not use any monetary means amongst themselves?

I am going to guess that you are one of the number of people who think that a social connection can work without money. If that is what you think then you are going to have a very difficult time finding anyone to agree with you if you do not accurately communicate exactly what you think that money is, and exactly what you think that money is not, failing to do so will result in miscommunication, since your concept of money appears to be an exclusive concept, something only you know, and therefore something that you will die knowing alone, unless you find one other person to agree with your concept of it.

In other words: you have a negative measure of money, if I understand that much about what you are reporting, and few, or no one, else shares that negative measure of money, exactly the same way as you do. I don't. Money takes on various forms, many of which are easy to know, and easy to compare competitively.

1. The Dollar form of money
2. The Labor note (in history, such as the .pdf file version that was used during the 1800s)
3. The California town version of town shares (possibly stamp script or negative interest money)
4. Gold or precious metals, as money
5. No forms of money at all.

So there are 5 forms of social connection, 4 of which are social connections that use money as a tool, and one social connection that doesn't use money as a tool. The obvious question that arises from comparing how each social connection works, is by what means, what methods, do people in the social network without money, inform each other as to what is needed, when something is needed, and how much of what is needed, when it is needed, and who pays the cost of producing it?  

If money is understood to be a tool that is used to as enable each person to inform each other person the measure of needs, wants, demands, then that is what money is understood to be, and money can be that, and money can be nothing more than that, so long as that is the form of money produced and used, chosen, by the people within that social network.

If there is only one money used and no other money is used there could be a reason for such a situation, and the same applies to a social network that has no money, where money is not used, there could be a reason why no money is used. Just ask someone, and a reason can be known. Ask enough people and a common reason may become obvious, when comparing all the many reasons.

In the case of a social network where money is used there are people who can report their reasons for using the money they use, according to each person.

"I use dollars because everyone else is using dollars, and Uncle Sam says that taxes are due in dollars."

In the case of a social network where money is not used there are people who can report their reasons for not using any money?

"I stopped using dollars, and a bunch of us stopped using dollars, now we barter, to avoid paying taxes."

If there are cases of using one money, or no money, or a bunch of different forms of money, then something can be known about those cases, as questions are answered by the people within such a social network where one money is used, or money is not used, or many different moneys compete to see which monies are chosen to be used.

Now, when we (you and I) being immersed in a monetary system like we are think of a corporation we think of a tall building with shiny glass windows and lots of offices where people are on the phones and pushing papers around magically making money, right?

I can only speak for myself, in answer to that question, and my answer is no, that is not right. I know the difference between a monetary system based upon enforced crime, and a monetary system that is based upon enforced competition - so I don't confuse the two, since I know that confusing the two is very dangerous, as the criminals gain power by that confusion, and the victims of the criminals grow weaker as a result of such confusion - therefore I don't confuse the two.

Confusing the two may result in something that happens whereby some people may want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some people may want to get rid of the useful and productive advantages of money in the effort to get rid of the destructive advantages of money that are exclusive advantages that money affords to criminals, as a result of the criminal enforcement of money.

I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, since money can be a useful and productive advantage for honest productive people as they work toward moving life toward better life, at the expense of no innocent victims. I may be wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence that supports a competitive viewpoint.

See the irony and the genius behind these thoughts?

I saw the genius in the thoughts and experiments recorded in that .pdf file I linked, the same file that you misunderstand, as far as I know at this point. As far as I know at this point, having read up to that question above, your thoughts misunderstand what I think, and your thoughts appear to suggest that a social network can work without a means by which people communicate the vital information needed in accessing division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, a medium of exchange, a connection of some kind, by which information flows between each person in the social network. I see no genius in that, at this point.

Let me put it another way, go back to the corporation that is housed in a tall glass building, lets say the corporation (being made up of the people in the building) own a pool of vehicles, say 20 of them, they own a spa, a bakery, a work-out place, a subway sandwich shop.  Now, everyone that does not work at the corporation must pay the prices that are posted, but the people that work at the corporation do not (this happens in real life), so what do you think about that?

I think that your way of putting things "another way" is the same ambiguous way that is way too ambiguous to convey accurate meaning. A corporation can be a legal fiction, and as such it can be a tool used by criminals to commit crimes, and in so doing the force of defense against becoming a victim of those crimes are wasted in the effort to hold the corporation accountable, while the criminals just raid the corporate bank account, and then move to another corporation. Your words do not mention that fact at all. Your words confuse the concept of ownership too. How can many people all own one thing? If more than one person owns something, according to one concept of ownership, there is then collective ownership, which is very confusing to me - because it is too ambiguous. I do not understand the concept of collective ownership, unless an example is thoroughly inspected.

You employ an example that makes no sense to me, so I can employ an example that makes sense to me.

A. 20 people own a pool of vehicles
B. Everyone owns air, and sunlight.

Your concept of ownership appears to suggest that 20 people own a pool of cars as an exclusive group of people and no one else owns those cars, just those 20 people. I do not think that such a thing works well, not to me, such a thing sounds like a false arrangement, since someone, not everyone, will be driving the better car, and someone, not everyone, will be driving the worse car, and someone, not everyone, will abuse a car, and someone, not everyone, will take very good care of a good car, and who will be accurately held accountable for anything, when all 20 own each car in the pool? Who pays? Who benefits?

My concept of collective ownership is such that no one owns the air since everyone owns the air, without exception. Each person is unable to exclude anyone else from owning the air, according to how I understand collective ownership to be in reality. If someone pollutes the air, they exclude the ownership of the air of the people who have to then breath polluted air, and therefore it is the polluter who volunteers to become a criminal, to injure innocent victims, by taking away the victims ownership of the air. If ownership means something, it means something specific. If ownership is unspecific, and if ownership is ambiguous, then ownership can mean one thing today, and something different tomorrow, and if ownership is ambiguous, then it can mean one thing for one person, and ambiguous ownership can mean the opposite thing for someone else.

That is in response to this:

Let me put it another way, go back to the corporation that is housed in a tall glass building, lets say the corporation (being made up of the people in the building) own a pool of vehicles, say 20 of them, they own a spa, a bakery, a work-out place, a subway sandwich shop.  Now, everyone that does not work at the corporation must pay the prices that are posted, but the people that work at the corporation do not (this happens in real life), so what do you think about that?

That is way to ambiguous to be of much value to me. I don't get the point. I can comment on some of the information in the words quoted, but the bridge between your viewpoint and my viewpoint is measured to be vast, as I read those words. What is the method by which price is calculated in the reference to price above? How is "must pay" enforced in any case whereby "this happens in real life"?

When I see tall buildings I see economy of space, many cubic feet of human living area, climate controlled, in one geographical spot on earth. I do not necessarily see a legal fiction in operation. I am more inclined to witness a legal fiction in operation when I see an American Flag, because I understand the function of it, and I am more inclined to see a legal fiction in operation when I see trade mark logos on advertisements. Tall buildings can be very interesting, even beautiful, expressions of architectural genius - to me.

That is in effect a cash-less system in a micro community setting.

You are now suggesting that a corporate (legal fiction) social network, where 20 people collectively own a pool of cars, is a cash-less system in a micro community setting? I've worked within a corporate (legal fiction) and I understand how that one worked, and it worked to the benefit of the owners (those with the legal power to spend the legal corporate monetary account) and it worked at the expense of everyone else. I saw that first hand. I can explain how that worked in great detail. I know for a fact that my experience of that was nothing even close to a cash-less system, as I understand the term cash, and as I understand the term system. I can confirm that the legal fiction I experienced was a case of micro economics in as much as its internal system was independent from the external system, but only in that measure of it, since the connection between the internal system and the external system was vast and was dominant, not submissive to the internal system. The dominant system, in the case I experienced, was the external system, or the "State" system, and then again submissive to the "National" system, the submissive system, the lower system, was the internal legal fiction, or the micro community setting was certainly the submissive, not the dominant system.

Now, lets take this step further, lets say this corporation owns a farm and they grow their own food that they provide to the subway and bakery, now they've driven their cost down even further to just the fuel for the tractors, seeds, and manpower.  Lets go even further now.  Let's say the corporation owns a complex of housing, enough to house everyone that works for the corporation and they all get to live there rent/mortgage free, why?  Because all the material to build this housing was completely paid for (no mortgage payments) now what do you think.  These people, live in mortgage free housing, eat free, drive free, and any and all money coming in from their subway sandwich shop, or bakery and spa all goes into their bank accounts without much overhead for themselves.  See, this is the way to true retirement, true living.

A corporation cannot own anything, do anything, think anything, or be responsible for anything. A corporation can be held accountable for things that are done by people. The people are not held accountable. The corporation is held accountable. How does that work for the victims, in cases where the people running the corporation have injured innocent people? The corporation is held accountable. The people who commit crimes are not held accountable. How does that work for the people who commit crimes? Who benefits? Who pays the bill?

These are your words:

Let's say the corporation owns a complex of housing, enough to house everyone that works for the corporation and they all get to live there rent/mortgage free, why?

My answer to your question is: The reason why a corporation is thought of as a responsible being is so that criminals can avoid accountability, so as to perpetuate crime, as the criminals are never held accountable for the crimes they commit.

I see many other ways to address your question; but that way, to me, gets right down to the core of it.

Criminals invent legal fictions, or Gods, or isms, or nations, to hide their crimes, so as to allow the criminals to escape accountability, as the victims are fooled into holding the legal fictions to account, for the perpetuating crimes committed by the criminals. That is how that works, it is working that way right now, and it will continue to work that way until such time as the victims understand how that works, not before.


Because all the material to build this housing was completely paid for (no mortgage payments) now what do you think.  These people, live in mortgage free housing, eat free, drive free, and any and all money coming in from their subway sandwich shop, or bakery and spa all goes into their bank accounts without much overhead for themselves.  See, this is the way to true retirement, true living.  


If there is nothing but human labor and raw materials, no wealth, no human action yet, no human thought yet, just naked, cold, dirty, or hot and dirty, people standing around, breathing air, and experiencing what life has to offer, then that is how things start.

Someone decides to improve life on earth, thinking, then acting, and then raw material is forced into becoming wealth, a chair, a hammer, a pencil, a wedge, an apple is found, picked up, and eaten, by someone, somewhere, and then two apples are picked up, then three, and arms are made into a basket, and surplus wealth is created with a basket of apples, from a time, and a place, where no surplus wealth existed. Then one person, with the basket of apples encounters another person with a basket made of hide, after an animal was eaten, then they may agree to cooperate, to divide labor, to specialize, and begin economies of scale, using power to make more power, creating and increasing the supply of surplus wealth from a time when there was none.

Those are the actions of specialization, and division of labor, evolving into being a part of human interaction. Those things have happen before the invention of legal fictions, and the people who support legal fictions may want their victims to forget such things, and the supporters of legal fictions may include the victims of criminals who support legal fictions, because that is the way things are, and again, the core of the problem is the fact that criminals use legal fictions to perpetuate crimes, including the crimes by which radioactive material is now flowing to a legal fiction near you, and threatening to cause human extinction.

Money didn't do it.

The gun didn't to it.

The corporation didn't to it.

People are responsible. People have the power to respond. People are able to respond - response-able. If the response is to resort to crime, that is the response.

If the response is to reject crime as a response, that is the response.

If the response is to offer something better than crime, the response will be equity, or universality, or liberty, or any word that is defined by human action that incorporates division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, without enforcement by deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence used to accomplish the goal of gaining at the expense of innocent victims (crime).

How those non-criminal methods compare competitively, one compared competitively to the other, is the stuff of liberty, as competition is a natural force, seen in nature, whereby the higher quality stuff, and the lower cost stuff, wins, and the lower quality stuff, and the higher cost stuff does not win the competition, and losers either find things to do where their stuff is higher in quality, and lower in cost, or they depend upon charity, or they perish, or they resort to crime.

A. Crime (competition is destroyed on purpose - for profit)
B. Competition (non-criminal methods compete to gain welcome acceptance and use)

If a new version of "collective ownership of the means of production" or "socialism" works, without resort to crime (deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence produced and inflected so as to gain at the expense of the targeted, innocent, victims), then that is what happens. If the new version of "collective ownership of the means of production", or, "socialism" resorts to crime, then it is crime, by any other name, it is crime.

If a new version of "collective ownership of the means of production" or "capitalism" works, without resort to crime (deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence produced and inflected so as to gain at the expense of the targeted, innocent, victims), then that is what happens. If the new version of "collective ownership of the means of production", or, "socialism" resorts to crime, then it is crime, by any other name, it is crime.

Stock shares, the military, or any collection of individual power flowing to one expense of power, to gain anything, is either socialism or capitalism, or any word that describes the same thing.

If people what to go out in the wilderness and give socialism a try, then they may want to read the .pdf I linked, and I will link it again, and I will link yet another expose' on what happens when people go out in the wilderness and give socialism a try. Lessons have been learned, it pays to avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over again, unless that is the goal.

A. Let's repeat the same mistakes over and over again, because I am confident, "we" are confident, that a different result will occur this unique time.
B. Let's work away from crime and toward liberty by avoiding the same old mistakes, and this time lets use something that has proven to work in the past.

Which is it?

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

And, lets say everyone in this corporation were friends, family, neighbors, now they spend time with each other, building upon their artistic and creative side of their brains instead of being enslaved like most people.  Are you getting the picture without the complexity of what this Author wrote about.

The links above were written by people who used English language as a tool to accomplish the goal of accurately transferring information. The tool is commonly used today to accomplish the goal of deceit. It may help the reader, if the reader wants to know something, to read carefully, in a word: peruse, the works links.

Speed reading has a purpose, it seems to me, and the purpose is for the speed reader to know what the reader wants to know, and the goal can be accomplished by not reading, as well as reading.

A speed reader can say, to himself, I read that, and the goal is accomplished - according to the speed reader.

The proof of knowledge is not so easy.

He is to complex, makes it seem to hard to live debt free and self-sufficient.

Too many words are chosen by some to intentionally confuse the targeted readership. Not enough words are chosen by some to hide the true meaning from the targeted readership. Too many words can weaken the power of the idea that is offered to the readership for consideration. Not enough words can fail to convey essential information required in explaining the idea that is offered to the readership. Choosing too many words, or too few words, can be a mistake when the intention is to convey accurate meaning to the readership. Few of us are blessed with perfect knowledge, I know of no one, certainly not me.

The author in question put his money where his mouth was, and tested the validity of equitable commerce, and the results are recorded for anyone wanting to know the results. If there was an easier way to move toward liberty, and away from crime, then, there would be a case of it happening - or absent the case, since there was an easier way, there are few explanations as to why the move was not made - ignorance, apathy, indifference, etc.

As people do move toward liberty and away from crime, those people provide competitive examples of what works, and I've already linked one example. Here it is again:

http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/

Here is another:

http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm

If I can re-find one more, I will, and this current example involves a group of people who began working toward liberty, and away from crime, in Alaska, and they use gold as money, and I had links to them, but I lost those links, I want to find those links again, since they are a current examples of people moving toward liberty and away from crime, and doing so effectively, competitively, setting an example, and setting an example that can be emulated, and setting an example that can be improved upon.

I will try to find the links to that group that began in Alaska. They used a form of public declaration of independence, if my memory serves me.

The bottom line is, we are all connected in one way or another.  The only question is:  How do you want to live?  You can make your choice at anytime in your life.  As a slave or as a free person?  The choice is really yours and mine.  I choose freedom in all forms.  Thanks for your time and your kindness in sending me the information you did.  I am working on building a corporation exactly like I stated above and if you are willing to join me you will be very happy, as well as your family, friends and anyone else that understands the essence of really living, instead of just subsisting.

We, my family, are fighting our fights as we can, within our limited power, I am connected to my wife, my son, my daughter, my brothers who live close-by, my aging mother, I am aging, and my efforts to disconnect from the criminals must include my efforts to disconnect the criminals from my family, I can't just leave them, and it takes a lot of effort on my part to help my family members realize what is at stake, while they struggle to make ends meet, so an idea of picking everything up and moving somewhere else as a group, if that is the idea you are offering, is unworkable.

I was just told by my Electrician friend that the laws for producing excess electric power, at home, have changed from a lawful exclusion of profits earned by the home owner to a lawful inclusion of profits earned by a home owner. To be clear: Before the change of the law a home producer of excess electric power could not demand payment from the electric company for surplus electricity, now the home owner, by law, will receive a check from the Electric Company for excess electricity produced at the home and sent to The Grid.

That is a huge change in the way the law works. Instead of the law working for some, at the expense of the many, which is the default method, the law has been changed to be equitable instead.

Things like this measure the power struggle significantly.

If you can accomplish whatever it is you are setting out to do, and you can record your progress to set an example of what works, and what does not work, then that would be very helpful to anyone wanting to know what does work, and what does not work, for you, as your reach toward your goal.

That is what was done in the link I offered, you can heed the warning or ignore it, as you wish.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri May 20th, 2011 03:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

The Libertarian Party web page candidate submission form generated an e-mail from a Libertarian Party member, which led to an e-mail from me, which led to a phone call from a Libertarian Party member, which was not immediately picked up by me, which led to a message I read, which led to a phone call from me, which was not picked up, which led to a message entered by me, which led to nothing more as yet.

When I ran as a Libertarian candidate for the California 40th District House of Representatives I ended up getting on the Ballot, with a list of names provided by someone in the Libertarian Party, and those names were members of The Libertarian Party in my district, and those people signed my money saving petition, when I knocked on their doors.

There is a method by which The Libertarian Party picks candidates, and that method is obviously not a web based method, since my web based experience proves that candidates are not recognized to be candidates by that method. There was no mention whatsoever in the e-mail or the phone message as to candidacy of any kind from The Libertarian Party.

There is a concept called push, and there is a concept called pull. An example of the pull concept could be illustrated by such things as any competitive Racing Association. Take NASCAR racing for example, and consider the process by which the best drivers move from where they were young on into the race cars on race day.

Competition pulls the best in from all possible sources so as to move the best up to the front of the pack, where the best race against the best, and the winner is the only one that wins, because the winner is the best.

Talent shows on T.V. work to illustrate the concept.

Push is the concept that the driver does, or the singer, or the dancer, so as to push past each difficulty on the path, and the team backing the individual pushes the individual to maintain the highest competitive edge over the competition.

What pulls liars, torturers, and mass murderers to be drawn into the thing that is called government, the thing I call legal crime?

The obvious answer is power, and it is destructive power, it is criminal power. A liar, torturer, and mass murderer can't get away with lies, torture, and mass murder without a powerful cover.

It is not a surprise to find that the process by which candidates are moved from all corners of the country to those lying, torturing, and mass murdering cover posts, is criminal in nature, where the best liar, the best torturer, and the best mass murderer wins.

That makes sense, that is how that works, but what does not make sense is the vacuum.

The concept of push and pull can also be illustrated by the concept of supply and demand. When there is a demand for lies, torture, and murder, there are those who will fill that demand, and since there is an abundant supply of lies, torture, and mass murder, there is therefore an obvious demand for lies, torture, and murder, and the demand is obviously being filled by those professionals who are best at filling that demand.

What about the demand for accurate information, productive power, and adaptive invention?

Has the power of falsehood grown so massive as to cover up the demand for anything else, on the surface, and therefore has the demand for accurate information, productive power, and adaptive invention gone underground, as far as the political economy sphere is concerned?

Where is there, if one exists, a working competition, pulling, and demanding, that candidates who are providing the most accurate information, leading to higher quality and lower cost productive power increases, and the most adaptive inventions to overcome the most difficult problems facing mankind, and where are the people pushing those qualities from all corners of the country into the race that determines the best of the best so as to move the best into that job?

What explains the vacuum?

Is it under the cover of darkness?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 04:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

I have a few moments before demands upon my time and energy (my power) require investing expenses, to work, and in particular I am tasked with bill payment routines - paper pushing. My days of hard labor, and dangerous sports, are over, the price is too high, my body is deteriorating with age, blood clots, bone density reduction, other things, older age.

I sent out three responses to solicitations as follows:

1. Candidacy notice to The Libertarian Party (The Libertarian Party solicits membership)

2. Candidacy notice to The Constitution Party (soliciting membership too)

3. Debate Challenge as follows:

Cut and pasted:

http://libertariannews.org/Forums/index.php
Forums
January 17, 2010
By michaelsuede

Libertarian News Forums Here!

If you would like to contribute articles or news pieces, there’s a place for you to do so here.

I take the 1st Amendment seriously!

The moderation on these boards is as liberal as possible.

I live for vigorous debate and political agitprop!

If you are a neo-con, republican, fascist, democrat, or communist I welcome you with open arms.  YOU are the type of person I want in my forums.  Without fascist totalitarians like yourself, my life would be boring.

Youtube, LiveLeak, Fox News, and Daily Motion video embedding is enabled!


Update on The Libertarian Party:
Two e-mails from a representative to me, having nothing to do with the candidacy notice - as if I never submitted a request to be a candidate.
Phone tag.
No further response from The Libertarian Party

Update on The Constitution Party:
One e-mail from me to their contact e-mail address. No response as yet.

Update on the Libertarian News challenge:
My registration on the Libertarian Forum was accepted, two submissions were accepted, and my third forum topic response is held up in the evaluation process, having been submitted on May 27, it is now May 31. My last response, mirrored earlier in this thread, may have been set aside during the Memorial Day Weekend.

Note: It is unusual for a forum to screen responses, which requires personal effort (time, energy, power) by some person, and therefore not possible on forums with many users posting many responses, as a function of numbers. Who has enough spare time (surplus wealth) to personally evaluate 100 forum submissions a day - for example?

At some point the practice of personally screening forum responses becomes economically unproductive. How many forum users use forums, or are active members of forums, that process forum submissions through personal filters, whereby a submission is sent to the forum, and then a forum moderator, or owner, personally screens each forum submission?

My guess is that the number is few, the number is exclusive, as few people demand, or want, to have their work censored in that manner. A forum is a forum.

What is a forum?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forum

1.
the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people.
2.
a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion.
3.
an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.


Awhile ago there was an Austrian Forum where my questions were published, not answered, but published, and the forum owners didn't like my questions, and the forum owners discredited me publicly by publishing false, and libelous, things about me, and then the forum owners removed my access to their private forum.

What is a forum?

If the connection is private, then why is the connection advertized with the word: Forum?

There is a contradiction occurring in time and space, in reality, and the contradiction occurring here and now illustrates the divisions between those who purport to support capitalism and those who purport to support socialism.

Is a Forum a public or a private thing, connection, device, tool, power, or invention?

What is a Forum?

My understanding measures a forum as a medium of exchange, much like money, and much like air, water, food, Television, The internet, roads, land, electricity, The Grid, transportation fuel, knowledge, information, understanding, language, and power in general.

A forum is a thing that is separate from those who connect to the forum. People are separate things. People use a forum to connect to other people. The thing that connects people is a separate thing.

A forum is a thing.

A forum is a connecting thing.

A forum connects separate people with separate people.

What is the nature, character, constitution, make-up, specifications, and measure of a forum?

Is the connection equitable? Is the connection voluntary? Is the connection welcome? Is the connection open? Is the connection secure? Is the connection used by people who use the connection to help each other? Is the connection used by people who use the connection to injure victims? Does the connection enable users to gain access to other people for equitable, productive, helpful, and mutually beneficial goals while, at the same time, does the connection protect people from harm by criminals?

Does the thing that connects people work to help people while the thing that connects people also accomplishes the job of insulating people from injury by criminals?

You may say: It is just a forum, it isn't as if it were The State, for Christ's Sake, you are a nut job, why don't you take off your tin hat, for once, and speak plain English.

Someone posting words as those just published would be an illustrated example of intentional injury by someone targeting me - would it not, and by whose authority would the words just published constitute morally acceptable behavior, justified behavior, defensive behavior, offensive behavior, or innocent, neutral, insignificant, or in any way valuated behavior?

Who gains license to censor whom, and what is the process by which said license is empowered in anyone, at any time, anywhere?

You may say: There must be a law, otherwise the bad guys will run amok, posting porn, pictures of extreme violence, and other harmful things that the innocent may then suffer from such destructive exposure.

The matter is what it is, I'm offering a point of view on it. I may be targeted as one of the bad guys, one of the ones who run amok, and one of the one's in dire need of censorship, so as to protect the children - of course.

What did I actually write, that is in dire need of censorship?

Are the laws made so as to protect the innocent?

Really, measurably, and accurately measured, and then accurately communicated to each person having an interest in knowing, are laws made, and enforced, so as to protect the innocent, or, on the other hand, are laws made so as to exclude, or render power-less, the force of competition?

Competition forces quality up and cost down. Competition, thereby, forces crime out of business. Crime is definable, measurable, and accurately measurable as low quality, and high cost, behavior.

Crime only exists where ever, and when ever, competition is rendered power-less, less powerful relative to crime.

Read The Prince by Machiavelli, please, and reconsider, if you will, the true constitution of government.

A. Friend
B. Foe

Your enemies won't be confessing as much, more likely, they will pose as your friends.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 07:06 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north986.html

Anyone,

Gary North appears to be blaming Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn for crimes of false witness, or propagation of lies, and so as not to conclude as much, I link the source above, and let the reader judge the measure of it.

I will address a general trend.

Capitalists blame socialists for all the bad things done by the criminals.

Socialists blame capitalists for all the bad things done by the criminals.

The criminals give themselves the license to commit crimes, and the general trend is to blame the victims for their weakness.

That is a criminal trend, and I'm not the only one who measures that trend in that way.

From my copy of The Prince I offer the following introductory message published in the introduction:

Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the on element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual.

I've heard similar confessions from criminals I've heard, personally, explain their reasoning for resorting to crime: If the victim affords me the opportunity to injure them, they deserve what they get, I'm doing them a favor, teaching them a lesson, no pain no gain, and once I'm done with them, they will be better off, having been taught a good lesson by me, as I play The Devils Advocate.

There is more to it. As you can learn from a few sources, reading Eric Fromm helps.

Here:

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Anatomy_of_Human_Destructiveness.html?id=YjR5Ve-zTcYC

Another good source is a rare book I found in an antique store:

http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-rebellion-Robert-Mitchell-Lindner/dp/0837180163

Another source for this angle of view is in The Prisoner's Dilemma:

http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/

There are reasons for willful plans and willful executions of plans by which the planner, and the executor of the plans intends, and then accomplishes, the goal of injuring innocent victims, for profit, or for whatever reason imaginable.

The trend is to transfer ownership of the the thoughts and actions onto the victim, or onto anything other than the person thinking and acting criminally.

Blame the government.
Blame socialism.
Blame capitalism.
Blame the gun.
Blame the Devil.
Blame (the wrong) God.
Blame the victim.
Blame, and punish, anything but personal accountability for the thoughts and actions of the person doing the blaming; anything but realizing that which the person is responsible.

It is the same old story of a thief shouting "thief" (and pointing away from the actual thief) before, during, and after the commission of a crime, so as to misdirect blame away from the criminal and onto anything other than the criminal, and it works, so therefore such behavior reinforces such behavior, as such behavior pays off, as crime pays, since the victims fall for it often, a fool and his money are soon parted, and one sucker is born every minute.

The opposite is as true. The concept of trust is the opposite of the weakness seen by criminals, as criminals gain access to their victims through the open door of trust. To trust someone, from a criminal perspective, is to welcome, ask for, and solicit injury by a criminal, a weakness, trust is a weakness.

Trust is a necessary element for human prosperity, without which the cost of trading becomes exorbitant, and I can explain, and you can judge for yourself, you can trust the information I offer, or you can distrust it as you see fit.

What could be the process by which one thing is traded for another thing when both people, or any person, involved in the trade, have no power of trust - whatsoever?

You have something.

You want something someone else has, and you have no trust, at all, in the person who has what you want, and the person who wants what you have is just as unable to trust you.

Work that out in your head, and multiply that type of transaction by any exponential increase in numbers of transactions working again, and again, over a period of time, and consider using an illustrative number such as 1 hundred million people lacking trust and trading as many times as they can in 100 years time.

Now consider a competitive 1 hundred million people trading as many times as they can in 100 years in a separate place and all 1 hundred million people in the competitive place trust each other while they trade for those 100 years.

What is the likely differences between those separate places where group A lacks the factor of trust and group B is empowered with the power of trust?

In God we Trust.

It is unlikely that the concept just offered can avoid the measure of criminal activity. What explains the fact that one group has no power of trust? How can a group of people exist, how can human beings exist, without trust? What explains the lack of trust? How does trust vanish from that group? Having no answer for those last questions it may be very difficult to quantify the differences between the illustrated group A (no trust) and group B (trust) as 100 million people in each group trade for 100 years time.

Make it personal.

You want something that someone else has, so you offer something you have in trade for the thing you want, and you don't trust the other person. How does that work?

I can't see it happening unless I am right there face to face with the person I don't trust, and I am armed, and I can't imagine how I got armed, but I am armed, perhaps with a pointed stick, and I insist upon seeing the thing I want, and I insist on testing the thing I want, and while I allow the thing I have to be seen, and while I allow the thing I have to be tested, I am ready to strike out and get the thing I own back as soon as I suspect that the person I don't trust is threatening to take my stuff.

I can add, in that situation, the idea that I want to find other people to help me defend my stuff, to hire people who are willing and capable of violence, if violence is necessary, in order to get my stolen stuff back, in case the person I don't trust does take my stuff, but, I don't have trust, so hiring other people to help me get my stuff back is just another trade that is going to be very difficult for me to perform, having no trust in "my fellow man" - or woman.

How can I reproduce without trust? Without trust will a woman ever procreate, how would that work out?

100 years time is enough time for one group, without trust, to fail in the work of reproduction  - extinction.

Is trust a weakness?

Ask an honest criminal. Will you be able to trust the answer? Ask the politician you hired to lie to you; if you ask, and the answer is yes, can you trust that the politician you hire to lie to you is lying to you?

When someone, like Gary North, keeps on blaming the socialists for bad things, is Gary North blaming all the socialists, including the voluntary ones, or is Gary North blaming only the criminal socialists? Can I trust that he is aware of any non-criminal, voluntary, socialists? I'm having a hard time with such trust at this point. I've read Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, and if I had to trust either Gary North or Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, if my life depended on such a personal appraisal, or if my loved one's lives depended upon the right decision to trust the right person, based upon what I have read about those two, I'd flip a coin. I trust both.

I also think that Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn would, if he could have, treated Gary North equitably, and would not, if he could have, published false or misleading words that target the good moral standing of Gary North, the good faith and credit of Gary, and as far as I can tell, if I can trust my own measure of things, the reverse is not true, as Gary North is, as far as I can tell, besmirching, discrediting, defaming, and injuring the good name of Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, by falsifying the meanings of Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn's words. That is my guess. I prefer to know the truth; not guess.

I think that Gary North is trying to injure anyone who challenges the monopoly power of capitalism, as a dominant dogma, and to do so Gary North will collectively punish the voluntary socialists by blaming the voluntary socialists for the crimes done by the involuntary socialists, as if both are one and the same, which they are definitively not, and to collectively punish everyone, for the crimes of the few, is exactly the same thing done by every criminal, so as to weaken all the innocent people and so as to strengthen the criminals by that close association.

The good people, good by their thoughts, and good by their actions, are dirtied, made less good looking, by the close miss-association with the criminals.

The bad people, bad by their thoughts, and bad by their actions, are less evil looking, by the close miss-association with the good people.

In the name of making capitalism look good, be it voluntary capitalism, or be it involuntary capitalism, all socialists are maliciously attacked and falsely blamed for the crimes committed by the involuntary socialists.

Can I trust that my viewpoint is true? When evidence contradicts my viewpoint I'll have reason to distrust my viewpoint, not until then, since so much evidence, so far, supports my viewpoint.

Why blame all socialists for the crimes a few, twice, once the error is known, and once the false association is repeated, it is no longer an error, it is a willful deception.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 10:09 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
06-01-2011

Listening to Alex Jones.

I heard Alex explain the situation in Texas where the criminals running the Texas government are demanding payments or executing punishment when honest productive people intend to, and then accomplish home electric power production; solar panels, wind mills, etc.

Later Alex Jones claims that they blame capitalism for their crimes so as to pave the way for socialism which is their goal.

Who is they?

If they can be known, then it can be known if they want socialism or capitalism. If they cannot be known, then how can what they want be known?

If they are criminals, with badges, then they want organized crime, not capitalism, and not socialism, they want organized crime.

Why would anyone claim that they want capitalism, when they actually want organized crime?

Why would anyone claim that they want socialism, when they actually want organized crime?

Why would anyone claim that they want Federalism, when they actually want organized crime?

What do they want?

Now I hear Alex actually ask:

"What do they stand for?" as an introduction to a song:

http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/tippin-aaron/youve-got-to-stand-for-something-9063.html

If someone stands for an involuntary association, what do they stand for?

What is the word that will accurately communicate the desire for perpetual crime; whereby many people plan on injuring innocent people, and then many people execute that plan?

What is the word that will accurately communicate organized crime?

1. Organized Crime
2. Involuntary Associations
3. Master and Slave relations
4. Crime and Victim relations
5. Dictator and Subject relations
6. Fascism/Capitalism
7. Communism/Socialism
8. Nationalism/Consolidated Government
9. Limited Liability Corporate Legal Fiction
10. Dictatorship/Cult of Personality
11. Legal Crime

When "they" are ambiguous, on purpose, what does that confess? If asked, what does the answer confess, if the answer is an ambiguous answer?

A. Ignorance (as to who "they" really are)
B. Willful deceit (so as to keep who "they" really are unaccounted for, ambiguous, false, confusing, inaccurately communicated)

If "they" never answer questions, what does that confess?

I hear Alex saying:

"They were demonizing the Founding Fathers."

Which one's?

Alexander Hamilton was identified as an agent for the English Monarchy by some of the Founding Fathers.

There were two groups in the Founding Father group.

A. Nationalists (involuntary association, or, legal crime) posing as "Federalists" - using the good name of "Federalist" to cover their true color, which was Nationalist, or "consolidated (monopoly) government".

B. Federalists (who were falsely labeled by the Nationalists as "Anti-Federalists")

In whose best interest is it to keep the victims ignorant by manufacturing and perpetuating false language, false data, false "information", false-hood?

If bad people are collected into the same group as good people the result is that the bad people appear to be not-so-bad by close (and false) association with good people; while, at the same time, the good people appear to be worse by close association with the bad people - in a word: prejudice.

The thief yells "thief" and points to an innocent person. What happens? Will those who are good people, people who have the power to prevent crime, and prevent crime without violence, be misdirected by the "news" that purports to accurately identify a thief, be shunted, wasted, misdirected, grounded, short circuited, lost, wasted, and even be used in the work of helping crime perpetuate?

Back to the concept of home power production, with solar panels, or wind mills, or Modular Home Vertical Farming Units (making food or algae based gasoline for running any car currently running on petroleum powered gasoline), and going back to that viewpoint so as to accurately discriminate the differences between voluntary socialism, voluntary capitalism, involuntary socialism, involuntary capitalism, crime, legal crime, and honest productive employment of power, equity, freedom, liberty, and good political economy.

Is the idea to know? Is the idea to remain ignorant?

What is The Grid?

If The Grid is owned by one person then The Grid is an electrical connection owned by one person and if there is only one grid: then The Grid is a working monopoly electrical connection, then who can complain if that one person, with that monopoly, charges "that which the market will bear" for the use of The Grid?

Confused: do you have no idea why I'm pointing this out to you?

What is socialism (voluntary socialism and absolutely not involuntary socialism)?

What is capitalism (voluntary capitalism and absolutely not to be confused with involuntary capitalism)?

What is The Grid? What is the electrical connection running from sea to shining sea across the geographical area known as America?

What is the electrical connection running from sea to shining sea across the legal fiction known as The United States of America?

Who owns The Grid?

You, yes you, whomever is reading this, will not answer the question publicly, for whatever individual reason you have, but the answer goes directly into the definition of capitalism, and the definition of socialism, as both are defined by the very people who define socialism and capitalism.

What is The Internet?

Who owns it?

What is the network of roads that cars drive on in that place between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean whereby Canada boarders the north and Mexico boarders the south?

Who owns those roads?

Who owns sunlight?

Who owns air?

Who owns The Military?

You have to answer those questions before you can claim to command (or own) the understanding, the power, to accurately discriminate between that which is socialism and that which is capitalism (voluntary or involuntary). If you do not answer those questions, you fail to earn the authority to know the facts, you fail to be in a position to dictate the truth to anyone, and your claims, if you still claim to command the power of knowledge, falsely, amounts to either ignorant error or willful deception.

Once you have been challenged, to either produce the facts, or stop claiming to have that power, and you continue to ignore the challenge, and you continue to fail to produce the facts, and you continue to keep claiming to have the power of knowledge, despite being exposed as someone who fails to meet the challenge, then you choose to be deceitful. Why do you do that, if that is what you do?

There are a few possibilities:

1. You choose to produce and perpetuate lies, so as to reduce the power of the truth, and keep people ignorant, rendering them power-less.
2. You choose to produce and perpetuate lies, so as to eliminate the force of competition, to keep the power of truth competitively absent - less powerful.
3. You choose to produce and perpetuate lies, so as to profit from the knowledge you command over the victims that you intend to, and accomplish, perpetual ignorance, perpetual confusion, perpetual ambiguity, perpetual grey area, perpetual argumentation, perpetual division, so as to perpetuate your dominion over your hapless, ignorant, victims.

Knowing that accurate facts, such as the accurate factual identification, and accounting, of the criminals, accurately discriminating the difference between the criminals, and the victims, is possible, and once that power is gained, once that possibility becomes real, that knowledge can then be kept secret, and used, to perpetuate victimization, or that accurate knowing, that factual understanding, and that power can be passed on to other victims, given to them, or sold to them, to empower the victims, to help the victims, to be powerful enough to avoid further victimization.

Back to The Grid.

I am speaking about the electrical grid that connects anyone who needs electricity to anyone who produces electricity.

I am speaking about this connection because it, the connection, defines capitalism or socialism or both, or something new, something that is not capitalism nor socialism.

If you are in California, for example, and you want, or need, electricity, you can pay for it, or you can make it yourself, at home, and once upon a time there was an enforced law that perpetuated a monopoly power company power, and that law can be known, and it can be know truthfully, and it can be known accurately, and therefore it can be communicated to anyone as it truly is, in reality.

If The Grid is a private ownership thing, in California, or in your city, or on your block of houses in your city, or in your country area lot, or farm, or acre, or ranch, or valley, or river front, or mountain, then the private owners have exclusive control over that connection, that example of The Grid. That is what it is, in that case, wherever that fact is factual. A private owner owns The Grid.

What stops someone else as someone else offers a competitive connection to compete with The Grid?

If nothing stops a competitive connection to compete with The Grid, then competition will force the quality of The Grid up, and the cost of The Grid down, because that is how that works in reality, and it works that way if the people who choose to connect to the higher quality grid, and the lower cost grid, think that they are being capitalists, or if the people choosing to be connected to the better grid think that they are choosing to be socialists.

What power stops anyone from offering a better grid?

Why not make it personal, if you think that the questions now challenging you are stupid, and if you think that just maybe the questions that are now challenging you are, remotely, worth answering?

If you know that it is much cheaper to make your own electricity at home, if you do realize that you can no longer afford to pay "the going rate" for electricity flowing to you from The Grid, and that realization, that you suddenly realize, is one step to another obvious step, where you further your knowledge, and you suddenly become aware of the fact that you can, by your industry, begin "making a living", and you can begin increasing your "income", by expanding your cheap, inexpensive, competitive, home electric power production, to make more than you consume, and they having more power than the power you consume, you realize that you can sell that excess power, what do you realize at that point?

A. You gain power through The Grid.
B. You can use The Grid to gain even more power.

Who owns The Grid?

When The Grid is a monopoly power, as it was in California, as it may be in Texas, then The Grid is exclusive, it is a one way street, it is a flow of "profit" from the consumers going to the one, exclusive, producer, and if you do produce power at home, with solar panels, or wind mills, or tide generators, or algae powered internal combustion engine electric generators, then, you are outside the law, against the law, an out law, if you sell electricity to other people.

If The Grid is a monopoly, a single owner, a single legal fiction owner (if there is a "collective" ownership of more than one separate and sovereign human being), then how does it remain a monopoly despite all competitive forces such as yourself, as you begin to use the power you have to begin producing more power than you consume, and when you produce abundant surplus power, so much more surplus power over the power you consume, that you can begin to sell excess power to other people if there was no monopoly power preventing you from doing so?

Suppose, for example, that you are one farmer on a lot in the middle of the valley, and as a side product, in addition to corn, or wheat, or cattle, or all of those products, you also begin producing electric power with a movable Solar Panel rack, covering overused land that is then fertilized to reinvigorate, re-power, the soil, and you begin producing Algae for motor fuel in Modular Vertical Farming Units, and you begin to produce more power with wind mills, and you begin to produce more power with electric generators that run on algae fuel (generators that were made to run in diesel fuel but they now run on algae fuel instead), and to the east of you, to the west of you, to the north of you, and to the south of you, are farmers, like you, who pay more for electricity than your less expensive electric price - suppose you do that, or something similar.

Your neighbors north, east, south, and west pay a higher price for electricity from the one monopoly Grid and you can offer them electricity at half that "going rate", and so you set about to do so, and then what happens? You find out that The Grid is a one way street. You find out that you can get electricity from the monopoly Grid, but you find out that you can't sell electricity to your neighbors through the monopoly Grid, because the law say that you can't do that, to bad for you. You can make much more electricity, power, than you consume, but the law says that you cannot offer that power at a competitive price. You can make more power, but you can't make more power, because the law prevents you from selling power at a competitive price.

That was the law in California until just recently the law was changed, as far as I know at this time. What is the law in Texas?

If the same farmer decides to invest in wires that will by-pass the "private" owners of The Grid (one person "privately" owning The Grid, or a legal fiction "collective" ownership "private" legal entity, that is also "limited liability"), and the home power producing farmer makes his own Grid, and his neighbors to the north, east, south, and west will now consume power, at half "the going rate", half price, then who has a problem with that increase in power production? Who says no? Why does someone say no? Who sides with the "no" more power vote? Who has the power to stop someone from producing more power? Why does someone have an interest in stopping someone from producing more power?

If you now have a working understanding of The Grid, because you thought about it, and now you have a working understanding of The Grid, then use that understanding to help in the effort to understand money.

Use the more powerful understanding of power to know why some people choose to perpetuate lies.

Let me know how that goes for you.

Then tell me why someone feels the need to demonize (voluntary) socialism, or (voluntary) capitalism?

I have my theories.

They must reduce the production of power so as to keep the power supply down to a manageable level; failing to do so will allow the victims the opportunity to become powerful enough to avoid victimization.

They must destroy competition where ever and when ever competition arises; failing to do so will allow the victims the opportunity to become powerful enough to avoid victimization as competitors will be offering higher quality (more powerful) stuff at lower costs (more powerful by that measure too).

Money is no different, as a power, than electricity. Your mind has been stolen from you if you think that money is an exclusive monopoly power owned by someone other than you. You can know the truth, empower yourself - please.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 01:03 am
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gen-hamid-gul-us-will-start-ww3-if-war-expands-to-pakistan.html

Anyone,

Anyone who has begun seeking accurate information concerning the power struggle, by any name, war, politics, economics, capitalism, socialism, nationalism, law, order, torture, mass murder, enslavement, dictatorship, victimization, whatever word accurately identifies what I call The Problem, anyone on that path, will encounter the factor of money.

Look at the video, watch it, and get to time 9:40 in that report.

Listen to the following quote (in context):

...the enforcement of Sharia... ...because the Americans and the west will not want the Sharia. The Sharia as an alternative social monetary system, because this is what they are fighting there is Afghanistan, that new system must not emerge, a new fiscal system, a new monetary system, a new system of equality, which Islam exposes, they are basically fighting the system.


I have spoken of this before, and it reaches the core principle, or to play with words: The National Interest.

A money monopoly cannot exist as soon as competition begins to take over market share, one person at a time, one day at a time, or many people all at once in one fell swoop, the process occurs slowly, or the process occurs swiftly, it occurs, as day overcomes night, as truth overcomes falsehood, and warmth overcomes vicious lethal cold, and good overcomes evil, the force of competition is voluntary, welcome, higher in quality, and lower in cost, and it takes over, nonviolently, the monopoly money enforcement power; and the monopoly money enforcement power is deceitful, fraudulent, it relies upon threats of violence, and it must include actual, willful, premeditated, use of horrendous violence upon the innocent victims in order for the monopoly money power to remain in force, as the monopoly money power must regulate the production of power to a manageable level, and the monopoly money power must use the stolen power in the work of eliminating competition where ever, and when ever competition arises.

Without honest productive people there is no power that can be stolen by the monopoly money power, and once competition is in force the honest productive people can choose higher quality and lower cost measures of the power they alone create.

If The Dollar Hegemony, or The Fed, or The Globalists, or the New World Order, or whomever is on the receiving end of The U.S. National Debt, is unable to enforce The Dollar money monopoly upon anyone else, including people in Afghanistan, people choosing Islamic Finance, or The Sharia, there will then be no one, any longer, connected to the flow of power shown in The U.S. National Debt clock, in that land, as they choose a competitive alternative.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Power flows one way in that system,  by that measure, or by a more accurate measure done by each individual connected to that exclusive legal monetary crime network. That system can be called socialism. That system can be called capitalism. That system can be called fried chicken. The numbers record the flow of power. A paper, and a digital, trail records the flow of power in that systematic criminal fraud system; that money monopoly system.

Call it The Dollar Hegemony, call it whatever you wish, just don't call it late for dinner, as you live, or die, at it's exclusive pleasure.

If Americans can learn anything from the event that avoids WWIII, whereby The Dollar Hegemony fails to enforce their criminal fraud on the people of Afghanistan, and the leaders of The Dollar Hegemony walk away from that enforcement of that crime in that land, it will be knowledge of the power of competition, and if Americans can learn that much, then Americans can begin seeking competition in money markets at home, and in that way a new regime at home will emerge, as monetary suppliers will be forced to increase the quality of money, at home, and decrease the cost of money at home, or monetary suppliers, like The Fed, and/or Wall Street, or The Dollar Hegemony, will go out of business as all their former customers choose the better, and less expensive alternative. The capitalists can pat themselves on their own backs, and the socialists can high five each other, as everyone takes credit for the new age of monetary competition, being rewarded for their wisdom in supporting a peaceful solution to a very troubling, torturous, and mass murderous problem, the enforced money monopoly.

If Americans can't learn that much, then the problem will continue, and the problem will get worse, and those who pay the price will pay more, or those that pay the price will fail to produce anything, and as fewer and fewer honest productive people are unable to produce more, more and more people will be seeking control over the shrinking supply of power, or surplus wealth, or whatever word, or whatever term, accurately identifies the stuff the criminals seek, and at some point the race to the bottom tortures everyone, criminal and victim alike, as the number of honest productive people expire into nothingness - as planned, on schedule.

This is not news. This is as old as human history. When crime pays, more criminals join the club. When crime no longer pays, there aren't any victims left.

America is on schedule for bust, doom day, recession, great depression, as power shifts to China, and Islamic Finance is a relatively small bump in the road, compared to the solution, which is WWIII, on schedule, and to be accomplished, if power remains in the hands of those who work toward that goal, the goal of causing WWIII, so as to shift home base to China.

WWIII is their solution, it is on their schedule, and it's purpose is to redraw the map of the power struggle, on schedule, so as to ensure the perpetuation of their exclusive power over money. If the Middle East is turned into a radioactive parking lot, along with whatever those powers in those lands can do in retaliation, so be it, what does it matter to the legal criminals, when that is a viable option on the schedule, if that will accomplish the goals that the money monopoly power seeks.

1. Limit power to a level that is manageable; do not ever let power reach a level that affords the victims the means by which they victims can avoid victimization.

2. Use the power stolen to eliminate competition where ever, and when ever competition arises.

3. Boom specific markets on schedule so as to have inside information as to when to sell ownership of things at the highest prices possible, things purchased at the bottom of the man-made (criminal made) business cycle, and cause a bust on schedule so as to have inside information as to when to buy ownership of things when prices are at the lowest price, on schedule; and do so by expanding and contracting the one legal money supply in the targeted area, and in the market targeted for exploitation.

One method of stealing the power away from those who create it, from the honest productive people, is by way of a legal monopoly fraud "interest"  payment charged to anyone who needs the single legal monopoly money product, and everyone who is targeted for taxation will be in need of that exclusive monetary product - such as The Dollar.

That is all I have to say at this time.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 04:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Josf, with regard to the currency question, do you support a citizens dividend as outlined here:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=161315.0

Yes or no? I'd also like to hear why.


freedom_commonsense,

I can't speak for or against a citizens dividend without a much more accurate understanding of who wants to do what to whom and when.

I have read enough at this point to get a general idea as to what is being proposed.

If a citizens dividend is created and then implemented it will, as far as I understand it so far, be an example of a competitive legal money system, and as such, if I understand it well enough, it will either cause The Fed to go out of business, or inspire The Fed (the people in control of it) to improve the quality and reduce the cost of their money system to a higher quality and lower cost compared to the competitor, or The Fed people will use deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence to destroy the citizens dividend legal money system.

If I understand the citizens dividend well enough I will choose it over The Dollar Hegemony as my power to do so becomes my power to do so, and therefore my power will be used to end The Fed extortion crime spree.

I can also say that I think that the citizens dividend sounds like a method of taxation followed by a method of surplus wealth redistribution and so long as the taxation part is voluntary, such as what would be the case in a working Federated Democratic Republic, not the National Consolidated One Nation Government Legal Crime Extortion Racket we have now, under The Constitution, and so long as the surplus wealth redistribution part was as voluntary as the taxation part, and again something that is, as far as I've seen, a real possibility within a working Federated Democratic Republic, and not at all possible, actually against the law, in a Nation State like the one created with The Constitution.

The premise of the citizens dividend, if I understand the concept, is such that there will be surplus wealth, and then once there is surplus wealth, the people in the National Government will take it, somehow, and then once the people running the Nation Government have that surplus wealth taken from those who create it, they then divide it out to people they pick by some method of picking who will get the surplus wealth that the people running the National Government have gained power over.

In a working Federated Democratic Republic the concepts that are now on the table can be illustrated to point out a few general principles involved in what I call The Problem.

The Table (co-conspirators gathering around a table and planning to re-take control over their own Nation Government)

1. Business as usual (The Dollar Hegemony)
2. Citizens Dividend
3. Product 1, and Product 2

Those are the things on the table, as far as I can tell so far.

Suppose that Montana begins using a State wide citizens dividend, and suppose that the people running the criminal National government don't intervene by deceit, or by threats of violence, or by acts of violence to stop that threat to their legal money monopoly power, such as they had done in both Shays's rebellion, when the people running the criminal Massachusetts government suppressed the competitive use of Whiskey as a currency, during that period when the criminals running the Massachusetts government used their monetary money monopoly power to conduct aggressive wars for profit that failed, and then they inflated their legal fraud money, and then they drove out gold from Massachusetts, as people purchased import goods with gold, since import sellers would not accept the fraudulent money, and since the ex-military frontiersmen began making their own money at home, in the form of whiskey, and since a money monopoly can't survive in competition, the rebellion was violently ended, since the rebels didn't fall for the lies that were meant to cover it up, and in the other case: Washington crushed the second Whiskey Rebellion, once the legal criminals had their enabling documents in place, their Constitution, the president is already well set, that Montana is going to have a tough time running a separate competitive legal money system in reality. We can suppose that Montana goes ahead, and we can suppose that Montana begins using the State wide citizens dividend, and we can suppose that the people running The Fed, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) allow it.

We can suppose such things to bring light to the differences between a working Federated Democratic Republic and a Nation State, while we compare that competition with a monetary competition.

So...on the table now are:

I.
Nation State (Dictatorship)
1. The FED legal extortion crime spree in progress
2. Citizens Dividend exclusive to Montana (to see how it works in Montana and to see if it spreads into neighboring States within the operating Dictatorship)
3. Product 1, and Product 2 (which is offered to anyone on the planet, but begins in California initially)

II.
Federated Democratic Republic (such as the Swiss example, or the example offered in history by The Articles of Confederation - before The Constitution created a working Dictatorship)
1. The Fed legal extortion crime spree (accepted voluntarily by all the Separate and Sovereign State governments except Montana and California)
2. Citizens Dividend exclusive to Montana
3. Product 1, and Product 2 exclusive to California  

So far now we suppose that there is one money monopoly as The Fed, with their Dollar. We then suppose that Montana begins an adjustment to the Nation wide legal money system, by implementing a State wide citizens dividend system, and the people in control of the Montana legal apparatus either use The Dollar unit of currency, or they produce and maintain a separate currency, I don't know enough about the citizens dividend to comment on that point, other than to say that The Fed is the source of Dollars, so how does Montana get the Dollars they use to begin their citizens dividend, or, what happens if The Fed decides to change from Boom to Bust, as they are doing now with what they call "tight money policy", or, what happens if the people running the criminal Fed say they are doing one thing while they do the opposite, or what happens to the Montana use of the Dollar in their citizens dividend campaign if The Fed raises the interest rate only to those who borrow Dollars from Montana, and lower the interest rate to everyone else, or what happens if the Fed people decide to cut off the supply of Dollars to anyone within the Nation State, including Montana, while the people at the Fed pump as many new Dollars they create into China, and Europe, and all over the Globe, in preparation for a new World War, while Montana tries to implement a new system of money use, with Dollars as the legal Montana money unit?

Now, to help expose the principle differences between a competitive Federated Democratic Republic, and a one Nation, indivisible, under whatever God imaginable, I can offer a third State, California, in the involuntary or voluntary Union, whereby that State, California, uses Product 1 and Product 2, and that State uses a different legal monetary unit, completely disconnecting from The Dollar extortion racket, as time goes by, since Product 1 is used to pay off all the Dollar Unit loans, one at a time.

So now, for you to consider, are three competitors working out in time, within this Nation State Legal Crime Cabal, or without it (a working Federated Democratic Republic instead of a Nation State), and again it must be assumed that the monopolists keep their minds and hands off the competitors, so as to allow the viewers the chance to view what could happen under that supposed, competitive, scenario.

1. The Dollar keeps doing what it does, where it does what it does, such as what is documented on the National Debt Clock.

2. Montana does what it does with it's working citizens dividend, with or without The Dollar unit of currency as their exclusive legal currency unit - I do not know which choice is taken by the supporters of the citizens dividend.

3. Product 1 and Product 2 begin working in California and I can also remind anyone that those products are offered to anyone on the globe, and the entire transaction can occur on-line from anywhere on the globe, which occurs all the time in modern business practice.

I can speak in detail as to what happens with Product 1 and Product 2, I do not yet see any need to support, or to not support a citizens dividend, since I am ignorant concerning it, other than guesses I have about it, based upon the limited information I have seen so far.

Here is an opportunity to support the best of three competitive examples of government run money competitors as competition forces higher quality and lower cost upon the competitors, so long as one competitor does not begin to use deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence, effectively, in the work to eliminate competition.

I think about The Problem, and the obvious solution often enough, to wake up with it running in my head, for decades, and I can confirm that the solution is a numbers problem, there is power in numbers, and once enough people realize the true nature of the problem, and once enough people realize the essential principles involved in the solution, the problem will cease to be a problem, and that can happen on one day, where the day before the problem existed, and the day after the problem is no longer a problem, so long as enough people solve the problem on that new day.

Set a date on the calender, much like a date to March on Washington with guns and a rope, only make the protest date a peaceful day of total revolution, and on that coming date the people decide to use a better, competitive, money - effective on that date. If not enough people are ready on that date, the date moves to a later date, and when enough people are ready, the revolution happens on that date, those left holding the Dollar Debt Bag, on that date, lose, but they were given advance notice, and while people maneuver to get their power to control their legal portions of surplus wealth it can become very evident as to who is friend and who is foe, such is the nature of open, and honest, competition.

Once the day when enough people have signed onto the new declaration of independence, and everyone having an interest in the event know that the new money will be used, and the old money will be discarded, those who still think they can get something for nothing with the old money, may, or may not, depending upon who is left holding that empty bag.

If the people wanting to solve the problem insist upon using the cause of the problem to solve the problem then that is what they do, I don't. I see no point at all in supporting a solution that intends to use the cause of the problem as a means of solving the problem, if that is what the citizens dividend is, in fact.

Does the citizens dividend intend to use the National (monopoly) government apparatus, as it now exists, to solve the problem, complete with The Dollar unit of currency? If so, then, how does that solution intend to address the National Debt?

Product 1 and Product 2 intends to replace The Dollar as the best money choice that most of the honest productive people will choose to use, once they have a choice, instead of having no choice, or one choice, and that one choice happens to be one of, if not the worst, competitors on the global monetary monopoly money extortion racket market.  

Product 1 and Product 2 can start anywhere on the planet where enough people involved constitute a powerful force of diverse skills and abilities that are required to produce high standards of living, both products do not work without division of labor, specialization, and economies of a scale that is sufficient to be independent, and remain independent against criminal aggression of any scale on the planet.

If you have read what I just wrote, again not a sound bite, and you do not agree that the supposed competition between separate States begins to expose, or illustrate, the concept of a Federated Democratic Republic, then I think you fail to understand the concept, but go ahead and blame me for your failure - because that is how you are programmed to respond to things that tax your brain.

If you understand the concept but still do not agree with the concept, then how can I know why you don't agree with the concept if you do not explain why you disagree with the concept? If you think, for example, that a citizens dividend will work, competitively, against Product 1, and Product 2, in California, while your citizens dividend works in all the other States in the Involuntary Union, then explain how that works, in your mind.

In my mind Product 1, if it is offered, and if it is made legal, world wide, nation wide, or just California State wide, will take over the market in a very short time, as people turn in their old Dollar denominated mortgages, and begin using, demanding, getting paid with, the new competitive money, and that has not even begun to explore what will happen when Product 2 moves into general use.

If you think that I have no capacity to understand the citizens dividend thing, then think again, such things are well covered in Equitable Commerce, a link I have already linked, and if that isn't enough, to explain the concept of a citizens dividend (based upon surplus wealth), then read:

http://anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm The Science of Society

In those sources it becomes clear that surplus wealth accumulates in large sums as a direct result of the generally accepted practice of fixing the price of something according to the demand for it, which is an outdated, and obviously destructive practice, that is falling by the wayside, as surplus wealth grows, when it is allowed to grow, and while it continues to grow despite all the enormous force that is designed to prevent the growth of surplus wealth.

When surplus wealth no longer accumulates in large sums, as a result of prices that are jacked up by monopoly forces, the result is wealth redistribution, by way of open, and honest, competition, and therefore more surplus wealth is produced by more people, there is then more surplus wealth, and therefore the unit of monetary currency gains purchasing power (assuming that the supply is not deceitfully, or fraudulently, inflated, or deflated) as a direct result of less monopoly power causing prices going higher than cost, and more open and honest competition forcing quality up and price down - to cost.

I have to cut off my reply to meet the demand for it, down to a sound bite, from my viewpoint. Please do not take my "if the shoe fits, wear the shoe" words personally, unless the shoe fits, then it stand to reason that you will wear the shoe, and take it personally. I do not target anyone with my words that intend to fit the shoe on those who wear that shoe, so again, please, don't take anything I say, addressed to anyone, personally, unless the shoe fits. If the shoe does not fit, why would you wear the shoe? I am being civil despite the enormity of The Problem as facts intend to overpower fiction.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 05:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28226.htm

Honest productive Americans,

The link above exemplifies the cost of falsehood; when honest productive people are misdirected they will work to solve a problem by employing the cause of the problem.

If the problem is accurately identified as the abuse of punishment to enforce debt collection, then what is the solution?

A debtor fails to pay a debt, a debt collector then gains access to a legal enforcer, the legal enforcer then captures, arrests, or otherwise imprisons the debtor for failing to pay a debt, and in case of resistance to arrest, the punishment routine escalates as the legal enforcer is trained to enforce the law, and the legal enforcer is not trained to be overpowered by those who the legal enforcer has targeted.

I know, my words appear to be foreign, to many, as if I spoke in a foreign language, but I am informing you of the need to regain control of our common language.

If the law enforcer is worth anything the law enforcer will overpower the object of his, or her, attention, not the opposite, and therefore it is vital to employ law enforcers in moral work, not "just" legal work.

Laws can obviously be immoral, as those who write laws are typically those who are known liars, such is the State of our (involuntary) Union.

It is past time to declare a war on Falsehood, and begin taking back the control we lost over our language.

If it is acceptable to punish those who fail to repay loans then why would anyone ever decide to start at the bottom and work their way up?

If it is acceptable, moral, lawful, legal, right, and even a majority rule, to employ the law power in the work of punishing those who are found guilty of failing to repay loans, then, having established that goal, why not start at the top and work down from the top, to see if the idea works, instead of starting at the bottom, where the evidence that must be used to establish working, or not working, facts are small, insignificant, and ambiguous numbers.

Why start arresting, and imprisoning, and punishing, dime and nickle debtors, when there are trillion dollar debtors accused, and confessed, in abundance?

The FED people borrow money from The Good Faith and Credit of The American Tax Payers, also knowable as the honest productive people of America, the only source of surplus wealth, the place where the value of legal money is produced.

When did The FED people make their last payment back into the fund from which they borrow the money they borrow, and the same money they lend, or sell, to other people so as to profit by that use of that money?

The FED people borrow trillions of dollars, not nickles and dimes, and therefore, again, if it is established, by law, already, to set the power of law enforcement to the task of punishing people who fail to pay back debts, then why not work at the top 10, America's Most Wanted, instead of the petty criminals who are found guilty of failing to pay back insignificant debts; no longer assumed to be innocent until proven guilty?

See how some questions will not be answered by people who actually do not understand the scope of the problems that they expend their power, their lives, to solve?

What explains the often repeated mistake of purporting to employ the cause of the problem as a means by which the problem will be solved?

You have to get past the false front to get to the accurate answer.

There are no short cuts.

So, supposing that it is a good idea to punish guilty debtors, failing to repay debts, and then supposing that one of The FED people, the one found most guilty of failing to pay back the most money ever borrowed, the number one guy, or gal, on America's Most Wanted Top 10 list, and that guilty person does find his, or her, behind in jail.

How is that working for us at that point, compared to a million much lesser criminals begin arrested, and punished, and imprisoned, for failing to pay back much less than the one worst criminal?

The one worst criminal is then accurately known to have borrowed trillions, failed to pay back one cent, and the next one after that one is also in prison, and the top 10, also confessed, or also found guilty, and also in prison, and new criminals take over their jobs at the top of the food chain at The FED, and at that time the honest productive people in America are paying for 10 criminals doing time in lush prisons, or not so lush prisons, depending upon where those 10 actually do their time, while the new FED employes continue to borrow trillions, and fail to pay back one dime, so the productive people in America still pay that bill too as the borrowed money is spent on Booming the Chinese Economy, or the propping up the European Economy, or running aggressive wars for profit, or whatever other secret, undisclosed, expense that borrowed money buys.

How does that work? How much does it cost to keep 10 of the worst criminals in a prison, failing to pay debts, compared to how much it costs to keep a million lesser criminals in prison?

What do the 10 worst criminals learn in their lush prisons, with satellite T.V., and conjugal visits with captive under age sex slaves, compared to what the millions of lesser criminals learn in their prisons where they will be tortured, gang raped, sodomized, and where their punishments may never end?

What is the cost of falsehood, and who pays that cost?

Is it past time to know better?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 09:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.infowars.com/the-spirit-of-thomas-jefferson-lives-in-nullification/



Anyone,

I do not see the wisdom in beating a dead horse. My idea is to use the same tactics that the enemies of liberty use to enslave their victims, and they use repetition to reinforce specific angles of view.

A victim may be exposed to the same message through magazine articles, books, newspaper articles, radio broadcasts, television shows, as the basic principle is repeated over, and over, and over, and the effect is something called "gaining currency" as the message spreads like a popular song.

The Legal Crime message is one word:

Obey

There is no need to expand upon that theme other than variety, or boredom, that is the essence of the message, it is all that is needed, so long as there is no opposition - no competition. So long as there is no power left to oppose the one message.

Obey

What happens if the intended victims invent a competitive alternative?

The message remains the same, but the message must then be sugar coated by some means. The words "sugar coating" exemplify the process, actually, because the accurate work is "falsify".

The message is Obey.

When opposition to obedience is encountered by those who produce and enforce the message the response is to falsify the message.

The message remains the same thing; falsification is used to nullify opposition to obedience.

What happens if the targeted victims continue to oppose obedience even as falsification reaches over-abundance; what happens when falsification is so ubiquitous that concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, liberty and slavery, war and peace, truth and fiction, are ambiguous concepts, mysteries, grey area, and opposites in meaning?

What happens when war is peace?

What happens when right is wrong?

What happens when truth is fiction?

What happens when liberty is slavery?

What happens when right is wrong?

What happens when torture is fun?

What happens when life is death?

If we are all not dead, by then, it may be a good idea to begin using the same tactic that moved things to this point, to move things back the other way, and to do that, it may be necessary to be as diligent, to be as tenacious, and to be as consistent, deliberate, and repetitive, in reinforcing the exposure of falsehood, and reinforcing a more accurate viewpoint of reality.

If the idea is to support The Constitution and to depend upon The Dollar to do so, then how can such a goal explain the actual history of The Constitution and The Dollar?

The Constitution enabled what we have now, going back to it, may be the lesser of two evils, assuming that getting back to it is possible, which is a huge assumption since The Constitution is the thing preventing "us" from getting back to "our" control of The Constitution, by design, but assuming that it is possible to get back to limited government, limited by The Constitution, what happens once "we" reach back to that preferred limit of government, when, The Dollar still gives free, and unlimited, access to the production of surplus wealth to the legal criminals?

In other words, where to "we" get the power to regain, and limit, the Nation State (enabled to be a Nation State by The Constitution enabling documentation), while our power to survive is stolen from us through the legal money monopoly fraud dollar system of extortion?

"We" can't accumulate enough power to pay off our debt, by design, let alone have enough power to oppose those who steal our power.

Who has enough power to spare, to use excess power in the work of opposing criminal legal power?

The people who have managed to use the legal criminal power system, so as to take their piece of the pie, are now complaining about their system of extortion, and now they want to stem the accelerating rate of acceleration toward absolute despotism, because too many fellow legal criminals are having too much trouble squeezing their division of the booty from the shrinking supply of honest, productive, gullible, and stupid victims?

The worst of the worst on the top of the pyramid scheme are ordering too much obedience from the actual productive group, the leadership of the parasites are too greedy, and the lower level parasites are unhappy about their shrinking supply of profits, and now there are divisions occurring among the ranks of the parasites?

Where are you going to stash your booty, as the criminal income stream dries up, so as to avoid being forced down into the class of victims?

What explains the complete lack of ignorance concerning the historical fraud behind The Constitution and The Dollar unit of currency?

Why does anyone support legal crime?

Is it ignorance?

It isn't ignorance once the accurate facts are understood by the ignorant, and then the ignorant is no longer ignorant, and if then the no-longer-ignorant still support legal crime, the only other option is willful support of legal crime.

What explains a lack of response to information that exposes support for legal crime?

A response will confess awareness of the accurate information, and such a confession will blow off the false cover, and once the false cover is blown off, the confession confesses the truth, that the person does, in fact, support legal crime - for whatever reason.

If a person works at challenging the National government, be aware, that person opposes an official, lawful, interpretation of The Constitution, and this has already occurred on occasions such as The Whiskey Rebellion, The Alien and Sedition Acts, The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, The Civil War, and other examples.

The Constitution was designed by Monarchists, Dictator's to be, hiding behind a false front of Federalism, and it was designed to be constructively interpreted, and both The Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights are diametrically opposed to that legal crime document.

A. The Declaration of Independence (enabling document used to explain resistance to criminal government)
B. The Constitution (enabling document used to excuse the use of government to commit crimes, including the suppression of rebellions that are examples of resistance to criminal governments)
C. The Bill of Rights (a last ditch effort by the falsely labeled Anti-Federalists to resist the criminal empowering Constitution)

What happens when those facts are reported to someone and the person who then knows those facts decide to continue supporting, without reservation, The Constitution?

What does that confess about that person, if that person is known, beyond a shadow of doubt, to be a person who knows those accurate facts?

The Constitution was designed to be a fraud, was fraudulently imposed upon the ignorant masses, and it continues to be the enabling document used by the current criminals to steal as much power from the honest productive people in America as can be stolen, and then use that stolen power to accomplish the goals of all organized criminals.

1. Limit the production of power down to a manageable level; failure to do so will enable the victims to overpower their oppressors.
2. Incorporate all criminal powers into one exclusive dominant power; recruit willing, and welcome, fellow criminals; in one word: Monopoly
3. Destroy competition where ever and when ever competition arises; failure to do so will force the quality of everything produced up, including the production of moral government, and including the production of accurate, and powerful, money, and honest, productive, competition will force cost down, again, even the cost of moral government will be forced down, and again, even the cost of accurate, and powerful, money cost (interest) will be forced down; failure to destroy competition, by definition, destroys monopoly.

If going back to The Constitution is a goal, the lesser of two evils, such a goal can be understood as such; but claiming that The Constitution was, is, or will be a moral law is either ignorant, or it is a false claim done on purpose for some un-confessed, true, motive.

Keeping the dollar, along with all the debt recorded within that legal system of money, as if honest productive people are somehow morally held accountable for the crimes committed by the legal criminals who stole the power produced by the honest productive Americans who are connected to that legal crime in progress, can be a goal.

Keeping the dollar can be a goal.

Paying the debts caused by those who ran, and are still running, for now, The Dollar Hegemony, can be a goal.

Why is that a goal?

Why would anyone supporting that goal fail to answer my questions?

Honest productive American people are the source of The Good Faith and Credit of The United States of America. Honest productive American people create the stuff that was borrowed. Who owes whom, what?

Who is claiming that they are owed something from whom?

Who borrowed money from the capacity of the honest productive American people?

If someone borrowed money from the capacity of the honest productive American people, then that person has a name, and if there is more than one person who has done that, then there are more names of people who have borrowed money from the capacity of the honest productive American people.

Do you still have a brain in your head? Can you comprehend the difference between a Creditor and a Debtor?

The Debtor is the person who borrows the money from a Creditor.

LOOK:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Who owes whom?

Who borrowed from whom?

Who is the beneficiary?

Why is finance complicated beyond the capacity of an honest productive American to know the simple difference between a person who borrows money and a person who lends money?

Do you think that you owe someone, anyone, any money, if you did not ask to borrow anything from anyone?

Even if you think that you owe someone for the home mortgage that you did ask for, sign for, and receive, because that is the way things were done in America, why can't you now know that there are options to that system of fraud; whereby you have to buy two houses, not one, and a second entire home cost is paid by you in interest to someone else, and that constitutes, in real terms, a crime.

What on earth explains the requirement of an honest productive American, who has earned, is earning, and will earn Good Faith and Credit, to have to come up with twice as much earnings to buy one home?

Who is lying to whom?

Who is believing, and living, such lies; actually to the point that people hire known liars to lie, and then actually taking on a second job, so as to afford an unimaginably powerful reward awarded to the most efficient criminals who are hired to lie?

Who is the debtor? Who borrowed the money that is recorded as that National Debt? Who is the creditor? Who loaned the money? Who is owed all that money that was borrowed?

Can you see the big lie yet? Have you looked yet at Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports yet? Do you still believe the lie that the hired liars keep repeating, over, and over again, that we are broke, and that "we" have borrowed to much money from someone, and that if "we" don't pay back all that money, plus interest, to that person that "we" borrowed all that money from, then "we" are in big, big, trouble?

Do you actually believe that lie; because the liars you hired to lie to you are really, really, good at lying to you?

Really?

Explain to me, please, why no one answers my questions. I've been at this for decades. You may just be beginning to see things I've been seeing for decades, and no one answers; where are your "authorities"?

Product 1 is a no interest home mortgage loan to anyone on the planet who has earned, does earn, and will earn good faith and credit. What is wrong with such a product?

Will one of your hire liars claim that there is no demand for such a thing?

Will one of your hired liars claim that such a thing isn't profitable enough to attract that mysterious entrepreneurial spirit?

Would you buy Product 1?

If you could submit a competitive bid to gain a license to produce and maintain the product 1, and product 2, paper work, could you, and would you do so if you knew how much potential income was going to flow into your person bank account as everyone who buys Product 2 sends you a 1% "piece of the action", as they use that Good Faith and Credit to produce more and more and more surplus wealth?

How about some numbers?

If Product 2 is on the shelf at the bank and you walk in and you "go for it" and you buy enough Good Faith and Credit, at 1% interest, to rig your home, in California, to begin using the Sun to make electricity, and you then make enough electricity to run your home, and enough to pay back the loan, and enough to sell, so as to generate a steady income, then you do that yourself, and what happens of similar people do similar things across America; and look at a few numbers.

Suppose that 1 million people buy Product 2 from you. You also have to process all the Product 1 loans you are selling (give away the razor), so as to sell Product 2 (so as to sell the razor blades), and then suppose that the average loan is a 30 year loan, low monthly payment, and the average loan amount is 1,000 dollars.

1,000,000 (1 million people)
1,000 (1 thousand dollars)

6 zeros added to 3 zeros equals 9 zeros.

1,000,000,000

Divided by 1% (we are now doing "high finance" as stupid as we are, we can do it, if we want to, if we are so bold, so incredible audacious)

Stumped?

How about cheating with a calculator, or just take 2 zeros off the total, whichever works for you, or do both.

I'll do the calculator first (there is one on this computer)

1000000000 x .01 = 10000000

The zeros are small and hard to count, I count 7.

Now the take away 2 zeros method:

10,000,000

A licensed franchise Product 1, and Product 2, producer, and maintainer, seller, and profiteer, can make 10 million dollars, in 30 years, for doing what - exactly?

An on-line computer program, with encrypted, backed-up encrypted, mirrored, and mutually exclusive encoded software programs, or some such already well used hardware and software, can automate almost all of the human labor, and so, what explains the cost of the loan, and is that, conceivably, a profitable venture able to inspire an entrepreneurial spirit?

Is that the official denouncement of my illustrated example of legal monetary competition: that there is no demand for such a thing, that such a thing will cost too much, no one will buy into it, it does not inspire growth, it does not afford profitability?

10,000,000 dollars (not dollars, exactly, some other unit of currency so as to disconnect from The Dollar Hegemony extortion racket whereby the creditors have been fooled into thinking they are the debtors)

10,000,000 dollars, over 30 years, for maintaining a licensed, automated, networked, computer program?

Do you think that Microsoft, Google, Paypal, Skype, Amazon.com, and other "legal fictions" will be falling over each other to submit a higher quality and lower cost bid for their license? How many licenses are needed?

Currently there is one license. Currently the holders of the one license to "print" legal money have awarded themselves said license, and that group have also given themselves the license to use that money printing license to steal all the surplus wealth that can possibly be stolen, and they give themselves, each new top boss in turn, a license to torture, to mass murder, and to threaten the human species with extinction.

And the ignorant masses prefer ignorance, which is a stupid decision, but one that is ordered; as part of the one order to be obeyed.

Obey

There is no other option.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jun 9th, 2011 04:12 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
                               Cooler Heads Fail to Prevail

                                          and

                 How can The Big Lie be accurately measured?


            
                                    Inspired by

http://lewrockwell.com/caruba/caruba31.1.html

“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."


Anyone,

The single political power becomes the single political power by following a simple recipe: lie. The lie has to work. When the lie works, as planned, all the political power flows from every competitor to the one political power. Once that happens there is one head, if it is a cooler head, it may be benevolent, nice, polite, equitable, reasonable, rational, logical, peaceful, moral, honest, and productive. If it is not a cooler head, cooler heads can't prevail, not without a fight.

The next big fight is WWIII, and if you believe in the lie, you will support, and you will empower, and you will prosecute, and you will suffer WWIII; which brings up the question as to how can the big lie be measured accurately?

“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."

Here is your chance to participate in accurately measuring just how big that big lie measures up to be, in our world - today.

The author of that sentence manages to parrot the big lie, and therefore that sentence measures the big lie. The sentence measures the effects of the big lie, even if the reader can get past the false parts of the sentence.

Politics is "all in the mind", or it is psychological, it is measured in perception, it does not exist as a thing, it is not a being, it is not a physical mass, having no mass: it cannot be forced to accelerate, or decelerate, and it must be understood, in the mind, that it, politics, is separate from things, such as The Country.

Individual States, therefore, cannot break away from the country, and thinking as much, is lending psychosocial support, or moral support, which can lead to tangible support, or material support, to the single political power person, or dictator, or the single political power group, or despots, so you can now stop doing that, if you have been inspired to do that up to this point.

Please stop feeding the legal criminals, they are thereby well fed, powerful, and then they lie better, and then they steal better, and they then order aggressive wars for profit, and then they torture, and then they mass murder, all on your dime. Please stop.

The sentence claims that "One-in-Five Americans believe" that some of the victims have enough power, themselves, to be able to avoid further victimization.

If you can't understand my rewording of the inspiration quote, so as to cut out most of the falsehood, then you are measuring the lie, you do that, I don't.

You may have been taught, like I have been taught, that there was one group called The Founding Fathers, and that one group created a Republic, and that Republic was enabled into being by the founding document called: The Constitution, but I'm here to allow you to know that you were taught a big lie.

There were two major Founding Father groups, and to figure that out, you may have to teach yourself a thing or two, and avoid dependence upon liars for your information, to do so you also have to avoid depending upon parrots of liars as the liars do manage to get "believers" believing in the lies that the liars manufacture and propagate over time.

Resource A:
http://www.amazon.com/Other-Founders-Anti-Federalism-Dissenting-Tradition/dp/0807847860

You can read that, judge for yourself, and perhaps, you can be more powerful, and less likely to be victimized by the one group crowd, the nationalists, the despots, the elite, the whatever label you are allowed to call them these days.

In history they were called The Federalists, and they were not Federalists, they were Nationalists, they were legal criminals. They wanted, and they seized, dictatorial political power, and their opponents where Federalists, Democrats, Republicans, and people, of the type, who preferred a competition to see who could run government better, so as to know the measure of better government, rather than having government rammed down the throats of the victims, as if government were a synonym for crime.

They said as much.

Resource B:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

The Country can be understood as a synonym for Society; which can be realized to be, and defined as, the honest productive people of America - or any place in the Universe where honest productive people create more than they consume, creating measures of surplus wealth, prosperity, as they pursue whatever version of happiness they pursue, so long as no innocent victims are made, by deceit, or by threats of violence, or by examples of violence, to pay the bills, for said "happiness".

Torture and mass murder, or aggressive wars for profit, exemplify someone's pursuit of happiness that is defined as joy, or fun, or profit, gained at the expense of the innocent victims, as the victims scream, and die miserable deaths en masse, while the perpetrators smile with glee.

Pursuit of happiness, sure, with some reservations: not at the expense of the innocent.

Liberty

How does one get there from here?

Back to the inspirational sentence:

“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."

What prevents one in five people from forming a group who then presume to have the power to be the country, not break away from it, and these 1 in 5 group merely compete with the other 4 of 5, to see which group manages to govern themselves better, and do so without resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence upon the innocent people?

Does The Country stop the 1 in 5 from offering a more perfect union up for consideration? The answer is no, since The Country is the many, not the few, as The Country is the set of people, not any one person, The Country is the viewpoint by which one person will appraise all the people at once, as if all the people were treated as one person, as if all the people were treated equally, without exception.

If there is an exceptional one, then there would be The Country, constituted as all those who are not excepted, and then there would be the one that was excepted.

Is the excepted one excepted for a reason, and who excepted the excepted one, from The Country; how did that one break away from The Country?

Who is being blamed for what? Do you see a familiar theme?

“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."

Criminals are apt to blame the victims, or anything but themselves, since blaming themselves amounts to a confession. Torture is a prime example. A criminal will torture a victim so as to get the victim to confess to some nebulous wrongdoing while the criminal does one of the worst wrongdoings. The torturing criminal may get a confession, and then move onto the next torture victim, along a serial path, or even a parallel path, if there are many serial torturing criminals doing the same things, at the same time.

So the criminals, who have exempted themselves from the laws they enforce, with their interpretations of their Constitution, blame their victims for the crime of breaking away from the country, as the victims seek to avoid victimization,  and do so peacefully, and do so without deceit, and do so without threats of aggressive violence.

That leaves one option.

Defensive violence.

I do not support unarmed marches in protest of criminal governments - I believe that the facts prove that doing so is counter productive when the thing intended to be produced is liberty.

If those people, in those states, those 1 in 5, will avoid victimization, they will do so because they gain the power to do so, and then they avoid victimization. Calling what they do, by some less than accurate wording, such as "breaking away from the country", or "succeeding from the union", or tax evasion, or nullification, is falling down into the mire of falsehood, a trap that has been set, since at least 1788.

Why call crime: good? Why call good, crime?

Whose interest does it serve to call crime: good, or to call good, crime - The National Interest, or just those who except themselves from the laws they enforce upon every one else - the modern day Nationalists, the one world government groups, all competing for your power, as you create it, and as they continue to relentlessly steal it?

Calling crime: good, serves the criminals, empowers them, as inaccurate wording, or The Big Lie, weakens the power of the victims, on purpose, for the criminals exclusive profit, at the victims expense.

Neat and complete, when the victims are led to believe that they are investing in their own security, as they finance their own victimization - in other words.

Why did the Nationalists, working toward gaining their power to control the many, those few Nationalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, call themselves Federalists? Answer and know why - if you dare. Why call themselves Federalists when their actions were actions perpetrated by Nationalists; seeking a one, single, monopoly, exclusive, exceptional, consolidated, dictatorial, criminal, government; and why did those Nationalists, hiding behind the false front of Federalism, call their opponents Anti-Federalists, when the opponents to Nationalism were Federalists, republicans, democrats, and those whose actions defined themselves as the people who champion the spirit of liberty?

Why would anyone claim that victims who have had enough of victimization, and who then endeavor to avoid further victimization, peacefully, and without resort to deceit, and without resort to threats of aggressive violence, and without resort to aggressive violence, why would anyone call those actions, driven by those thoughts, by such a label as "breaking away from the country"?

To what purpose is that wording authorized into publication?

What is the measure of the big lie? 1 in 5 people know better; while 4 of 5 people think that supporting a dictatorial criminal power is in their own best interest? A dictatorial power, by definition, is one power, not two.

How many dictators are there in a dictatorship?

Who is holding the stuff that is supposed to be in the bag?

Who is holding the empty bag?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Who borrowed what from who, and who owes who what?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Jun 9th, 2011 05:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

This topic was created by someone other than me. I did not create this topic. This topic was create by someone who chose to copy my responses to another topic, and then paste my responses to another topic into this topic; and a decision was made, not by me, and not with my consent, to attribute this topic to me, which is false. This is not my topic.

I can, however, see value in this topic, as a topic.

Example:

We're a large, diverse industry, and no one is in charge.

That is a short and concise description of The Internet; which remains an example of competition.

Not a "theory" of competition; as in "conspiracy theory" - The Internet is an example of a working competition.

The quote above is cut and pasted from the following link:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-ipv6-day-internet-test

I am going to also add my comments concerning the choice of the word "Theories" to the topic title; and again reinforce the understanding that I did not choose that topic title, and restate the fact that my name is misleadingly placed as the topic starter, which is false, I did not start this topic, and I did not choose the topic title, and I did not choose the word "Theories" to label my comments about the force of competition, which is a force, not a theory, and to me this is as important as knowing friends of liberty from foes of liberty; whereby confusing the two will transfer power from those who produce power to those who steal it, or confusing the two will empower the criminals at the expense of the victims, and that isn't a theory, that is a process that has been accurately measured, is accurately measured, and will continue to be accurately measured as that process has proceeded, is proceeding, and so long as it will proceed in that measurable way.

The idea that my comments about competition are "theories" goes along the same path as all the other deceptions whereby that which is perceived is supposedly dependent upon that capacity to perceive it; which may or may not be true in any case, and the problem concerns the supposed authority that dictates that which is fiction as if it is fact; without trial, without question, without competitive interpretation testing validity of the supposed facts that are measurably fictions.

Competition is, and competition does, and competition that is, and competition that does, is not a theory, it is what it is, and it does what it does, it is not a "Theory" no matter who claims that it is, no matter what badge the person claiming that it is holds, no matter what license the false claim is backed up with, no matter what army backs up the claim, and no matter what force is used to dictate the false claim.

Competition is not a theory, and that is not a claim of mine, I don't own the claim, my viewpoint is separate from that which competition is; while my viewpoint can be known as a competitive viewpoint that does seek to know, realize, and then communicate competition.

A.
Competition is what it is, even if no one claims as much.

B.
I can know that competition is, and I can communicate that understanding with words; and another person can claim that my knowledge of competition is "just a theory" and that I am a competition conspiracy theorist, or make any claim imaginable.

C.
Competition is a theory that is supported by competition conspiracy theorists; not something that can actually be measured, and competition is not something real; competition is a utopian fantasy, competition is a fiction, competition is an imaginary creation of someone's over active mind, something that someone with too much time on their hands will invent when bored, and competition is fancy, a choice, and competition vanishes when people stop believing in such nonsense.

There are, above, THREE, competitive "claims", or "theories", so as to illustrate, to make available for individual perceptive judgment,

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Jul 12th, 2011 07:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
July 12 2011

Listening to Alex Jones ask:

"What is it with people who know what is going on but they don't talk about it?"

I can't speak for anyone else, but I remember the process of shedding the lies, and realizing the truth, and during that process there is a relentless awareness of growing moral concern.

What drives moral concern?

Fear?

What happens when the relentless awareness of growing moral concern reaches a level at which that perception, at that moment, is indistinguishable from abject fear?

Think about that, please, as a process.

A person is at point A, in time, and place, and this hypothetical person is unaware, and then this person is, in the next moment: made aware, and then, from that moment on: the awareness, once started, is relentless, it grows, and grows, and grows, and that relentless awareness of growing moral concern reaches a level at which that perception is indistinguishable from abject fear at a point in time and place; it reaches a maximum point of high focus consciousnesses.

The person is happy, content, comfortable, and led to believe that the authorities will take care of everything, and all is right, and all is good, and the future is so bright, I've got to wear shades, and then a door opens, and it opens more, and more, and then the naked person is alone in the spot light, shivering, frightened to death, with all the eyes of past, present, and future humanity bearing down as one ominous force of will.

At time A the person is happily ignorant.

Then a spark occurs to the person, the person, like me in High School, reads something, I read a book titled The Lusitania, back in 1975, or so, and that spark of light opens a door, and from that moment on that door begins to open, almost imperceptibly at first, the spark is like a seed, and it slowly grows, it is one single cell at first, but the cell divides, and there are two cells, two books, then it grows, and there are paths to new sources, and then it grows, and there are articles, and other people, like Ron Paul, or Noam Chomsky, Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, Alex Jones, other books, movies, like The Money Masters, or The History of Oil by Robert Newmann, more, and more, and more, the door opens, the dark room lights up, and then suddenly the person arrives at that point, that point of no return, that point at which the light is blinding, and the point at which the growing moral concern reaches a peak power point whereby the perception is indistinguishable from abject fear.

Does the person slam the door shut, or does the person slam the door shut much earlier?

Abject fear?

Irrational fear?

Paralyzing fear?

The deer caught in the headlights?

"Their mind is scared by corruption. They are lazy people. They want to buy into corruption." I hear Alex Jones reporting.

"They immediately go to tribalism." Alex Jones

If you can't beat'em: join'em.

I've heard that before.

What do you do on the path of a growing awareness of moral consciousness? Do you begin to throw anyone other than you under the bus, so as to delay your day of reckoning?

"They are trying to find the people.... will these people do the things we want them to do..." I hear a caller speak about a Global Leadership program seeking "the wheat" from "the chaff".

"Waking up to this is like a grieving process... no body want's to believe..." a guest named Micheal.

I constantly, since the mid 80s at least, get accused of fabricating a false reality, and there is a word for that process, it is called projection or it is called transference. A person who has chosen to shut the opening door of accurate realization chooses to throw lesser (power) people ahead of them, and from then on, after that decision, the doors is shut, and that person constructs a false front to fill their chosen state of ignorance, so as to over power the force of moral conscious.

Some people are born without that capacity, that force is absent, by way of a mutated brain, a clinical narcissist, or by whatever actually causes that to be factual, a person so constituted will not have a capacity for moral understanding, such people do exist, they are also called sociopaths, psychopaths, serial killers, etc. Typically they torture animals, they are typically pathological liars, the are typically incorrigible criminals, the wheat, from a legal crime viewpoint, compared to the chaff of people who do have the chains of moral consciousness binding them to a life of moral thoughts, and moral actions.

The sociopaths open that door of light, why would they not do so, what is to fear about any truth, any fact, if those people have no fear of moral awareness, no fear of what moral awareness might drive them to do, what moral awareness might cause them to think, and no fear as to the consequences, intended or unintended, that result from a decision to allow moral consciousness to be a powerful force driving thought and action?

Therefore, they know, and those who close the door don't.

They are knowledgeable, and well prepared, powerful, and armed with facts, which is much more powerful compared to the false fronts fed to those who slam that door shut, for fear of what is in that room, beyond that door, for fear of being thrust into a world where moral consciousness is powerful, demanding, and liable to be very, very, very painful, difficult, hard, uncomfortable, demanding, even torturous, and places the individual face to face with the worst evil monsters ever to have disgraced, and discredited, the human species to date.

It is a power struggle. Life is a power struggle. When you no longer have the power to survive, guess what happens, in each case, without fail?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jul 12th, 2011 08:27 pm
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I don't know, am I?

Paranoid Puppet Master,

If you don't know, who does?

I don't, that is why I asked.

You wrote this:

So throughout history people were using electricity as sound money? I'm shocked!

I didn't write that, you did.

You make a statement, and add a question mark to the end of the statement. Why?

Why did you do that?

Your statement is false, as if someone, not you, but someone wrote that false statement.

Who wrote that false statement?

You, or someone else but you?

As far as I know you are the only one who wrote that false statement, and as far as I know you are the only one who chose to put a question mark at the end of the false statement that you alone wrote.

Do you intend to connect me, somehow, with the false statement that you wrote, as if to suggest that I wrote the false statement that you alone wrote? I don't know. I ask.

I know why I write the things I write, and all you have to do is ask, and I'll tell you why I choose the words I choose. If you ask me I won't answer with "I don't know", since I do know why I choose the words I choose. I won't then ask you to tell me why I choose the words I choose, since you can't know, since I write the things I write, not you.

You highlight with bold text some of the words I choose:

Gold bugs have been around for a long time

Here is a reference:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=labadie;cc=labadie;rgn=full%20text;idno=2916966.0001.001;didno=2916966.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000001

That is a reference to the statement I made, and that is a supporting reference to the statement that you quoted in bold text. That is a reference concerning the group of people who are known by what they think, and known by what they do, as being in the group known as Gold Bugs. There is a quote in that reference that I will choose to republish right here, right now, because it is relevant to the message I intend to report to whomever has an interest in these facts.

Title:

OF INTEREST TO GOLD BUGS.
by Stephen Pearl Andrews
Date of the republication is 1881
Benjamin R. Tucker Publisher (Black Market Press in those days, competing against the monopoly mass media press of those days)

A field which has no fence upon one of its sides is not fenced in, no matter how high and strong its fences may be on the other sides. So the volume of the currency is not, in any true sense, limited by prohibitions of free banking, by a return to specie basis, or by any other means, so long as negotiable paper can be freely issued by individuals; and this free issue of negotiable paper is too useful, and too well intrenched in necessity, ever hereafter to be interfered with. Commerce can be hindered and trammeled to some extent-it may even, for a time, be seriously disturbed-by statute arrangements claiming to regulate the currency, whether by restrictive measures, or by flooding the community with over-issues; but the volume of the currency can no longer be adjusted by such means.

Now you, or anyone, can begin to understand the full measure of what I am reporting as I choose the words I choose to report what I can, as I can, within my power to do so, and that source, that Mr. Andrews, is not just some crack head in history. You can know more, or you can choose to remain ignorant of your own motives, and you can choose to rely upon other people to tell you what you mean, if that is your choice.

Today there is even less of a fence that can overpower the need for a more accurate currency, or power to purchase, as can be illustrated with such things as:

PayPal
E-Gold
Liberty Dollar
City run legal currency experiments of which I can link examples
Private Stocks
Private Bonds
Government stocks
Government bonds
Personal Checking accounts
Electricity
Algae based fuel
Cooking oil based fuel
Fuel made through the process of electrolysis by which sewage is fed into a device and hydrogen is produced.

and

now

Electricity

All of which are forms of currency, open parts of the fence, black market competitors, or even legal competitors, until the monopoly powers exert monopoly power to crush so fatal a spirit as legal competition.

Those are my word choices. Those are not your versions of my word choices. I choose those words for reasons that I know, and I don't have to ask anyone to tell me why I choose those words.

I don't know, am I?

You are at one time claiming to speak for me, and in the next moment you don't even know why you publish those supposed versions of my words?

Are you serious?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Jul 15th, 2011 04:22 pm
  PM Quote Reply
24th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28579.htm

Another major reason why the Libyans are being subverted, bombed and strafed by NATO is that Qaddafi has launched numerous initiatives to set up alternative banking and development institutions throughout the continent, a stumbling-block to IMF/World Bank "stabilization" programs which typically impoverish the natives while lining the pockets of global financiers and their corrupt minions.

Power cannot be allowed to increase beyond a level that is manageable to the legal criminals who perpetrate the legal money monopoly extortion racket.

Power must be collected from all power sources, all surplus wealth must flow from all productive sources, to the central, legal, monopoly, money, extortion racket, regime, through all forms of deceit, by way of threats of violence, and by the willful perpetration of acts of vicious, terrifying, horrible, mass violence upon innocent and guilty alike.

Stolen power must then be used to eliminate all competition where ever and when ever competition arises.

Power is used to Boom all power producers that favor the legal criminals, for as long as the Boom cycle favors the legal criminals, and then power is used to Bust producers who no longer favor the legal criminals, and power continues to flow, through interest payments during Booms, to the legal criminals, from the producers, and power continues to flow, through asset forfeiture, during Busts, to the legal criminals, and from the producers.

It is as complicated as that, or as simple as that, whichever level of precision the individual desires to know, as all the legal criminals keep precise records of their crimes.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

There are two sets of books, at least, where one set of books are published for "public consumption" which is itself a lie, the one set of books published for "public consumption" is in reality published by the legal criminals for the targeted victims to suffer from that willfully falsified account.

The second set of books is Comprehensive, published Annually, accounts for all Finances, and Reports the actual flow of power from the victims to the criminals precisely.

There may now be a third, or fourth, set of books, since Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports have been discovered and is now public knowledge that is gaining currency.  

Google CAFR, see what you find:

http://www.rense.com/general74/whatr.htm

Why target Libya?

Why now?

Why not target Ithaca, or North Fork?

http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/

They target everyone, all the time, the power flows from the many who are everywhere, ready, willing, and able, victims, to the few who are never to be found, elusive, unknown, stealthy, and they must be a horrible group to join, what is the price of admission?

Think about that please. What is the cost of joining that exclusive club, where everyone, anywhere, anyone you talk to, anyone you see, anyone you know, any honest person who will answer an honest question with an honest answer, pays them.

Everyone pays them.

Everyone.

What is the cost of admission to become one of those few, who if asked, and if the answer is honest, are paid, and they owe nothing to no one, ever.

Please put on your thinking caps, and don't borrow ideas from legal criminals.

There is, still, competition which competes against the legal money monopoly extortion racket criminals, as some producers of usable money, competitive money, offer higher quality, and lower cost money, to those who need a usable currency, which is everyone who intends to compete in global business.

Fights, wars, turf battles, serve the legal criminals, all except one, one turf battle cannot be allowed to exist, there must be no legal money competitors anywhere, not one of any significant power.

That will not do.

That is not to say that there cannot be, allowed, a phoney legal money market competitor, or two, or many, which is known as a cabal, or a consortium, as the many, allowed, phoney competitors, still pay the single, legal, monopoly, few, for the privilege of serving those Money Masters.

This is not news.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

Where have you been?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jul 16th, 2011 08:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
25th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ37lFha8Uo

Anyone,

While listening to Alex Jones the subject of criminal government employees ("elected" agents of the government) kidnapping, and abusing, innocent human beings, or the "white slavery" phenomenon, was thrown onto the discussion table.

To anyone who questions the validity of the accusation, as a cause to employ interest, concern, or preventative power, leading to accurate identification of victims, perpetrators, leading to discovery, and trial, finding the guilty, and at least warning potential future victims, and at least cutting off the tax money being sent to the possible perpetrators, then, look at the video above, which reports the existence of a "for public consumption" documentary, that was not allowed to be broadcast, according to that source.

As far as I know the documentary, not the Youtube video, the documentary that was ready for broadcast on The Discovery Channel, predates Alex Jones's rejuvenated concern on this issue.

Before Alex Jones began focusing attention on this issue, other people have also done so, and what is the result of those earlier investigations?

CENSORSHIP.

If you are still skeptical concerning the need to focus attention on this issue, you may not have children, and you may not be young, desirable, and you may not be personally targeted, personally libel, personally at risk, and you may not care that your surplus wealth, your earnings, your dollars, may be now being spent, by very evil people, "dealing with children", kidnapping them, abusing them, selling them, torturing them, and killing them, and so, being skeptical, you may, for just a moment, a fraction of a second, you may, yet, want to investigate a tiny bit more, along one more path.

You have been given that video above, which is not an Alex Jones production. as one method of answering the question, if you have the question in mind: Are my tax payments used for kidnapping, torturing, and mass murdering children in America?

It sounds too evil to contemplate.

But you have one answer in the link above.

You may now, still, remain skeptical.

Do this:

I will also do this:

Search for an authoritative measure of the best known accounting of American missing children.

Look for that number, from any authoritative source, so as to know, better, the full measure of that obvious, real, phenomenon.

You cannot deny the fact, that, children are abducted.

How many?

I'm going to try Google (while it remains to be an "open source" of information, which is less CENSORED, compared to Major Media, such as The Discovery Channel on Network Television):

Typing in the words Child Abduction America Demographics (an initial guess of the best terms to use to find the best answers):

First on the list:

http://www.petersenese.com/Crisis_In_America.html

According to the NISMART - 2 study that used data from 1999, only 28% of the 203,900 estimated abductions by family members or 56,500 abductions were reported by law enforcement. This illustrates a great reluctance by individuals to come forward and report their cases.

That is a number, and that number is specific to specific efforts to quantify a specific type of abduction.

203,900

Looking down the Google search of links to information (accurate or not accurate, it is information that is available, rather than information that isn't available):

http://www.ygoy.com/index.php/child-abduction-statistics/

800,000 children are reported missing every year. That is about two children every day.

Of the children reported missing, 350,000 are family abductions. That is, they are taken away by family members in violation of custody agreements.

Non – family abductions amount to 204,000. These include kidnappers who are acquaintances or complete strangers to the victims.

Only 115 of non-family abductions are stereotypical abductions, defined as those in which a child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom or intended to be kept permanently or killed.

The rest of the 800,000 missing cases include runaways, throwaways, or lost children.


Who investigates the following:

Non – family abductions amount to 204,000. These include kidnappers who are acquaintances or complete strangers to the victims.

204,000 per year.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2810

The U.S. Department of Justice reports

797,500 children (younger than 18) were reported missing in a one-year period of time studied resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.

203,900 children were the victims of family abductions.

58,200 children were the victims of non-family abductions.

115 children were the victims of “stereotypical” kidnapping. (These crimes involve someone the child does not know or someone of slight acquaintance, who holds the child overnight, transports the child 50 miles or more, kills the child, demands ransom, or intends to keep the child permanently.)


How many cases of missing children has the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) helped resolve?

I have not personally been involved in an investigation to accurately identify the kidnappers of a child, but the video at the top of the page reports on such an investigation.

The names of specific government employees were reported as people who were accused of kidnapping children.

Here is one name:

Lawrence King

Here is a name of one investigator working the case where Lawrence King, a government employee, is accused of kidnapping children.

John DeCamp

Try those names in a Google Search:

Example:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/franklincoverupexcerpt.shtml

"Franklin Case Witnesses Implicate FBI and U.S. Elites in Child-Torture and Murder."

There you are, there is an avenue on that road.

What road?

Are your payments of your earnings, which flow to people running the criminal government (they lie, you know it, that makes them, by their own rules, criminals), being used to kidnap, torture, and mass murder children in America?

That is the road, and even if you don't want to ask the question, and even if you don't want to know the answer, the facts are borne by the very children who are the victims.

Each snuffed out young life screams for some measure of concern from someone, somewhere, please.

Is it good enough to say Conspiracy Theorist at the mere mention of such an evil possibility?

Are your payments, of your earnings, which flow to the people running what could be your government, used in the commission of kidnapping, enslaving, torturing, and mass murdering innocent children in America?

If you have been watching Nancy Grace, groveling over her Tot Mom, consider applying similar concern for one of the victims that you are paying the legal criminals to snuff the life out of, for you, as you hire them, to do whatever pleases them.

If it is true, and you refuse to know it, what pleases you?

When it is time to pay up, it may be your turn to scream bloody murder, it may be your children's turn, and it may then be much too late to avoid.

If it is not true, show me how you have arrived at that knowledge, and to do so, it seems to me, you have to disprove the Franklin Case linked above.

If the people you are hiring to protect you, and protect your children, are using the power you give them, to capture the innocent among you, torture them, and murder them, abuse them, use them up, snuff their lives out, what does that make you?

A non-conspiracy theorist?

Does that please you, and make you happy, so long as it isn't your turn in the torture chamber, just yet?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Jul 23rd, 2011 07:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
26th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
decepticon,

Does it smell like crap?

I think there will be a peak at which the legal criminals will be at their highest power compared to their victims, borrowing the pendulum illustration.

That peak can be measured as money. Money is a very good way to measure that power, as it peaks, and another way is to measure all the screams of pain, and all the piles of murdered innocent.

Anyway, the idea is to help the pendulum slow, then stop, then reverse, as it is currently increasing the rate of acceleration in the wrong direction.

Why let it do that without a fight?

What can be done?

What can be done to get that pendulum slowed down, stopped, at the peak worst we allow, then moving our way, and then always moving our way?

Again, the measure is money, or screams and piles of dead bodies, and money is as good as the other, both go hand in hand. The more money power sent to the legal criminals the more will be the screams of torture and the piles of dead bodies, since the legal criminals use that stolen power to purchase all that is need to keep that power flowing, moving that pendulum, their way, faster, faster, and faster.

Don't confuse the pendulum with The Business Cycle, created, and maintained, by the legal criminals, because The Business Cycle is working around the clock in moving the pendulum their way, as Booms are caused by them, as they spend the money they steal, by way of legal counterfeiting, legal fraud, and so their power to purchase is greatest, and everyone else who has the money power trickling down have less power, net power transfer is from the producers of power to the legal criminals during Boom, and during Bust, the net power transfer is to the legal criminals by way of default, repossession, and title transfer.

I'm not speaking about the bottom 98% of the population involved in "playing the game" within the rules dictated, I'm speaking only about the legal criminals at the top, the ones who have the power to decide such things as:

1. Invade Iraq
2. Double the number of dollars in the total dollar account, such as was done in 2008 by the people running The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion
3. Award no bid contracts to military contractors who profit from perpetrating aggressive wars for profit, and profit from rebuilding and maintaining infrastructure owned by the destroyers/re-builders.
4. Invade Afghanistan
5. Invade Libya
6. Invade Pakistan
7. Regime change: fill in the blank

I am speaking about the continuous flow of power going from 98% of the population as that power flows, faster, and faster, to that 2%, who have names, who wear clothes, and who stink, who are rotten, who are evil, who cause, willfully, the torture of billions, and who, apparently, have fun serial killing, torturing, mass murdering, enslaving, and destroying, even threatening human extinction, on your dime.

The Business Cycle moves power from the 98% to the 2% during Boom and Bust, relentlessly, moving the pendulum further out of reach, further away from Liberty, on out to new, never before known, limits of human endurance, and there have been some very high limits, Stalin's regime, Hitler's regime, to name just two, and both were financed by the same legal criminal gangs, perhaps different leaders of the same legal criminal gangs, but those regimes mentioned were designed to accomplish what they did, which is to increase the rate of acceleration that the pendulum swings well out of reach for the friends of liberty.

Skeptics can peruse the evidence, or ignore it:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/ 

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

http://wallstreetrun.com/wall-street-donors-back-obama-campaign.htm

http://bankloansandrates.com/2011/07/16/wall-street-backs-romney-over-obama/

They ("Wall Street"), the legal criminals, have your blood, sweat, and tears, bonuses to them, whatever, and what will they buy with your power now?

http://www.americanpendulum.com/2011/04/behind-the-real-size-of-the-bailout-14-trillion/

An average Joe has to employ creative thinking, actually set to the task of imagining the full measure of exactly how much power to purchase is, how much power is, 14 trillion dollars, how much power is 14 Trillions dollars for the first person to spend that much power, then how much power is left for the next person to spend? It will have roughly half as much power, which is 7 trillions dollars worth of power to purchase, after the first purchase, which is a rough way to understand how the legal money monopoly extortion racket works, and either way they have that much power, it was your power, and you no longer have that power, they stole it. What are they going to buy?

How much power is 14 trillion dollars?

What can possibly be the goal, the true goal, for the people who decided to create, so as to spend, 14 trillion dollars?

How much would it cost to set World War III in motion?

Who much would it cost to bring down The Dollar Hegemony so as to pave the way for an even better legal monopoly extortion racket money system?

This isn't that tough to know. Honest productive people have enough power to completely avoid, completely disconnect from, and completely eliminate, legal criminals, because honest productive people are, truly, the source of all that power that causes all that destruction, all that abuse of power called war, specifically the aggressive wars for profit, and since honest productive people have that much power to destroy, they have that much power to produce, and therefore they can produce liberty or death, at will, and the legal criminals know it, so the legal criminals have to, they must, it is an immoral imperative, they have to funnel that productive power so as to cause destruction, failure to cause destruction will result in too much productive power commanded by the ready victims, failure will mean, to them, that they have to get real jobs, honest work, productive work, where they have to provide higher quality products, or services, at lower costs, just like every other honest productive person, if their extortion racket business dries up, if they fail to use all the power produced by all the honest productive people, in the work of destroying each other, on schedule, perpetually, they will be facing powerful victims that are too powerful to be victims. Is that too hard to know, really?

This is so simple, even a legal criminal can figure it out, and it is so simple, that the victims have to be constantly feed lies, false fronts, smoke, mirrors, false advertizements, diversions, destruction, waste, devastation, blood, sweat, tears, obligation, debt, debt, obedience, debt, enslavement, punishment, deceit, threats of violence, torture, serial killing, raping, mass murdering, constantly, constantly, constantly, fed lies, lies, lies, harm, injury, fear, fear, fear, fear, work, work, work, toil, slave, blood, blood, sweat, tears, screams, agony, misery, and for what, what becomes the goal under those conditions?

Less pain, please? How much can I give you so that you will injure me less tomorrow, while I suffer anything you demand today?

Are you kidding me?

Am I ranting?

What do you smell?

The link is a future date.

Now is now. In the future, on the calender, is a date, that time will be the new now, and it will be the new now when that time is the new now. Everyone can see it. That date on that calender is a date that everyone with an interest in it, can see it, and news of it can travel like wild fire, and all the sons of liberty, the dads of liberty, the daughters of liberty, the mother's of liberty, the friends of liberty can see it too.

What happens on that day?

Someone, left leaning someone, picked a day, put it on the calender, and on that day, as anyone, anywhere, with an interest, can see, there will be something done on that day.

What are the right leaning people planning?

I'm not flapping my jaw.

I know of one thing the right leaning people are planning and I'm paying, what little power I have, to attend.

Here:

http://www.lpac2011.com/

Will anything be invented, then planned, then placed on the calender, and then everyone having an interest in causing the invention to happen can see the date on the calender, and join in on the effort to cause the invention to happen on that day?

Yes?

No?

Why, I don't know?

Something can be invented, placed on the calender, and anyone having an interest can join, and on that day, on the calender, that invention happens on that day.

How about No More Legal Criminals Day?

How about Liberty Day?

How about we stop sending our power to the people who use that power to destroy us Day?

How about: On July 4th 2012, we will begin using, all of us who have an interest in this happening, we, all of us, will, on July 4th 2012, start using our competitive moneys, the one's we choose, and that is it, thanks for the order to use one money, but that wasn't working for us, so, no thanks, on this day, we choose not to obey such a criminal order.

What does that smell like to you? What would happen if, say, next month, or at least by November, that day was on THE calender, and more people began seeing that day on THE calender, and more, and more, and more, people began having an interest in making that day real, when that day arrives, and the number of people, by next month is X, and the number of people by November is 100 times X, and the number of people by May 2012 is over 100 million, what happens according to your sense, of smell, or taste, or interest, or vision, or imagination?

I'm curious, the sound of silence is curiously deafening to me. Thanks for the reply.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Jul 23rd, 2011 09:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
27th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1009.html

Yet even that gold standard would be fake. Why? Because no one is being charged for a service: storing the gold coins.

Gold does not generate interest.

Do you find that fact to be the least bit interesting?

Money makes the owner of money more money. How does that work? Money works for the owner of money so that the owner does not have to work.

Who works?

No one?

Money makes more money appear, as interest, like a rabbit out of a hat?

Gold does no such thing. Gold, as money, even according to the Gold Bugs, does not "earn" interest, as a reward for existing. So, please, how does money just so happen to have this amazing quality, whereby the mere fact that it exists, it is rewarded, as money, all by itself, makes more money. How can the Gold Bugs explain such nonsense? Well, you have to find out yourself, because they don't confess, and they don't answer honest questions.

At least the Gold Bugs have a common enemy, common to all friends of liberty, and common to anyone who produces more than they consume, because the common enemy will always be busy finding ways to steal that surplus wealth, in interesting ways, to be sure.

Yet even that gold standard would be fake. Why? Because no one is being charged for a service: storing the gold coins. Any time you find a valuable service being offered for free by any bank, you can be sure that there is a ringer somewhere in the arrangement. The bank is luring you into a deal by means of a promise that cannot be met under all circumstances. In this case, it is free gold coin storage. Somewhere in the bank's operations there is a liability against the gold coins – a liability superior to any depositor's claim.

Austrian Economists are caught in a self-made clap trap. They want to be paid a reward for being thrifty, which is fine, but who pays them for doing so, why, and what happens if everyone is just as thrifty, then who pays who for what? To get this straight in your head you may well imagine an actual working free market, a market that is as free from effective fraud, as free from effective deceit, as free from effective false advertizement, as free from threats of aggressive violence upon the innocent, and as free from actual aggressive violence upon the innocent as is humanly possible, and in that free market, so defined, anyone can produce any form of money, and anyone can accept any form of money, at any time, anywhere, and under such conditions money will be forced higher in quality and money will be forced toward lower cost.

Do you have that in view, and if so, think, and invent, the highest quality money at the lowest cost, and know that someone else will be raising the bar you set, since there is always someone bigger, better, stronger, more powerful, and able to kick your ass; but go ahead invent, think, imagine, produce the highest quality money you can produce in your mind, at the lowest cost you can produce in your mind, and begin the process ahead of time, just in case an actual free money market moves into place, and the legal monopoly money power moves out of place - regime change.

This isn't hard to know. How much worse can the money we use be made worse, and how fast can the money we are forced to use be made much, much worse? If that is easier to know, instead of knowing how much better money can be, then you have a scale in view.

1. Money is of a known quality and a known cost right now.
2. Money can become much worse in quality and it can become much more expensive soon.
3. The opposite direction of 2 above.

Gold Bugs have money revert back from the horrible quality and extremely high cost that it is now to Gold.

Gold is better money, and all but a few people will disagree with such a claim, or accurate assessment, and the viewpoint will be subject to the power of numbers. In other words: if only one person claims, or has an accurate assessment of Gold as being high quality money, then the claim is not baseless, it is based upon one accurate assessment, which isn't going to work, as money. If everyone but one person assesses gold as a powerful money, then the power of numbers, obviously, confirms the accuracy of the assessment.

All but a few, very few, people claim that Gold is not money, and as it happens, those few probably own most of the Gold, which should interest you, if anything should, if you want to work less and have more, you should know this, and you should know this well.

The clap trap, the corner they paint themselves into, is that Gold is the limit toward better money, and there isn't any thought, any action, any effort, any work, there is no competition imaginable, to them, working to improve upon that standard, therefore, by default, they, in their minds, create a money monopoly.

A monopoly is the absence of competition. Competition ends a monopoly.

The Austrian Economists may be right, sure, in a free market, gold will become the best possible money, and no one can ever invent anything better, ever.

I'm skeptical, since electricity is a much better money, by far, compared to gold, but then again so is oil, and as anyone can see, those forms of currency have been taken over by the legal criminals too, and here is a quote from Gary North, which you may want to consider when considering the power of Gold as money:

In August 1914, European governments that entered the war broke their monetary promises, confiscated the gold that was on deposit in commercial banks, turned this gold over to their respective central banks, which then inflated to fund World War I. It was the biggest bank heist in history. There was no resistance by the public.

Back to Gary North:

The point of a gold standard is to limit central banks.

I can translate that for you. Here is the translation:

The point of a gold standard is to sever the connection between those who produce surplus wealth and those who steal it with a legal money monopoly extortion racket "system".

The problem is that the legal criminals can confiscate gold. Then a silver standard will work to accomplish the goal. Then the legal criminals can confiscate silver. Then whiskey can work to accomplish the goal, and then the legal criminals can assemble an army the size of the army used to drive the British Military out of the 13 colonies so as to enforce a tax on whiskey, payable in gold. Then oil can be used, then electricity can be used, then any other inventive replacement can be used, and each time the legal criminals will invent a way to regain the connection to the producers of surplus wealth, until such time as the power of numbers work for the honest productive people instead of having the power of numbers working against them, by way of deceit, by way of threats of violence, and by way of aggressive acts of terrifying violence upon the innocent people.

The entire economics profession, except for the Austrian School, believes in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking.

...

Who professes to have an exclusive license of authority over economic facts? Gary North is nearly criminally ignorant, in my view, but I don't have a license, and I have not be elected into an office of authority, and I don't profess to be a professional in command of exclusive knowledge, and I can offer competitive examples of many people who do not believe in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking, and who are not Austrian School economists who base their  "knowledge" upon a false premise that they claim as fact.

Where is this "entire economics profession"? Why does that "entire economics profession" ignore all the competitive economic inventions that have existed, exist now, and will exist so long as competition is still alive and working despite all the force of stolen wealth being used to crush so fatal a spirit?

Gary won't confess. I've tried to reach him. It is a one way street with the Austrian Economists, which is a nice way of saying Dictatorship.

What about all the economic inventions that have managed to compete, work, and prove to be valuable, outside that exclusive club of "entire economics profession"?

5 examples:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm

http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm

http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/

Those are not among the Austrian School of professors, authorities, officials, and license holders, nor are those examples examples of believers in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking.

The first example, a proposal written by Lysander Spooner employs land as the commodity backing a competitive currency, not meant to be an enforced currency, which would be enforced by deceit, on purpose, and not meant to be enforced by threats of violence upon the innocent, and also not meant to be enforced by acts of vicious violence perpetrated willfully upon those who choose to use that competitive invention if that is what they choose to do.

The second example blows the whistle on the whole fallacy behind Austrian Economics, written well before Austrian Economics became Austrian Economics, whereby "scarcity" is required before "value" can exist, or some such nonsense, and I can find the relevant quotes, as needed. That example bases money on labor, which is not to be confused with the "argument for the sake of argument" invented by some people, whereby some people invent a "labor theory of value" which is their own exclusive Straw Man invention, an invention they attach to their targeted victims, and then by that false association they win the argument they create, as they claim that their victims "believe" in "The Labor Theory of Value" that they alone create, which has nothing to do with Example 2.

Example 3 blows the whistle on the fraud known as "interest", well done in the essay titled The Parasite City.

Example 4 proves the workability of a Stamp Script competitive form of money, as it was used, and it did work, for all to see, if you have an interest in knowing the truth.

Example 5 is used today, for as long as that competitive example managed to compete, despite all the forces that are, or will be forcing that competitor out of business.

The entire economics profession, except for the Austrian School, believes in central banking and fractional reserve commercial banking.

That is called ignorance. It may be willful ignorance. It may just be stupidity. I can't know, the person who fails to report the facts does not confess.

This means that economists favor a cartel.

Legal criminals favor a cartel, because a cartel cannot exist without some force being exerted in the work required to render competition powerless. The forces that render competition powerless, in all but a few cases of naturally occurring monopolies (cartels), are deceit, threats of aggressive violence upon the innocent, and acts of aggressive violence upon the innocent, clueless, powerless, targeted, victims.

Economists call for their favorite pseudo-market, government-administered limitation on this or that aspect of banking. But they do not call for 100% reserve banking, as Rothbard did. They do not call for free banking, as Ludwig von Mises did.

Gary North is the only Austrian Economist I've ever read where by a confession is made as to the existence of a split up within the ranks of Austrian Economists.

A. Actual supporters of a free market.
B. Frauds, who claim to support a free market, but their true color is criminal: they support legal crime, they support a cartel, they support whatever force is required to enforce a legal monopoly.

Of course there are individuals who have individual viewpoints, individual thoughts, and individual actions, which span from the most effective supporters of a free market to the most effective supporters of legal crime, with
in the ranks of The Austrian Economists.

The gold coin standard removes final economic authority from people with badges and guns and turns it over to the masses.

As far as I know, that is the truth, and as far as I know Ron Paul knows that that is the truth, and as far as I know Ron Paul will cause that to happen if elected, and if that is true, then Ron Paul is the Anti-Legal Criminal, and that places a huge target on Ron Paul's back, if that is as true as I believe it to be.

Gold is not the best form of money, but it is most certainly better than the worst form of money, and if you think the dollar is as bad as it can get, think again.

The reason for the truth being expressed in the quoted words above is that Gold becomes a competitor, so it is competition that accomplishes the task, whereby economic authority is removed from people with badges and guns, as they were enforcing a single money upon their victims, and competition turns the power of choice over to anyone else, or "the masses" of people who didn't have a choice, or not much of a choice, or a choice between two evils, which is still evil, and competition becomes a choice, a higher quality option, and an option that costs less.

In this life, there are nails and hammers. The battle over final economic authority is the battle over the monetary system, for money is the central institution in a division-of-labor economy. Thus, the battle is over who holds the hammer.

Suddenly

I have to work.

No time to edit

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jul 28th, 2011 03:31 am
  PM Quote Reply
28th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Freeski,

Thanks for the welcome response. You did not address me. I am here to discuss the topic. If you do not address me then I can assume that you do not want to address me, and therefore I cannot assume that your comments are meant to address my comments, and therefore it is not assumable, to me, that you are open to discussion, with me, on this topic.

I can ask:

Why did you not address me?

I can also ask:

Do you think that it is appropriate, within the boundaries of the forum rules, or within any boundary whatsoever, do you think it is tolerable, for me to address you, and for me to comment on your comments, as if I were discussing the topic with you?

I won't wait for an answer. I assume, despite the fact that you did not address me, that comments in this thread are fair game, open to discussion.

Example:


1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the government to create jobs, you're asking the government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is corporatism!)


Do you have an exclusive definition of the term government?

Please consider the question to be important enough to ask, and important enough to answer in any case whatsoever. Failure to define government is a measure of abdication, someone else will define it in no uncertain terms.

Do you mean:

A voluntary association.

Is government a voluntary association, according to how you define government?

If no, then please leave no uncertain terms, if the idea is to discuss the topic, please leave no uncertain terms during the process - please.

If you mean:

Government is an involuntary association.

If that is what you mean, then please tell me how your government, as you define it, is any different from any crime, in principle.

The answer will clue me in on your stand, where you are standing, and I'll know, in this case, more, I may know enough, depending upon your answer, to know friend from foe. I can ask for more details, but, frankly, if the answer is the criminal answer, I'll know enough to distrust any other answers you may offer.

Do you define your government as an involuntary association? Is this question not clear? Is your version of government, your government as you define it, an involuntary association according to your definition of government? The answer allows me to know that which you are, that which you intend, if you answer honestly.

I can, at least, know what you mean, when you publish your messages, that are here, in response to the topic.

You wrote this:


1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the government to create jobs, you're asking the government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is corporatism!)


If you dodge the question. I'll have the answer.

The question:

Do you define government as an involuntary association?

A Democratic Federated Republican form of government experiment was tried, in the form of The Articles of Confederation, and that was an example of a working voluntary association experiment. The subject of this topic is dealing with an involuntary association such as the legal fiction, or corporate entity, known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) which was formed by employing the enabling document called The Constitution.

So, my question directed at the author of the response, in this thread, is aiming at that specific clarification, to be clear about my intentions.

When referring to the thing knowable as government, to be clear: is the focus of attention meant to focus upon an involuntary association, or is there an intent to focus attention upon a voluntary association?

Examples of each:

A. The Nation State founded upon the fraudulent usurpation known as The Constitution, which is an involuntary association, or legal despotism.

B. A Democratic Federated Republican experimental form of government such as the historical example recorded as The Articles of Confederation, which was a voluntary association - relatively speaking.

Note, please, how the response to the topic can have completely opposite meanings when government is defined clearly, one way or the other opposite way, a voluntary association, or the opposite meaning, and please also note that the meaning of the response can be too ambiguous to convey meaning without clarification on that one duplicitous word: government.

Example A (use of the word government as a voluntary association, such as the historical example provided by The Articles of Confederation):

First the quoted message without clarification:


1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the government to create jobs, you're asking the government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is corporatism!)


Now an rewrite with clarification of the intended meaning of the word government.
Example A:
1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the voluntary government to create jobs, you're asking the voluntary government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is voluntary corporatism!)


If that is the intended meaning of the word government the obvious question is:

What does "free enterprise" mean?

The apparent message is such that there is this thing called free enterprise and then there is this thing called government, and one is mutually exclusive to the other, if not directly opposite the other, and therefore, apparently, the message is not going to make sense when the government is voluntary, since it would be a product of free enterprise; hence the need for clarification, if the idea is to communicate meaning and do so accurately.

Now rewriting the message with clarification concerning the intended definition of government as an involuntary association.
Example B:
1) Jobs are created when free enterprise is left alone to create them; by asking for the involuntary government to create jobs, you're asking the involuntary government to manipulate the market and the natural law of supply and demand, and that's exactly what we have today (that is involuntary corporatism!)


That makes even less sense to me, since there is no point in asking the involuntary government to do anything, what is the point, why not ask the government to alter the association from an involuntary association into a voluntary association and thereby eliminate the need to ask - altogether?

When the legal criminals hear the victims begging for mercy, what do you think they will do, give mercy, or turn the screws faster, deeper, and with renewed vim and vigor?

I can't help but be inspired to respond in the manner before me, from a common sense point of view, rather than from a fashionable one, whereby the response is akin to reading from a script.

On to number 2:

2) Education has been totally co-opted by evil forces BECAUSE of government meddling: think of the cost and college debt, the tax exempt foundations, the dumbing down, the political correctness, propaganda and so much more (that too is corporatism at work)

Again the use of the word government as if there is only one, and everyone supposedly knows this one thing, as if no one can ever invent a competitive version, so as to have two obvious forms of government ready for appraisal by anyone, as to which is of a much higher quality, and which is of a much lower quality, and which is much higher in cost, and which is measurable in ways that can account for negative costs, or production instead of costs, whereby the form of government actually manages to help people increase the standard of living while simultaneously lowering the cost of living. One is used to destroy, compared to the other. One is used to produce destructive deceit, targeting victims, and it is used to threaten aggressive violence, targeting innocent victims, and it is used to produce ever increasing levels of horrible, terrifying, destructive violence, targeting the very people who would otherwise have expending their time, and energy, improving the standard of living, and lowering the cost of living, had they not been subjected to the employment of that destructive, non-competitive, form of government.

Why is there no reference whatsoever mentioned as to the existence of a competitive form of government, as if there can only be one?

I can ask, and I do ask, and this time the question may not be dodged. I may have a real answer, instead of a lack of an answer, which is an answer in fact. No answer is an answer, as much of an answer, as meaningful as any other ambiguity - it is measurable as nothing, as space, as void, as vacuum, as meaninglessness, direction-less-ness, powerlessness, etc.

Why refer to government as if there is only one, there can be no competitive version, there is only one, always, and forever, and never can there be a competitor?

To me, from my vacuum, from my ignorance, I imagine someone reading from a script, and the script does not mention a competitive form of government, therefore there is no such thing, according to the script.

Number 3:

3) Environmental protection is a buzzword for the UN's Agenda 21 - and they even say in the video that they want "Sustainable Development": they've already fallen for the very thing they don't even realize comes with more catches than they could ever imagine (more corporatism, aka fascism/communism/collectivism)

Now there are more words that appear to be subsets of the one word, as if there is, according to the script, a singularity, a monopoly, a whole, and then with closer inspection there are components of the one thing.

I. Government
A. Corporatism
B. Fascism
C. Collectivism

There is, however, according to the script, an anti-singularity, apparently, and this anti-monopoly, this anti-government entity, floating around in the same universe, occupying, living, breathing, thinking, and acting, within the same space, and the name on this anti-government entity is, as far as I can tell so far, a thing called free enterprise.

Can this script be illustrated as follows?

I. Government               II. free enterprise
A. Corporatism               A. Non-Corpratism
B. Fascism          vs.      B. Non-Fascism
C. Collectivism               C. Non-Collectivism


Having a general understanding of the purpose of words, as a tool to either transfer accurate meaning, or as a tool used to deceive targeted consumers of lies, it stands to reason that a word is needed to convey the existence of a voluntary association whereby many people collect their power into one collective power so as to have more power to accomplish a goal that cannot be accomplished without the combination, and the same word could be used to convey a voluntary association. Is that word a term, and is that term: free enterprise? What happens if an involuntary association employs the same word? There is a serous problem when two opposite things are using the same word to focus attention on both opposite things at once, since one thing could then be easily confused with the other, opposite, thing.

Who benefits when the bad version is confused with the good version?

Suppose, for example, there were many people seeking to form a voluntary association whereby all their separate powers are combined into one greater power, a power that is even greater than the sum of all the parts, whereby the reason, and purpose, of the combination, is to defend against people who enforce involuntary associations?

Supposing that such a group of people did exit, what would happen if said group confused the good thing with the bad thing, and all those Honest Productive Americans failed to join the good thing, and all those Honest Productive Americans joined the bad thing instead?

Could that be a result of confusion when the two opposite things are sharing the same word?

Suppose, on the other hand, that there does exist another group of people who desire to exploit weaknesses, such a morality, embodied in a targeted group of innocent people, weakened by their morality, and this group were also confused by the use of one word used for two opposite things, and as a result of that confusion the legal criminals joined the honest productive voluntary association by mistake?

In whose interest is it to confuse the word government with the ongoing practice of using the concept of law in the work required to perpetuate crime?

It is not my interest to do so. I have an interest in the opposite.  

Jeepers, they even demand that U.S. law should adhere to international law.

Yes, jeepers, more ambiguity.

Which law?

If the law is such that people are allowed to volunteer to join, or combine, their separate powers, into a single power, a collective, and then use that power to avoid being either criminals or victims, then whose going to crush so fatal a spirit, and why would they choose to do so? Do you see a need to crush out anyone working toward a voluntary association whereby each volunteer sends a portion of their earnings to a central collective and then that collective is then used to avoid the undesirable move toward involuntary associations? What would you call such a thing, if one existed, ever?

Here is an example of U.S. Law:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.


When do the volunteers decide to avoid being both criminals and victims, and how do they go about reaching that goal?

Discuss the question, and refuse to settle for ambiguous answers?

http://october2011.org/issues

5. Government – all processes of the three branches of government should be accountable to international law, transparent and follow the rule of law, people have the right to participate in decisions which affect them.

That is ambiguous, therefore it can mean anything, it can be constructively interpreted, which is the one major flaw with The Constitution, among many flaws, that the Founding Fathers warned their followers as a serious concern.

If by "international law" the meaning is such that millions of victims of legal criminals using The Constitution to torture, and mass murder, have, the victims have, the least bit of legal power to hold those legal criminals to account, if nothing else is legally their power under that verison of International Law, just hold the guilty torturing mass murderers to account, to have their crimes, at least, officially recorded, in some legal manner, as in, hey, did you know, officially, in a legal sense, the criminal Clinton, the criminal Bush, and the criminal Obama, have tortured these people on this list, and those same criminals, as you may want to know, have serially murdered all these people on this, official, legal, list of victims. According to this version of International Law, the victims have the power to know the truth, at least, and it is now official, those criminals are now officially guilty of those crimes upon those innocent victims. Victims do not often manage to secure the power to hold the criminals to account, with few exceptions, but what if that is the constructive interpretation of that International Law, that one in question, there, by those people, right there, in that group?

Heaven forbid!

Before anyone begins bantering around the false demonization of me, for being less than expected, less than supportive, or less than compassionate, or less than understanding, whatever, know what you mean, before you do so, please. This is not my first rodeo, and I have done my homework. If you jerk your knee, in writing, on this forum, you can't go back and edit it out, as far as I know, so, be forewarned.

Look in the mirror, know what you support, and if you can stand scrutiny, do so, and if you resort to deceit, you will do that, and if you resort to threats of violence, that is what you will do, and if you can find me, you can resort to acts of violence, or you can hire someone to do that work for you, I suppose, and then that is what you define to be you, even if you don't see that when you look in the mirror.

I am being nice; nice enough to care - and not settle for less than a more accurate perspective.

If those people choose to fight the fight they see worth fighting in their way, something can be learned from that effort, not the least of which, to me, is having a date on the calender, so as to call attention to that specific time, a time when all who have an interest in that fight will honorably agree to combine their separate powers into one well focused power on that date, and they are good enough to warn their targets concerning their intentions.

They are targeting very powerful people, people I call legal criminals, people who torture, and people who mass murder, and people who get paid very well for doing so, not based upon volume, not based upon the number of screams, their pay is based upon the limit that their victims tolerated the costs they accrue, for doing the jobs they are hired to do, which is to deceive, they are hired to deceive, and they are hired to threaten violence, and they are hired to commit violence.

Those volunteers are volunteering to take on the worst criminals the human species has had the misfortune of bearing, and they do so peacefully. That is worth something. The simple fact that they may, or may not as individuals, validate the legitimacy of their government is as worth knowing, in my view.

A.
Honor, self sacrifice, willful disobedience in the face of potential serous injury, and refusal to resort to violence.

B.
Tragic misunderstanding of the principles required for the invention and maintenance of peaceful coexistence.

A lesson learned is a lesson learned well enough to do any good.

What do you think might be the true cost of a situation whereby enough people show up to demonstrate in the manner planned in the October 2012 event, that the legal criminals can get away with actions perpetrated by mercenary agent provocateurs who then cause an excuse used by the legal criminals to rapidly increase the torture and body count on those days?

Following the script is almost certainly going to support the authors of the script, at the expense of those who fail to recognize just how false the script has become since the first legal criminal began writing that narrative, or so, to me, commons sense dictates.

What will it take to realize the full measure of the problem? What is the true limit that the victims can endure? Know that, it seems to me, and you know the bar that the legal criminals aim to lower.  

What is the alternative, what is the free enterprise script, in the face of all that destructive power? Can all the friends of liberty manage to avoid all that misery, destruction, torture, and mass murder, by remaining disconnected from each other, or connected with a link that also allows the connection to both the criminal group and the ready, willing, and able victims?

I think so, and I think a date on the calender is a fine idea, a very good goal post, and having a goal post can be a device by which the problem is communicated, in no uncertain terms, and therefore as many volunteers as possible can work at offering the highest quality, and lowest cost, solutions, and one possible offering can be to say that, hey, on that day, we should try to narrow down the field to a workable few solutions, so as to be in a position to implement at least one.

How about, or example, picking July 4th 2012, as a competitive day, and on that day, I can offer, as a competitive solution, that those who agree will agree to stop using the criminal fraud money, and start using competitive money, all at once, on that find summer day, in the not too distant future.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Aug 5th, 2011 12:00 am
  PM Quote Reply
29th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1012.html

The purchase of government debt by a central bank in a fractional-reserve banking system is the basis of an unsuspected transfer of wealth that is inescapable in a world of monetary exchange. Through the purchase of debt by a bank, fiat money is injected into the economy. Wealth then moves to those market participants who gain early access to this newly created fiat money. Who loses? Those who gain access to this fiat money only later in the process, after the market effects of the increase of money have rippled through the economy.

Anyone,

As a means by which competition in legal money markets can be illustrated I offer the above quote.

What happens if a lot of people decide to voluntarily send a portion of their power to one central collection point?

This is an easy question with an easy to see answer, and there are many examples of such things happening in human existence.

Power flows from many sources and power flows to one place, and power in one place grows more powerful, and power at all the many sources grow weaker, as more power flows from the sources, the sources grow weaker, and as more power flows to the one place, the one place grows more powerful.

The power flow can resemble a pyramid. Many places at the bottom move power up one step. The next step moves power further up. Power reaches the one step at the top.

The power flow chart is also measurable as an upside down pyramid, as the many sources of power have the least power at the bottom, where the measure of power is almost nothing, a minimum power supply, a measure of one, the least amount of power, and as power flows up from those many sources of one unit of power, the next step is a more powerful step, measuring two power units, and then upward there are four power units, and then 16, and then at the top there is one place where all the power stops flowing and that one place has enormous power at the top of the upside down pyramid.

What happens to the power once it flows to the one place, and what happens if the power struggle is not yet built like a pyramid? What happens when the one place is only a storage place, not a place where power is allowed to flow to any other place, not yet constructing a pyramid, just many sources of power, where all the sources of power voluntarily send extra power to one place, and see this, and illustrate this, know it, measure it, envision it, and exemplify it, before it becomes something else, like a pyramid. What is that arrangement before it begins to flow out from the central source of collected power?

Picture many dots on a piece of paper and each dot is one pixel in size, and each dot produces enough extra power to grow into the size of 2 dots, but before each dot can grow into three dots the second dot detaches from each dot and that second dot flows to the center of the paper. The dot in the center becomes 1 dot when one productive source has grown into the size of 2 pixels, the extra size disconnects from the source, the extra dot flows to the center and at the empty  place in the center the first extra dot stops. A second, third, fourth, and then many extra dots are produced, detached from the source, travel from the source to the center, and the center single pixel becomes 2 pixels, then many, than many more, until the room around the center is less, and less, as the center grows larger and larger, as more extra power flows from the sources of power to the center.

Who ever dreamed up the idea to begin producing more power than needed so as to send power from the source of power to some other place? Why did that idea become such a good idea, such a great idea, that very many people adopt the idea, employ the idea, and voluntarily participate in that process of producing extra power at the production source, sending extra power to a central location, and repeating that process over and over again?

What is the purpose of employing that idea?

Some examples help answer the question.

1. Insurance
2. Stock and bond sales
3. Taxation
4. Banking
5. Farming
6. Saving
7. Investing
9. Open source programing
10. Libraries
11. Education
12. Irrigation
13. Legal crime

In the interest of brevity, economy, and so as to expedite the transfer of information from me, the source of this message, to anyone, I will choose two competitive examples of the power struggle from the list above so as to begin creating a scale of examples from best to worst, by some value measure, such as morality, which can be based upon the value of life, whereby life promoting things make those things more valuable and whereby life destroying things offer the opposite end of the value scale.

1. Insurance
13. legal Crime

Many people earn more, by producing more, than needed, or wanted, or more than consumed, more than saved, more than invested in other things, so as to send a portion of their power to a central place that is called:

1. Insurance
2. Legal Crime

The illustrated paper with dots on it help, so please get a piece of paper, or picture one in your mind, and start placing dots on the blank paper.

Those are people.

10 dots will work, for now, and all the people in the world can be easy to see as more dots on more papers, drawn by someone else, somewhere else, the point is to point out how one process compares to the opposite process.

You are one of the 10 dots on your paper. You almost become another dot, but you don't become another dot, you send one dot of power to the center of the paper.

Your dot in the center of the paper is the first voluntary dot produced by you, traveling down the road from where your dot is on the paper, and that dot ends up being stored in the center of the paper, so as to begin creating one or the other of the two competitive things:

1. Insurance
2. Legal Crime

Now jump ahead 10 years and draw a big black dot in the center of the paper as more and more people send more and more extra power to the center of the paper and some of the dots have to move from the center to clear places outside the center or those dots will be swallowed up by the growing power in the center of the paper.

Copy that paper with the big black in the center, where 10 dots had to move to clear places outside the center black dot, and make two competitive illustrations of this idea whereby many sources of power send extra power to one central power.

Now you have:

1. Insurance
2. Legal Crime

On one you can write a title on the top of the page and it is: Insurance. Title the second, the copy, as: Legal Crime.  

By what calculation does the growing power in the center send power to the weakening powers around the center in the case of insurance?

This is not too difficult to know. You may have suffered a broken leg, an accident at work, and you are now unable to earn enough to keep alive, you can no longer send extra power to the center, you can't even earn enough power to keep eating, not for awhile, and that is why you sent money to the center, you invested in insurance, for your own good, just in case. The calculation is as complex, or as simple as you agree to contribute, voluntarily, to that type of investment, if it is too complicated, look for one that is less complicated. Power flows in, from many, power flows out, to a few, and the center grows weaker, when someone suffers an accident, and the victim grows stronger, for having suffered an accident, and the whole business is based on a simple calculation, which can be fully automated, requiring no workers hired to crunch the numbers, or write the check, or haul the money, or store the money, or for any other expense, you earned enough to earn enough, simple, easy, and really, a no brainer, not rocket science, no need for an authorities permission, or say so, or regulation, or punishment, or anything other than steady transfers of power from many, and then according to the calculation agreed upon, power flows from the center back to the sources of power, on time, based upon the same exact calculation agreed upon before sending the power to the central location in the first place.  

Easy?

How about one more thing?

If the calculation is done well enough, then the center supply of power is almost nothing, and it can even be negative at times. It does not have to keep growing larger, ever. It is nothing but an agreement. If you can't grasp this in your mind, having the illustrations presented to you, you can ask questions, or you can depend upon the authorities for all your answers to vital questions, and they can let you eat cake too.

If you have traveled this far, with me, and you have a two pieces of paper, one is titled Insurance, and the other is titled Legal Crime. One is one end of the scale, the other is on the other end of the scale.

On that paper titled Legal Crime you have a growing black hole in the center, and it is designed to grow larger, and larger, and it is designed to wipe out all the free space, and it is designed to turn the white paper into nothing, it is designed to destroy everything, and you can see it happening if you look. The sources of power are made to send power to the central location and at the central location there is a power that determines the calculation that is used to employ the power collected, from all the sources, to the central location, and the calculation is even simpler than the insurance example.

The central location uses a simple formula for deciding how the power at the central location will be spent, and it is simply used to keep the power flowing in that direction. That is it, and that is as easy to know as the most obvious visual example existing today.

Here is the most obvious visual illustration of how Legal Crime is designed to work today:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

As soon as the connection between all the sources of power (the dots on the white paper) to the central location (the larger power in the center) is involuntary, that is the moment when that central location is no longer beneficial to the sources of power, at that very point in time and place, when the connection is no longer voluntary, that central power begins to grow "at the expense of" all the sources of power.

Legal Crime is an involuntary association, it is designed to grow more powerful, at the expense of, all the sources of power, and it is as simple as that, and as they say: "the devil is in the details", and Legal Crime has three measurable methods by which the process is realized in time and space.

1.
Deceive the targeted victims into sending power to the Legal Criminals, making the victims weaker, and making the legal criminals stronger.

2.
Threaten the targeted victims with violence so as to keep the power flowing in that direction.

3.
Execute violence upon the targeted victims so as to keep the power flowing in that direction.

There you have, before you, a scale, and on one end of the scale is Insurance, and other the other end of the scale is Legal Crime, and power flows in both examples, and in both examples power flows from the sources of power to a central location, and at the central location the power grows, and in one case the central location never grows more powerful than any one of the sources of power, and in the other case the central location consumes all the power that can be produced by all of The Honest Productive People.

Banking is a similar arrangement on that scale, and it is interesting to note how interest works in banking.

To close this effort think, from this point, assuming that you have traveled to this point, what would be the process, and what would be the math, or the calculation, on an insurance policy called Legal Crime Insurance?

Example:

Suppose that one of the families of innocent victims in, say, The Waco Massacre, or in one of those three towers in New York, on Sept 11, 2001, had a Legal Crime Insurance Policy, what would be the calculation of power returned to that beneficiary if one of those family members had a Legal Crime Insurance Policy?

Follow that through with me, please, with a hypothetical example. Suppose one third of the population of American, and we can call this hypothetical group The Honest Productive Americans, and we can suppose that that group started paying into The Legal Crime Insurance Policy, on a specific day.

How about the day that U.S.S. Liberty was attacked by Legal Criminals June 8. 1967

http://www.gtr5.com/

Suppose that day was a day you remember as the day that One Hundred Million Honest Productive Americans began paying into an agreement, known as Legal Crime Insurance, and that pot of gold grew, and grew, from June 8 1967 until that day when one of the family members was slaughtered at Waco, just for an illustration of how insurance works, compared to how Legal Crime works.

So, you have June 8 1967, the U.S.S. Liberty is attacked by Legal Criminals, and then One Hundred Million Honest Productive Americans start a Legal Crime Insurance Agreement, and all those people pay into that one central power, fund, until one person sends in a claim as their members of their family are slaughtered at Waco, or later, in New York.

This event:

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/

From June 8 1967 to April 9 1996 One Hundred Million Honest Productive Americans send money to one fund whereby victims of Legal Crime earn benefits for having paid into that insurance policy.

If you don't pay into it, you don't earn benefits; which is naturally known as a voluntary association, reasonably known, common sense knowledge, easy stuff.

That is how that works.

What is the opposite arrangement?

What is the measure of Legal Crime?

Your investment is used to reward mass murderers.

Your investment is used to torture you, or your fellow members of the Honest Productive American group.

Tax payers pay into an involuntary association so as to hire liars, torturers, and serial killers, and worse, to do what they do best, to someone else, so that tax payers can move further down the list of victims?

Your investment is used so that serial killers earn a higher standard of living for doing things that make them ever so happy.

Are you happy enough yet?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Aug 11th, 2011 12:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
30th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Honest Productive Americans,

Listening to Alex Jones interview Max Keiser.

I hear false statements; which may be error on the part of Max and Alex, and therefore not willful lies.

Max says that capitalism requires savings.

That is false.

Capitalism requires higher rates of production relative to the rates of consumption; without which there would be a steady decline in all things valuable, as all things valuable are consumed and not replaced by higher rates of production.

Max says that there are two forces fighting against each other (my take on his words); where those who want high interest rates are being overpowered by those who want low interest rates.

That is missing the force of competition which forces any product to higher quality and lower costs. If there is competition then interest rates are forced down.

A monopoly money supplier subsidizes any production, including the production of aggressive wars for profit, and including the production of savings accounts, and including the production of speculators.

Who decides who is subsidized, given welfare, and when? In the Legal Crime business here in America it is The Federal Reserve System of Extortion operators; they stop and start the flow of welfare, they are the income re-distributors.

A person who competes with another person as to what savings is the most affordable, and least costly, and therefore what savings is the highest quality, and the lowest cost, will have no monopoly money supply power subsidizing their savings by making the legal money supply very scarce. That is why interest rates go up, when there is no competition, and that is why "capitalists" who "save" money in legal banking monopoly banks, or Central Banks, have an easy time finding a competitive savings account, since the Legal Criminals subsidize their accounts by making legal money scarce.  During typical bust cycles, run by Legal Criminals, running Legal Central Banking Monopolies, the money supply is made scarce on purpose, and during those times "savings" is subsidized, as interest rates rise, and "savers" are then rewarded for "saving" as their monopoly money makes money because it is made scarce by the Legal Criminals. "Savers" can do nothing, and still they have a steady income, when they accept that form of welfare.

So "savers", who are actually just another form of bail out recipient, or subsidy taker, or welfare recipient, during Bust Cycles, which can last decades, as "savers" become those people who are then set against their diametric opposites, who are speculators, as speculators are subsidized during Boom Cycles, when the Legal Criminals are paying people to spend money, which amounts to a negative interest rate, and once an actual, honest, competitive money is in place the interest rate will be forced to nothing more than a cost to cover expenses for the supplier, and a cost attached to risk averse borrowers, and a competitive measure of profit.

Here is where my Product 1 and Product 2 shine to illustrate how honest, competitive, money works. Honest Productive People can earn zero interest, why would they not earn zero interest, when it is their good faith and credit, their productive capacity that causes production to rise above consumption, and therefore it is their honest hard work that creates the capital that does cause increases in the standard of living while the cost of living reduces, so why are they punished with high interest rates while the Legal Criminals (and those who have grown to accept Bust and Boom Cycles) buy the gift of subsidy, with your stolen power?  

The gift of subsidy is also known as welfare. The Legal Criminals buy that gift of subsidy, and they buy that gift of subsidy with the power they steal, and then they purchase victims with that gift, and they purchase employees with that gift of subsidy, and they purchase obedience with that gift of subsidy.

Why are "savers" given welfare during typical BUST cycles when the Legal Criminals "tighten" the money supply, and make currency (which is money) scarce, and therefore interest rates are driven up, and therefore the wealth redistribution path goes from Honest Productive People to the Legal Criminals, and then a gift is given, a welfare payment is awarded, for those people who accumulate large sums of "cash" in "savings" accounts - instead of having to find competitive, honest, earning, accounts of productive investment?

Sure a "saver" should have their "savings" saved, when they pay to have their "savings" saved, such a saving gold from theft, which is a cost, and gold, unlike Central Bank Dollar Denominated Savings Accounts, do not generate interest, Just ask a Gold bug, they can set you straight on that point. Why does a "saver" get a steady increase in their "savings" account? It is a subsidy, high interest rates are a subsidy, a wealth redistribution scheme, a give away, a something for nothing racket, with obvious hidden costs - if you care to look.

Why are speculators also given subsidy during a typical BOOM cycle when Legal Criminals "loosen" the money supply, as they pay lairs (as in Liar Loans, or stated income loans) to spend money? Think about that some, as the inflation rate may be 9% while the interest rate on the loan is 4%, which is a net cost to the borrower of negative 5% since the thing purchased, and purchased quickly, will gain 9% relative price while the inflation rate is 9%, holding onto the title of the purchase, paying 4% interest on  the loan while  holding onto the title, and even collecting rent, and in 10 years, at 9% inflation rate, while the interest rate is 4%, is an effective gain of 5% increase in price over those 10 years. That is negative interest. That is subsidy, or welfare, to speculators in the know.  There is an obvious downside, if you care to look.

The downside is such that only the few have the information concerning when the Central Bankers are going to switch from BOOM to BUST and where in the economic network a specific market will be turned from BOOM to BUST or back to BOOM, and therefore savers and speculators (and savers are speculating, and speculators are savers, since both words can mean anything at any time when dealing with Legal Criminals) can be caught short if they buy when they should have sold, and visa versa.

If the FOMC, and everyone connected to them, published all their meetings, so that everyone knew when the Legal Criminals were moving which part of the economy from BUST TO BOOM and back to BUST again, then speculating would be simple, just follow what everyone else does, and no one is caught short, unless someone has yet to learn the source of the schedule, but think about it, and know the truth, there will always be insiders who get a jump on the herd, before the herd is moved in the opposite direction, and they can't, of course, let everyone in on that inside information, or it won't work, and that is the point: a crime includes both a victim and a criminal as power is transferred  from the victim to the criminal, the victim can't be warned in advance. That does not work.

Criminal:
"Hi, how are you, Mr. Victim? I"m calling to set up an appointment."

Victim:
"Now is not a good time, I'm almost late for work, and I can't afford another ticket."

Criminal:
"Oh, hold on, this will take a little longer, as I inform my buddies at the speed trap."

Victim:
"Seriously, I have to go."

Criminal"
"Yes, seriously. Please get your entire savings account and have that ready for me this evening, and don't stop at the bar on the way home."

Victim:
"You must be Joe King."

If you are being led to buy Gold and Silver while the price is already at an all time high, from an all time low, then you are merely joining them, joining speculators/savers, in the game. Why not pay off your mortgage instead?

Why not buy Solar Panels and an Electric Car, or two, instead? How about a Modular Home Vertical Farming Unit or two, instead of Gold?

How about more bullets instead of gold?

You have no more money? That is such a big mystery. You work harder, longer, more efficiently, and yet you have no more money?

There are two divisions and they are not the two divisions reported by Max.

Max:

1. Savers
2. Speculators

Those are one group divided into two groups. They are one group.

Joe:

1. Honest Productive Americans
2. Legal Criminals (and their accessories, co-conspirators, cohorts, employees, and willing victims)

Of the first group, which consists of all the honest productive people in American who cause higher standards of living and who cause lower costs of living, and who produce more than they consume, and who are the group of people who produce the stuff that is targeted by the Legal Criminals, the TAX supply, the wealth, the purchasing power stuff, some have savings, some speculate, and many, and even the majority, have been robbed blind, and owe more than they produce, because they have been targeted, exploited, and have had their power taken by way of deceit, by way of threats of violence, and by way of violence upon their number.

Suppose the first group amounted to one third of the population of America, roughly One Hundred Million Americans, and those 100m continue to produce more, while more is taken in TAXES, and of those 100m, roughly half have no savings left, instead, roughly half have debt forced upon them by their parasitic hosts: The Legal Criminals.

Suppose then, that there are Fifty Million Honest Productive Americans left, which are roughly half the source of all wealth, half the source of all taxes, half the source of all Good Faith and Credit of The U.S.A., and they own, currently, more debt than they can produce wealth to pay the debt, in their life time, according to The Legal Criminals.

Suppose that the following is true:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Who exactly owes who exactly, and what exactly is owed to exactly who? Know that the Legal Criminals are very precise with the answer, but it is a trade secret.

Who then has any power left to save anything? Who then has any power left to buy gold, or silver, or guns, or bullets, or shelters in the mountains, or food stocks, or any power left to buy speculative purchases of any kind whatsoever, unless they choose to work more overtime, choose to take another part time job, choose to forgo any vacation time, choose to forgo any medical treatment, choose to forgo any luxury of any kind, and choose to work harder, and harder, and choose to stay competitive with higher quality production, and choose to stay competitive by lowering the price of the same production?

Who are these savers, and the speculators, who constitute the two groups Max reports?

What ever happened to The Honest Productive Americans, who produce higher quality stuff, at lower costs, and can out compete anyone on the planet, so long as they are not victims of Legal Crime?

If the only "News" that is ever reported is the full measure of The Legal Criminals, those who are alternately subsidized, and then taxed, voluntarily, joining in on the "business as usual" business cycle, for fun and profit, at the expense of someone, since that occupation does not produce anything, then is that all there is, because that is all that is ever reported?

Because The Honest Productive Americans are "the silent majority" they don't exist?

The Legal Criminals know exactly who The Honest Productive Americans are, they have a vested interest in knowing that precise information, since that is the actual source of their power, and they didn't trip over that power supply, that power supply is meticulously targeted, exploited, and ruined, on a schedule.

A paper trail exists.

Max did offer a good new report on Bill or William Black.

Max said that William Black fingered 1000 Legal Criminals. How is that for a ratio? What would happen if there were 1000 William Black's managing the same ratio? Why not start at the top, and sweep down? Why not start at the source, instead of a few tributaries way down the wasteland of the flood? Why not treat the cause, not the symptoms, or the massive hemorrhaging from the neck instead of the paper cut on the finger tip?

Why not just get off that road and step onto a higher quality road, a road without the toll booths lined up from one end to the other along that road to doom day?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Aug 16th, 2011 10:06 pm
  PM Quote Reply
31st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Hendo 19,

I think that you are describing future events, and you are merely voicing an early perspective of those soon to be future events. In my opinion the name used by the one challenging group will be something incorruptible, something other than "tea party", or "liberals".

Something along the lines of Tax Payers Union, or Honest Productive Americans, or Enemies of Legal Crime, but my guesses are inconsequential, the name will be the name that works the best.

There will be a date at which the group does reach that tipping point, and it can be a known future date, or it will be a date that is understood to be the date at which the challenge group became powerful enough to challenge Legal Crime, or challenge the criminals running the law power.

There will be an event too, and that event may occur on the tipping point day, before it, or after it, depending upon how that regime change event plays out exactly.

I think the event will be a declaration made by all the members of the new group to accomplish two things simultaneously and I can prove to you how these two things must happen, and if these two things do not happen, then there will not be a victor over Legal Crime, the Legal Criminals will perpetuate victimization without these two events.

1.
Refusal to connect to the criminals by the precise connection of fraudulent legal money.

2.
Invention, production, and maintenance of a legal money that maintains the disconnection of Legal Criminals, with legal money, to The Honest Productive People, who produce the power that powers up the Legal Criminals.

Anyone can argue the facts, sure, but that does not change the facts.

Once enough people realize what needs to be done, it will be done, because enough power will be employed to make what needs to be done happen, on a day, at a time, and history can record who did what on that day. You are seeing this, and you want to name it.

It will be, or humans will be no more, and either way, it will happen relatively soon.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Aug 18th, 2011 02:31 am
  PM Quote Reply
32nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Honest Productive Americans,

Please consider the words I am about to write, and if these words help, in any way, then consider passing on that help.

A person trained to be servile will be subject to that training, a subject, a weaker, dependent, powerless, subject of the producer, distributor, and perpetuating trainer, master, brain-washer, behavior modifier, response conditioner, dictator, criminal.

A person trained to be servile will fail to ask vital questions.

A person failing to ask vital questions will then fail to even look for accurate answers.

Failing to even look for accurate answers will render the person trained to be servile, trained to be powerless, and will be unable to employ accurate answers to vital questions.

An example may help.

Is it important to answer vital questions?

Yes, so long as the answer is accurate, as the answer can be employed productively.  

How about another example?

How can I increase my standard of living, reduce my cost of living, and in so doing human life perpetuates instead of failing as I allow the opposite to occur?

Have you asked that question? Is it a vital question? If the answer is yes, and the answer is accurate, then you have an accurate answer that you can then employ, you can then work that productive answer for your own best interest.  

Those who have stolen all the power produced by The Honest Productive People have used the power they stole to train their victims into believing that jobs are given to workers, as workers are a step down from employers, and these gifts of jobs are sure fire, tell tale, sound, and irrefutable evidence that hoists someone up higher and from lower, up from lowly worker status, up from the lowly worker class, up to the better, higher quality, brighter, wealthy, rich, and powerful employer class.

That is a story, and it is as false as the moon made of cheese. That lie leads to abject servitude.

Workers should be grateful for such bounty, such generosity, as employers give workers jobs.

Do you believe that lie?

Lick their boots.

Workers are trained to believe that more gifts are given to them, on top of the gift of employment, and this additional gift is called pay. Employers give the gift of jobs, and then, from a bottomless pit of generosity, employers spoil the targets of their limitless generosity with money, given to the workers, from the employers, paying the workers for the privilege of work.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Where did this story line come from, how did this arrangement occur, from what point did human beings exist, to get to this point, where there are now two groups of human beings instead of the one liberated group?

When group A offers an involuntary association to group B, and group B accepts, the race to the bottom begins, and that is the point of (seemingly) no return.

Return to the question:

How can I increase my standard of living, reduce my cost of living, and in so doing human life perpetuates instead of failing as I allow the opposite to occur?

Is that a vital question, worth gaining the power of having an accurate answer to employ in that specific work, on that road, having that goal in mind?

I am going to support the perspective I offer to you by way of linking another source of information, and from this source of information I will pick out quotes, and from those quotes I will unravel the lies behind the quote, and I will present to you a more accurate answer to the question asked, and from that accurate answer the person asking the question can then have an answer they can use, an answer that can be employed by the person asking the questions.

Don't wait for someone else to hand you questions and answers, if that is what you are trained to do, don't, instead, choose to employ yourself, employ your own power, ask your own questions, settle for nothing but an accurate answer, an accurate answer that you can employ, don't settle for duplicity, don't settle for contradiction, don't settle for the lesser of two evils, don't settle for an offer you can't (seemingly) refuse, don't settle for insanity, don't settle for less than an accurate, workable, useable, reasonable, and equitable answer, and in so doing you will be another example of liberty, another example of independence, another example of honest productive capacity, and the stuff you produce will be worth enough to add up to higher standards of living, and lower costs of living, so as to reverse the race to the bottom, and so as to ensure the survival of the human species for ever, if not longer. You will pass on honorable, honest, productive, human legacy, because that is what you are, as you settle for no less.

Why not?

Here is the link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/08/16/216-nixon-gold-and-ron-paul/

Here are the quotes:

"nobody could be trusted with the power to just print up unlimited numbers of new 100 dollar bills in your basement and spend them on what you want. Nobody can be trusted with that..."

"Ron Paul I think very correctly suggests as a baby step toward a sound money system: allowing competitive currencies, allow other things besides the dollar to be used legally and from a tax standpoint to have the same status as the dollar, that would be a huge step forward, that's the kind of thing we need to do and I think there is no question that gold will out compete everything else as money, just as it has for thousand and thousands of years."

How can I increase my standard of living, reduce my cost of living, and in so doing human life perpetuates instead of failing as I allow the opposite to occur?

Those who have been trained to be victims and criminals have a common bond and the common bond is falsehood. Their bond vanishes under the light of accurate discernment, as each potential victim is separated form each potential criminal once the bond of falsehood is broken, as the light of factual accurate perception shines through.

Note the first contradiction:

"nobody could be trusted with the power to just print up unlimited numbers of new 100 dollar bills in your basement and spend them on what you want. Nobody can be trusted with that..."

If no one can be trusted, then trade does not exist, and failing to know this is a huge failure.

If the question is this:

How can I increase my standard of living, reduce my cost of living, and in so doing human life perpetuates instead of failing as I allow the opposite to occur?

Then the accurate answer must include a means by which one person can trade with another person because one person, alone, disconnected from any other person within a productive connection, can produce much more than the bare essentials for survival, even when the single person is surrounded by natural wealth.

No single person, alone, can produce space travel, for example, so as to increase the survivability of the human species past the capacity of the Sun and the Earth to sustain life.

No single person, alone, can produce a steel sewing needle, let alone space travel, as such things as steel sewing needles are examples of years of human invention as human beings did, and do, in fact, manage to trade their individual productive powers so as to produce productive power that is more than the sum of all the individual parts.

If no one can be trusted, as the dictators say, in their effort to subject you to falsehood, or in whatever effort they have dreamed up, seeking whatever secret goal they may have in mind, if no one can be trusted, there then can be no productivity, as each individual is presented with an obstacle instead of an advantage, a road block is placed in place where a connecting avenue to prosperity would exist, a steep and insurmountable vertical wall is constructed instead of a gentle, natural, smooth road going downhill.

Without trust in your fellow man you are operating the very same operating system as every other dictator and criminal in human time. Men are bad, they say, and therefore exploiting them before they can exploit you is the only path, without exception. If you can't beat'em: join'em.

Joe, you say, you are taking those words out of context.

"nobody could be trusted with the power to just print up unlimited numbers of new 100 dollar bills in your basement and spend them on what you want. Nobody can be trusted with that..."

The contradiction confesses the lie. If no one can be trusted to create money, no one can be trusted to create money, I did not use the word, I quoted the word, the word choice is "nobody", and that either means "nobody" or it is a false front, a false word, a misdirection, willfully chosen, or merely parroted dogma, the answer is not accurate, and therefore the question is not answered.

How can I increase my standard of living, reduce my cost of living, and in so doing human life perpetuates instead of failing as I allow the opposite to occur?

The accurate answer includes whatever process manages to combine the individual powers into a power that is greater than the sum of all the parts which is, in one word, trade. Trade is a word that points to the process that is an answer to the question. Distrusting everyone is not the answer, and to distrust everyone for the willful crimes of a few is an accurate answer to a different question.

How can I increase my standard of living, reduce my cost of living, and in so doing my life perpetuates at the expense of the lives of other people?

Resort to deception, resort to threats of violence, and resort to aggressive violence upon the innocent ones who trust each other and are capable of producing more than they consume, and in that way you can increase your standard of living, reduce your cost of living, by lowering your victims standards of living, and by passing costs of your living onto your victims. Punish everyone for your crimes.

"nobody could be trusted with the power to just print up unlimited numbers of new 100 dollar bills in your basement and spend them on what you want. Nobody can be trusted with that..."

If that were true, which it is not, all men, and all women, all human beings, could not be trusted with power, for lack of any moral understanding, lack of any restraint of reason, all men, all women, all human beings will abuse power, without question, therefore nobody could be trusted with power. Except me of course.

Nobody can be trusted with that...except me. Except the Gold bugs who don't print money, they buy it, and where do they get the stuff needed to buy gold, or silver, or barrels of oil, or lies? If they can't be trusted, that is a fact, if someone else can be trusted, that is a fact, what is the idea behind punishing everyone for the crimes of a few?

There is more to this story provided by the quotes already offered. Repeated:

"Ron Paul I think very correctly suggests as a baby step toward a sound money system: allowing competitive currencies, allow other things besides the dollar to be used legally and from a tax standpoint to have the same status as the dollar, that would be a huge step forward, that's the kind of thing we need to do and I think there is no question that gold will out compete everything else as money, just as it has for thousand and thousands of years."

Note another contradiction as "a baby step" becomes "a huge step forward", and how does that happen in time and space?

A monopoly, or Cartel, is by definition the overpowering of competition, not exactly the complete destruction of all competition where ever and when ever competition arises, but a measurable absence of competition as monopoly defeats competition and the opposite is true as competition defeats monopoly like mass defeats space, like sunlight defeats darkness, and like warmth defeats cold.

A. Monopoly
B. Competition

One is not the other, one is opposite the other, and where one is the other is not, and here in good ole' U.S.A Inc. (LLC) there is a working legal money monopoly whereby the money can be as low in quality and as high in cost as the producer cares to make it because there is no force of internal competition causing the producer to increase quality and there is no internal force causing the producer to lower the cost and that fact is as measurable a fact as competitors are systematically forced out of business by the legal producers of the single legal money.

Internal competition in money markets is against the law, and in fact: "it shall not be questioned."

Joe, you may say, they are on the same page as you, why bicker over semantics?

If gold isn't forced by Gold Bugs to be the only legal money it won't be the highest quality money at the lowest cost and that is a measurable fact, so why do the Gold Bugs (tm) repeat such lies?

I think there is no question that gold will out compete everything else as money, just as it has for thousand and thousands of years.

That is an opinion followed by a false claim. Perhaps the claim is false on purpose, perhaps it is believed to be true while it is demonstrably false. When gold is scarce, in each and every case, those who have none have invented much better alternatives, and the quality of being better is such that the better money isn't scarce to the inventor of the alternative, as something useful is better than nothing at all. In each case where people who have gold, as sure as can be, and measurably so, gold is very good money, for them, so long as they have it, and therefore it is good for them, when they have it, and that makes a lot of sense. Gold can be confiscated, it has been confiscated, and for reasons that remain clear, to anyone who cares to answer those vital questions.  

How many people who have no gold, no gold certificates, no gold futures, no gold receipts, and no desire for gold, are inclined to trust that gold is the best money, "that gold with out compete everything else as money" as the dogmatic claim suggests? Even if they say yes, yes, gold is the best money, while they have none, while they fail to get any, while they continue to trade without gold, their actions confess the truth, as gold escapes their command.

What happens if Ron Paul adds one more competitor on the list of legal tender competitors?

1. Federal Reserve System of Extortion products a.k.a dollar denominated legal units of debt
2. Gold

There is where I am in full agreement with the dogma offered by the Gold Bugs as the obvious facts will become obvious when that legal competition is no longer against the law.

Where the agreement ends is as obvious.

1. Federal Reserve System of Extortion products a.k.a dollar denominated legal units of debt
2. Gold
3. Anyone can print their own legal money anytime, at their own cost.

What I have just handed to you is an accurate answer to the question asked at the beginning of this effort to communicate to the masses of humanity.

How can I increase my standard of living, reduced my cost of living, and in so doing life perpetuates instead of me allowing the opposite to occur?

You don't see the answer?

You have to ask the question. You have to settle for nothing less than the highest quality answer, at the lowest cost. Ask, and then get the answer. When you find the answer, please consider passing it on.

When competition is the power exerting the most force then everyone who can compete competes, without the force of deceit preventing some competitors, forcing them out of business fraudulently.

When competition is the power exerting the most force then everyone who can compete competes, without the force of threats of violence preventing some competitors, forcing them out of business.

When competition is the power exerting the most force then everyone who can compete competes, without the force of aggressive violence preventing some competitors, forcing them out of business.

The force of deceit claims that Gold will dominated and corner the market, and monopolize money markets, and it is deceit in play, as a power, as that power forces some competitors that can compete out of business.

1. Dollars
2. Gold
3. Silver
4. Any competitor can invent, produce, and maintain a competitive form of money, absent the force of deceit preventing any one competitor, absent the force of threats of violence preventing any one competitor, and absent the force of aggressive violence preventing one competitor.

Which money will be the highest quality and lowest cost of the first 3 on the list, if all other competitors are outlawed? Throw the Gold Bugs a bone.

What happens if a very few people start buying up all the gold and in time their plan follows through and the execution phase of the plan completes on schedule, and very few people soon own almost all the gold, and almost everyone is excluded from the club of gold owners?

Where do they get the money they need to buy the gold? Is that a vital question? Does it matter if all other competitors are against the law? What if dollars, gold, and silver are all included in the legal competition to gain the most market share in legal money in good ole' U.S.A. Inc. (LLC)?

A few people gather up almost all the gold, which causes an effective greater scarcity of gold, and therefore the price of gold will increase, assuming that the demand stays the same, or increases, demand increases, more people born, more people needing money, more people having no money, more people convinced in the belief that they have to pay taxes, more people requiring the stuff needed for survival, more people wanting higher standards of living, and more people wanting lower costs of living, and less, and less, and less gold is available, as fewer people have it, and as a few people buy up as much gold as they can possibly accumulate in time. What happens to the value of the dollar, and what happens to the value of silver, as the plan to manipulate the gold supply follows through the execution phase when those 3, and only those 3, forms of legal money are not made illegal, when tax payers can pay taxes with dollars, or gold, or silver, when all debits (tax debt in particular) public, and private, are legally payable with either of those three legal forms of legal tender, according to the authorities, and the Gold Bugs.

1. Dollars continue to be supplied by the legal criminals running The Federal Reserve System of Extortion, and they continue to double, and cut in half, the dollar money amount in circulation.
2. Gold flows from the many to the few who employ that answer to their problem of loosing control over their victims, as they execute their gold accumulation scheme.
3. Silver offers a competitive quality money, at a competitive cost (until it too is targeted for exploitation by a few powerful people, as those powerful people may or may not have gained their power through fraud, threats of violence, and aggressive violence upon the innocent)

As the quality of the dollar plummets during the next BOOM phase of increasing the money supply by any word, or fraud, or deceit, or lie, used, and as Gold is manipulated by a few powerful people into a state of extreme scarcity, and as silver is not yet targeted for manipulation, what happens to the dominance of The Dollar, or Gold, as Silver remains free from deceit, free from threats of violence, and free from manipulation by a few as a means of gaining at the expense of the many?

If you happen to be a laborer and you happen to know that money competition is now legal, pretending now that it is legal, and you happen to be watching the horse race, to see which money becomes the best money, you may decide to be paid in Gold, as gold becomes more and more scarce, and what does the employer say about your choice to be paid in gold during that experiment in competitive legal money supplies?

I have no gold, my customers have no gold, my suppliers are demanding gold, I can't pay you in gold, but, if you want to keep working here, love it or leave it, you can be paid in dollars or silver.

What is the legal exchange rate?

You didn't ask.

You don't know how to ask vital questions on your own, since you have been trained to be a victim.

It is against the law to question the money monopoly, and you obey.

The legal money competition race starts hypothetically:

1000 dollar units are worth 1 gold unit

100 dollars is worth 1 silver

10 silver is worth 1 gold

How free is the market? The legal criminals give you jobs, they give you pay for allowing you to work, and they now give you three choices, from the depths of their bottomless hearts of gold, and they give you rules governing your money, and they say you can pay your debts with any of those three competitive money supplies, and each will be exactly as valuable as they say, on that first day, until you are told differently.

Gold is accumulated according to a plan hatched by a very few powerful people for the next 10 years and the dollar competitor, for some strange reason, does not change the supply of dollars at all, for 10 years, and no one has added to, or subtracted from the silver supply, to any degree of significance, during those 10 years - what happens after 10 years?

2 Trillion dollars in circulation (after The Federal Reserve System of Extortion people ordered the amount doubled in 2008 from 1 to 2 Trillion) and that amount remains 2 Trillion for 10 years.
1 Million units of gold are in circulation at the start and 1/2 a million units are in circulation after the Gold Bugs accumulate half of it, and that half is kept out of circulation by those members of the Gold Bug club.
10 million units of Silver are in circulation a the start and 10 million units of silver are in circulation at the end of 10 years.

Start
2T dollars = 1m gold
1m gold = 10m silver
10m silver. = 2T dollars

10 Years later with a fixed exchange rate - fixed by law
2T dollars = 1m gold (half taken out of circulation)
1m gold = 10m silver
10m silver = 2T dollars

If the rules handed down to you from your benevolent dictators peg the three legal money competitors to a gold standard, as such above, there isn't any sense in manipulating the supply of gold by buying up and taking out of circulation significant amounts of the whole, no one cares, pay me in either, they are all the same, who cares? You have no gold, who cares, pay me in silver, it is as good as gold.

What happens if the benevolent dictators change the rules after 10 years, according to their schedule, and after the insiders follow through with the plan to buy up and accumulate, and take out of circulation, half of the gold supply?

Now, they say, it is time to return to a free market?

What happens to the value of gold compared to the value of the dollar, and the value of silver at that point in time?

2T dollars = 1/2m gold
1/2m gold = 100m silver
100m silver = 2T dollars

Those who have the gold stored can buy up all the dollars, or all the silver, with 1/2 the gold supply. What if they buy up 1/2 the dollars and 1/2 of the silver over the next period of 10 years?

Peg the value first?

What happens if the value is not pegged at the start?

Start
2T dollars = 1m gold
1m gold = 100m silver
100m silver. = 2T dollars

Day two, for an example, someone, or some group, buy 1/2 the gold supply on the first day. What happens to the exchange rate as a result of that manipulation of those three legal money competitors during the experimental competition in legal money markets, whereby no law enforces a fixed rate of exchange?

Suppose someone blows the whistle, to you, and no one else knows yet, just you and the insiders, just you and those who are causing the reduction of gold in circulation by half the total supply, and you have a choice to pay taxes with gold, silver, or dollars - what do you pay your taxes with, when you are one of the few people who know the current, significant, manipulation of the gold supply?

Suppose you have the following saved up after 10 years of hard labor, and then you hear the news about the gold supply manipulation:

1000 dollars worth of dollars saved
1 unit of gold saved
100 units of silver saved

Do you pay taxes with gold, since you want the tax collectors to be more powerful in their work, at your expense? Do you choose to get paid in gold, and do you grow suspicious when your employer begins to offer special treatment for employees who choose to be paid in dollars or in silver while the employer keep his, or her, gold closer to their black hearts?

Is there a published exchange rate each week in the newspaper, or a clock on the local bank, where the current exchange rate is broadcast to the entire world, including you, and it does not yet show the affect of the insider news you have, as half of the gold supply is secretly stashed away by a select, exclusive, few, very powerful people?

Is your pay automatically adjusted to reflect the current exchange rate as the three competitors gain and lose quality and cost, and if it is not done accurately, you simply choose to have your debts paid to you in the currency you think is higher in quality, and lower in cost to you, no matter what the authorities claim?

The big leap forward does occur when competition forces the quality of money up and the cost of money down, by any report, by any words, that happens, and I can see that fact, and I don't need Ron Paul telling me, and I certainly don't need the Gold Bugs telling me it is a baby step, I don't need an employer telling me, since that simple fact is self evidently true, as competition does what it does, even if I don't like it, even if I refuse to see it, it is what it is, it does what it does, and it does not depend upon my permission to be what it is, and to do what it does.

Why, though, would anyone, ever, claim that any competitor who can compete is not allowed to compete? What is the true purpose of excluding some competitors, forcing them out of business while subsidizing the special interests?

Stumped?

Remember this:

How can I increase my standard of living, reduced my cost of living, and in so doing life perpetuates instead of me allowing the opposite to occur?

What is the answer?

Remember this:

"nobody could be trusted with the power to just print up unlimited numbers of new 100 dollar bills in your basement and spend them on what you want. Nobody can be trusted with that..."

If a three way legal competition works to improve money, what is the full measure of force when any money can compete?

Remember this:

1. Dollars
2. Gold
3. Silver
4. Any competitor can invent, produce, and maintain a competitive form of money, absent the force of deceit preventing any one competitor, absent the force of threats of violence preventing any one competitor, and absent the force of aggressive violence preventing one competitor.

What do you think is a stock or share in a company?

What do you think is a personal check?

What do you think is good faith and credit?

If you want to answer your question with your answer, if that is what you want, how much do you want it, and why can't you print up your own money, at your own cost, and as ong as your good faith and credit is good, isn't it good? Why would your money be any less, or any more, valuable than the next competitor? According to whose authority?

If the force that causes you to do good is a force acting on you, shared by no one else, where no one else is punished for your mistakes, and no one forces you to be punished for their mistakes, what do you call that, and if you don't have a word for that, I do, and the word is equity.

Suppose you wanted to build Solar Panels for sale? What stops you from printing 100 receipts for one of your Solar Panels each and you sell those to suppliers who can sell those receipts to people who want Solar Panels. You start with nothing, you get the supplies you need, you build the Solar Panels, and your money returns to you as you are the source of your money, and you money is what you produce to start your business, and your money is designed to be used, by your future customers, in exchange for the source of your good faith and credit, in exchange for your competitive production, and you are in business, and you use your own good faith and credit, and if your credit isn't worth anything, your money will be worth nothing, and you go out of business, and you pay the cost, and those who bought your money buy the certain knowledge that you are not an honest productive person, which would be their own mistake, a mistake they don't pass onto anyone else, and you can make good your reputation in some other way, if you want a good reputation, if you can earn one after you had earned a bad reputation by your own failure. No collective punishment. No power expended by any external powers to protect those from themselves, no one to blame, other than those who are responsible for any blame.  

What is the exchange rate of your money at the start? Why would your first sale of your first 100 receipts, as claims on your future production, measure up to anyone as being of any value whatsoever? No one told them that your money was good, you have to do that, as they may be trained into a belief that only one money is any good, and that is the wall placed in front of you so that you are rendered powerless as a competitor. They are trained to believe that no one can be trusted, they are good subjects. Why can't you convince someone that you can produce something of value, as good as anyone else, or better, if given the chance, and why does it require permission from someone to start down that road? What road block is in the way of anyone offering any competitive answer to the question once it is asked and then an answer is offered to anyone else?

What was the exchange rate on a Google share at the start? Why are Google shares not accepted as tax payments? If you buy Solar Panels sufficient to produce more than you consume, enough to sell excess power, why is your power, added to the grid, not a measure of tax payment - legally? Why do you have to wait to save up money to start such a business? If your start up costs are your own printed money, in the form of stocks, shares, or dirty toilet paper with your promise on it, your money will be as good, or as bad, as you can earn your own good faith and credit. You can do that now, what stops you?

The move from monopoly to competition is not a baby step, it is the definition of regime change, and it is the peaceful version of regime change, it is the method of regime change that does not resort to deceit, and does not resort to threats of violence, and does not resort to aggressive violence like torture and mass murder upon the multitudes of innocent victims as the collective punishment price paid for the perpetuation of legal money monopoly.

The idea that there is a monopoly, despite all the evidence proving otherwise, is the wall in place, and as soon as enough people wake up seeing past that false front, it vanishes.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
— Henry Ford

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Aug 20th, 2011 08:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
33rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1022.html

Anyone,

I am going to communicate an optional viewpoint that does not follow the left/right or socialist/capitalist script as it has become known, currently, as a polarizing, perpetuating, internalized, conflict.

Gary North writes:

That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.

To help understand the option viewpoint I will paint a picture for the reader, and once the reader has this picture in view the reader can look from that place to the ongoing left/right conflict.

Picture a society whereby the supply of money to the honest productive people within the society is abundant, not scarce, abundant.

You may have trouble with that picture. You may have a very hard time conceptualizing such a society. I can help.

In such a society as a society whereby the honest productive people have ready access to money, an abundant supply of money, there is a scale by which that abundance, and that ready access flows from the source of the money to the users of the money, and on that scale there are extreme limits on each end, and any honest productive person exists on that scale, and being on that scale from one end, or the other end, is a fact of being honest, and it is a fact of being productive, and it is therefore a fact of being able to employ money on that scale.

Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, dishonest, are on one end of the scale.

Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, unproductive, are on one end of the scale.

Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, honest, are on the other end of the scale.

Those who are very, very, very, and most, extremely, productive, are on the other end of the scale.

Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest

That is the scale and that scale is the scale by which the flow of money flows from the producers of money to the users of money readily while at the same time the flow of money does not readily flow from the producers of money to the torturing mass murderers and those who lie, those who steal, and those who rob, rape, torture, and murder, and those who destroy as an occupation.

Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above

You now have before you an easy to see social network whereby the power to produce (money is purchasing power or it isn't money) flows to those who can produce the most power to produce while, at the same time, the power to destroy does not flow to those who are most capable of abusing the power to produce in the work of destroying everything including the power to produce.

I've painted the picture, you can ignore it, you can fail to see it, you can fail to ask vital questions concerning what it is, and how to make it work best, but it is, and it will always be what it is, even if you refuse to see it.

If you see it, get in it, know it, be it, and accept it, as it exists, and from that point, look back, look back from that point to the social network at work today whereby socialism is set-up against capitalism in it's present form.

From here:

Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above

From there look back to here:

Honest Productive People>->->->->->->>->->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->Legal Criminals
Those who employ money to make more productive power send the total of their productive work to those who then use that power stolen in the work of destruction to keep the power to do so perpetually

There are two ways to prove to you that the social network working now is the second social network above, and those two methods of proving to you are as follows:

A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Whenever someone claims that socialism is opposite capitalism, think twice, or think as many times as needed to get out of that hell hole. It is a rigged game. Socialism is not even remotely connected to capitalism, unless you define socialism as an opposite of capitalism, and then, as far as you are concerned, that is what socialism is, as socialism, to you, is the opposite of capitalism, to you, and everyone else who is caught up in that rat trap, clap trap, lie, falsehood, self-destructive merry go round, business cycle insanity, bull expletive.

Socialism has a long history, and it was, is, and will be a scientific approach toward the study of society, in the effort to improve society. Like a gun, or a pointed stick, socialism can be employed by honest productive people as well as socialism can be employed by dishonest destructive people any time, any place, right now, or in the next span of time until human beings are no longer living.

Capitalism has a long history, and it was, is, and will be a method of pricing and that is about it, as far as I know. Capitalism can be anything any honest productive person wants it to be, and capitalism can be anything any dishonest destructive person wants it to be, any time, any where, from now on.

The socialism versus capitalism dogmatic, and false, method of enslaving targeted victims by those who invent, produce, and maintain that false method of enslaving targeted victims is exactly that, and it was that, and it will be that, for as long as it works that way, as long as the targeted victims allow it to work that way.

Left versus Right

Socialism versus Capitalism

Communism versus Fascism

Democrats versus Republicans

Organized crime group A versus Organized crime group B

Legal Crime group A versus Legal Crime group B

The labels hide the names of the actual people who invent, produce, and maintain those types of connections, those types of social networks, those types of arrangements that are, without the lies, and are without the false fronts, INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS.

When there are battles going on whereby those who invent, produce, and maintain VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS, are being targeted by those who invent, produce, and maintain INVOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS you have, before you, regime change of a different nature, an different order, and a regime change that cannot be known by the victims; hence the need to invent, produce, and maintain the false battle.

If the victims are fighting a false battle, whereby the victims are fighting each other, they have no power being employed in the work that can cause the end of victimization.

Do you have that understood?

How many ways can that be shown to you, whereby you can still manage to ignore it?

Will you ever question the lies that you have accepted as fact?

Back to Gary North:

That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.

All of that is nonsense. It is abject acceptance of falsehood driving false solutions. You can know this, easily. You don't have to rely upon the expertise of an Austrian Economist to dig your own way out of the mire.

When purchasing power flows to honest productive people in abundance, instead of the opposite, whereby purchasing power flows readily, quickly, rapidly, into the hand of the most destructive among us, what happens?

What happens if the following is reversed?


A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

It won't be capitalism.

It won't be socialism.

It will be a social network that measurably allows, voluntarily, the flow of power flowing to the people who are most able to use that power in the work of making more power.

What happens when power is abundant?

It won't be capitalism

It won't be socialism

Capitalism is just, and only, a method of pricing, and it is a method of pricing that is employed by the person using it to move power to them from someone else, and that is it, and it can be capitalism whenever it works for whomever it works and so what, big deal, it is not something to die for, it is not something to torture people to keep, it isn't worth anything more than any other pricing method at any time, in any place.

Capitalism is a pricing method. If it is more to you, it is something else, and you define what it is, to you, and to whomever you share that exclusive definition, whereby your group define capitalism that way, so what, big deal, pat yourselves on the back.

Is capitalism the thing you use to excuse legal torture and legal mass murder? Is your pricing method worth that much to you? What is capitalism to you?

This:

Honest Productive People>->->->->->->>->->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->>->->->->->->Legal Criminals
Those who employ money to make more productive power send the total of their productive work to those who then use that power stolen in the work of destruction to keep the power to do so perpetually

If that is the bare bones, no false advertizing, no false fronts, no hidden agendas, no secret deals, no dirty compromises, out in the open, true, accurate, real, factual thing you know to be as capitalism, then capitalism isn't just a pricing method, to you.

If that is capitalism, to you, and your group, then capitalism isn't this:

Most Destructive and Dishonest<->destructive and dishonest<-> neither destructive or productive and neither honest or dishonest<->productive and honest<->Most Productive and Honest
Least access to money, money is most scarce on this end of the same scale above->->->->->->->->->->->->Most access to money, money is abundant on this end of the same scale above

When the power to purchase moves more readily to those who employ power  in the necessary work required to produce more power the end result will be an abundance of power sooner than any other flow of power.

When the power to purchase moves more readily to those who employ power in the necessary work required to move power to dishonest people who destroy things, you have this:


A.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

B.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Call that socialism if it makes you feel better about it. It is still it. Call that capitalism, if it makes you feel better about it. It is still it. It is still doing what it does best.

Back to Gary North:

That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.

The Gold Bugs, and the Austrian Economists, call them conservatives, or call them republicans, or call them friends of Liberty, or constitutionalists, or whatever label works for you, but don't call them late for dinner.

They want purchasing power to be scarce. That is their tune. So long as purchasing power is scarce, so long will those who know how to get scarce things be more powerful than those who don't. That is their tune.

It is based upon the idea that value, the full and only measure of value, is measured on a scale of scarcity. Like this:

Most scarce, very scarce, pretty scarce, kinda scarce, not scarce or abundant, kinda abundant, pretty abundant, very abundant, most abundant
Most valuable, very valuable, kinda valuable, not as valuable, even less valuable, nearly absent any value, hardly worth anything, worth nothing

That is a very flawed economic theory, as it ignores, on purpose, the value of generosity, and it ignores, by willful ignorance, or just plain stupidity, the value of power.

If power is abundant it is more powerful.

If power is scarce it is only more powerful for those who have the power to get more power than anyone else.

So, that is the measure of error in that viewpoint, as anyone with a brain can see, assuming, of course, that the man hears more than just what he what's to hear.

I've spilled the beans. I've blown the whistle. What can the capitalists do, once they know the truth about their pricing methods? They are trained to accept only one option, which is to move closer to socialism.

That is the insanity of the left/right falsehood. That is the brilliancy, or genius, of the left/right falsehood.

Are you an insane victim.

Are you a member of the legal crime syndicate?

How do you earn your living?

Who pays the bills?

If your brilliant, genius, left/right falsehood fills your bank account, you may find out soon, that you are just another one of the insane victims, and you have fair warning, from more than just another conscientious objector, your even have warnings offered  to you from above, and I don't mean Gold.

Back to Gary North:

That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.

I return to that because that says so much.  

What happens when power flows readily, abundantly,  to those who employ power best at the work of making more power?

That is a vital question, and therefore an accurate answer is required, a must have, and failing to have the accurate answer can be worse than failing to ask the question, since the wrong answer can invent, and produce, a wrong path,  a path heading further away from the right path, while the person who has not yet asked the question may yet ask it, and may yet gain the accurate answer.

What happens when power flows readily, abundantly,  to those who employ power best at the work of making more power?

Jobs, employment, opportunity, and an abundant supply of new, productive, things to be done can be what happens when power flows readily, abundantly,  to those who employ power best at the work of making more  power.

What happens when there are many, many, many more job opportunities than there are  people who are ready, willing, and able to fill those job opportunities?

The shoe is on the other foot.

A worker becomes the employer.

Like this:

Joe is a person needing help to complete a large work load, failing to gain the help need will be total failure as another competitor does not fail in this work of finding, hiring, and paying workers to work.

Jack is a person deciding which job to take, among an abundant supply of jobs, not wanting to be too generous, not wanting to give up too much for too little.

Joe interviews Jack:

Joe:
"Jack, sit down, please, I'm offering you less than the minimum wage required by law, because I can."

Jack:
"Stuff it."

Back to Gary North:

That's what Dr. Marx taught, too. He called this process the exploitation of labor. He argued that employers – capitalists – extract value from laborers because employers pay them less than they are worth. Capitalists pay laborers only survival wages, and then pocket the difference.

If the Gold Bugs get to keep a monetary system that manages to make purchasing power scarce to everyone except those who are best able to deceive targeted victims, or threaten targeted victims, or injuring targeted victims, or torturing targeted victims, or mass murdering targeted victims, then power will remain scarce, on purpose, because power can't be allowed to reach a level that is even remotely close to abundance, because abundant power will find it's way into the hands of honest productive people, and that will result in honest productive people doing what they do best, which is production, which will be powerful, which will move the production of power more toward abundance, including the production of an abundant supply of job opportunities.

Joe interviews Jack:

Joe:
"Jack, sit down, please, I'm offering you less than the minimum wage required by law, because I can."

Jack:
"Stuff it."

Back to Gary North:

[Note: the phrase "pocket the difference" is the very heart of the endless debates among all schools of economic opinion. Why? Because nobody keeps the money in his pocket for long. He does something with it. So, to understand economics, follow the money: into pockets and out of pockets.]

Please don't get the wrong idea. I'm not blowing the whistle on Gary North. I think that Gary North knows the facts as good as anyone I've read living today. Gold may dominate a free market as the highest quality legal currency taking most of the market share because it is higher in quality and lower in cost than all competitors combined.

I don't know. I think not. I think that electricity is a much better legal currency. The trouble with electricity as money, not currency,  is that electricity is a use it or lose it form of legal currency. Storing electricity is yet another market. Electricity is a very productive form of legal currency. Electricity is a very high quality legal currency, because it is exactly what it is, and it is therefore a very exact standard of purchasing power.

That is what I think, not what Gary North thinks. I may be alone in my thoughts. You can be the judge.

You are.

Back to Gary North:

Therefore, Marx concluded, the way to get rich is to set up a business in India and China, where there are enormous pools of labor to be exploited. Oops, sorry; that's not what Marx taught. He said that the way to get rich was to imitate his partner, Frederick Engels, who ran a factory in Manchester. Well, he did not actually admit that his partner was a capitalist exploiter, but he knew how the man made enough money to put him on the dole for 30 years. So, Marx argued, the way to get rich is to set up a business in a growing economy – a capitalist economy – where there are fewer laborers than in Asia, and who live far better than Asians did in 1850. Exploit richer workers – that's the ticket to wealth!

I want to explore the optional viewpoint much more than I have the time at this time, so I have to cut this short. The above quote reminds me of a lesson learned. The lesson I learned had to do with the two default viewpoints combined into the one conflict viewpoint, and how, historically, that played out.

In the Communist Manifesto there are quotes that may be attributed to Marx or Engels. Confusing the two may be a bad idea. In those quotes the message is clearly marking the differences between the false conflict and the option.

The false conflict was said to be, specifically, COMMUNISM versus Capitalism, and in The Communist Manifesto the option viewpoint was spelled out as Socialism, and even that was specified as the Socialism spoken of by specific proponents of Socialism.

Here:

http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

PREFACE TO 1888 ENGLISH EDITION

Down here:

Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.

Note the use of the following term:

social quacks

The Enemies of Communism, therefore, are known.

Owenites

Fourierists

Those were the enemies of the Communism versus Capitalism battle.

Those were the optional viewpoints. Those where the ones opting out of the false paradigm.

I have learned a lesson about those options.

From those options, in America, the following option was invented:

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

That was explained further, in historical context, by the following:

Owen, Fourier, St. Simon, and more, have worthily sought to solve the problem of a harmonious human society; and although they have all tailed to discover the true methods of reform, they have done, in the effort to do so, other and most valuable work. They have laid bare the vices of the old règime with a terrific fidelity. They have, like Carlyle, disgusted mankind with their own portraiture. At the same time they have sketched with a potent hand an enchanting picture of the “golden age of the future,” which contrasts in all men’s minds forcibly, at this day, with the antagonism, the wasteful expenditure of means, the ignorance, and crime, and sickness, and squalor, and filth, and wretchedness, and the broad and painful but ludicrous diversities of poverty and wealth, and the mercenary degradation of all classes, which disgrace the existing state of our social organization. Fourier has done even far more than this. His masterly analysis of the human passions is an invaluable contribution to man’s knowledge of himself. His daring but shadowy outline of a science of universal analogy, which would be entitled, if once put fairly upon the firm basis of a known science, to the denomination of “The Science of Sciences,” is eminently worthy of estimation, if regarded as merely suggestive, and stimulating to more sedate and systematic investigations in the same direction, and equally dangerous if accepted for what it claims to be an ascertained basis from which to reason in practical science.

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

The lesson is such that other people know the same lesson, in other words:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/pilgers-law-if-its-been-officially-denied-then-itrsquos-probably-true-959206.html

Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true'

The Communist Manifesto officially denies Socialism and not ambiguously, there is a specific reference to a pre-corruption Socialism.

Owenites in England, Fourierists in France

That was imported, improved, and that became such things as Equitable Commerce.

There are other examples:

http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm

Mutual Banking  (look up The Parasite City please)

And here:

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40

A New System of Paper Currency

Listen up.

Those are American versions of options that are outside of the Left/Right conflict, so, what does the "Right" have to say about those American born options, and keep in mind Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it’s probably true'

You have to go to the Right sides official mouthpiece, and you probably don't even know who that is, so I can offer to you a very competitive competitor for the official, no bones, free market, mouth piece, the literal horses mouth, for the established right.

Here:
http://mises.org/books/egalitarianism.pdf

Murray Rothbard
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature

13
THE SPOONER–TUCKER
DOCTRINE: AN
ECONOMIST’S VIEW

Remember a few things here please, before I begin quoting:

1.  The mouth piece of the free market right do not touch Equitable Commerce with a 10 foot pole, as far as the Free Market Right (tm) is concerned the author of Equitable Commerce is persona non grata.
2.  The closest I have ever found of any spokesperson of the Free Market Right (tm) challenging Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren is the quotes I am going to now quote.
3.  Spooner was a spokes person contemporary to, or at the same time as, Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews, all of which came after Owen and Fourier, all of which are contemporaries with Marx and Engels, more or less, and then following Josiah Warren the work of Benjamin Tucker, with his publications of Liberty, for example, the time line is thereby reported.

So Murray Rothbard has to skip over Josiah Warren, as if Equitable Commerce didn't exist, so as to then discredit Spooner and Tucker.

Here are the quotes:

Actually, in contrast to collectivist anarchists and to many other types of radicals, Spooner and Tucker tried to use economics rather than scorn it as excessively rational. Some of their fallacies (for example, the “law of cost,” the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them that rent, interest, and profit were payments exploitatively extracted from the worker. In contrast to the Marxists, however, Spooner and Tucker, understanding many of the virtues of the free market, did not wish to abolish that noble institution; instead, they believed that full freedom would lead, by the workings of economic law, to the peaceful disappearance of these three categories of income. The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found—and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies—in the sphere of money.


That is bait and switch, combined with a Man of Straw product. There is no argument possible as to the cost principle which is Josiah Warren's observation reported in Equitable Commerce. Rothbard baits with an inaccurate reference to the cost principle by twisting it and replacing it with his own construction of "law of cost" and then his own Man of Straw in "The Labor Theory of Value (tm)".

So, politically, destructive politics, or resort to deceit is a play here in measurable ways.

A.
Do not mention that which must not be acknowledged, which is the same thing happening right now as the Legal Criminals do not mention Ron Paul. Murray Rothbard, and all the right side dogmatists do not mention Josiah Warren and Equitable Commerce, at all.

B.
Corrupt the message that does manage to become currently aware by a significant number of people, despite refusal to even mention that which must not be acknowledged. In other words if the message does get out, despite all effort to keep the message censored, the next best thing is to alter, corrupt, and spin the message.

C.
Attack the corrupted message, and misdirect all attention away from the actual message. A Man of Straw is constructed with an obvious flaw, and then the constructor of the Man of Straw has power over that weak opponent, while the actual opponent is thereby hidden.

More from Murray Rothbard:

The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as “money-cranks”) are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest.

First off, you can read Spooner's actual work, if you care to, and you can know that it is sound, and his work is far closer to capitalism, it is capitalism in fact, it employes the same pricing method, based upon scarcity, and therefore the whole attack on Spooner is ludicrous, laughable, or even stupid - certainly ignorant. Secondly the actual alternative, the cost principle, and individuality principle based Equitable Commerce competitor, the actual target of Rothbard's false political spin, the same thing that inspired Tucker, is again misrepresented by Rothbard, entirely side stepped, with the reference to "monetary-cranks".

Thirdly, notice the tactic of claiming to blame the use of derogatory, and inflammatory herbage on other people. Rothbard claims that it is unfair to call his Straw-Man "monetary-cranks", while he does it.

Forthright, the concept of interest is not "understood" in any sense of the word, and all the ambiguity of "interest" according to Rothbard is the full measure of it. The interest is ambiguity, and the idea is to keep "interest" a trade secret, something known only by a few, and something not knowable by the many, it is, fine print, it is too complicated on purpose.

Interest is simple.

Interest is nothing but the price on money. If competition is legal, then the price is driven down, and that is simple. It is simple to know why some people work to make money scarce. Once money is made scarce, the price on money can reach for the highest known limit ever in the history of human existence. That is simple stuff. It is interesting to know that capitalists want money to be scarce, on purpose, so as to make money prices go higher, and higher, and higher, in inverse proportion to money scarcity. If no one but a few have it, everyone else will pay anything to get it. Isn't that interesting?

Here is Rothbards dodge:

4For the sake of simplicity, we will here continue the practice of the classical economists of lumping “interest” and “profits” together. Actually, the rate of profit on the market tends, in the long-run, to equal the rate of interest. Short-run profit (and losses) would continue to exist onthe market even if Spooner had his way and the rate of interest (and of
long-run profit) fell to zero. The true nature of the distinction between
interest and profit was not discovered until the work of Frank H. Knight,
Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 1921).

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Aug 27th, 2011 09:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
34th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Im trying to help people get out of the false left right paradigm many people I know seem to view our Puppet Presidents as Heroes I think it is a cult of personality how do I help both Democrats and Republicans see that our Presidents are just Puppets ?

southernmissouri2007,

I think in terms of a power struggle. If you are now using the power you have to avoid being victimized by the power that does target you for exploitation, then you will run into this problem, as a matter of fact.

Those who support the people I call Legal Criminals are almost as much an enemy of yours as the Legal Criminals themselves, for without the support of the "tax payers" the Legal Criminals are powerless.

Just because the goal of Liberty is difficult is no reason to join the other side, and although the work may appear to be ineffective, at first, you will, in time, realize benefits.

Those of us who have been on this path for decades all appear to agree that the power is shifting in a big way.

Examples:

Seeing Alex Jones being interviewed on Legal Crime Network Television (a.k.a. Main Stream Media).

A member of our group (sharing the common goal of Liberty) running for president and being measured, by Main Stream Media (Legal Crime Network Television), as a contender for the throne of the head of Legal Crime Inc. (LLC) (a.k.a. The United States of America).

If you were on this road 30 years ago, you would probably have said that these examples, witnessed today, would not be happening this soon.

Each seed you plant in each mind that is not yet closed will add to the power of Liberty.

Do not despair, there is no other choice, either you work toward Liberty or you will fail to realize the benefits of Liberty.

If despotism if fine for some people now, they will realize their error soon enough, or die still licking the boots of their masters, and of those who do learn to be intolerant of abject slavery to their own falsehoods, in time, you will be able to help them, since you have remained diligent, choosing Liberty despite the powers working against it.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Aug 29th, 2011 03:54 pm
  PM Quote Reply
35th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
papikhu,

If the human condition is understood as a power struggle, the pieces fall into place, producing a reasonable, and accurate, measurable picture.

Those who can manage to cause other people to believe lies, for example, have access to the power in falsehood, and those who fall victim to falsehood are powerless against it.

When each victim is thereby weakened they can even be directed by lies to give up even more power as they are led to believe that the power they give up is going to be used in their own defense, when in actuality their power is being used to injure them, by taking even more power, and that is a closed loop - providing the means by which we suffer.

As the injured become weaker, they are inspired to give up even more power, still thinking that the power they are giving up is going to cause their defense, when the power given up makes them even weaker instead. That can be seen when following the single legal money.  

I call it Legal Crime.

The fact that words often have two opposite meanings, such as Liberal, and Capitalist, should spark the necessary chain reaction that can break the closed loop, as the victims slowly realize how language has become the device the transfers falsehood from the producers of falsehood to the victims, and not the other way around. Language is a medium of exchange, a currency.

Someone earlier had suggested a need to start at money, or finances, and from that beginning, or from that sound foundation, the current human situation can be better understood, or in other words a similar message was offered.

What if words have been corrupted to a point of making language weak?

The tool that is needed for self defense can be turned around into a tool used to weaken us even further.

"The British are Coming." can turn into "Fight the Global War on Terror", or "Spread Democracy".

That can, in a way, bring you up to speed.

Like this:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

If the victims are conditioned to obey, and they are then told to never question their orders, the loop closes.

Like this:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Do you understand how the power struggle shifted in that example above?

How about the following battle lost?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

A place where, supposedly, the people retain the right to throw out abusive government changed to a place where the same people pay for their own demise, legally, and how can that be understood when the victims no longer are in command of their own language?

Even if there were many ways out of this jam, which there are, those who know can't reach those who are as yet dumfounded, stupefied, and caught in that closed loop.

The enemy is here, it isn't the British, and a look in the mirror can begin the full measure of that enemy, in this power struggle.

From that foundation, that deep, relentless, internal exposure of every trace of falsehood, is a good foundation to start from, since it then, over time, builds the necessary power that may currently be wasted chasing our tails, as ordered, and as we obey the order not to question those orders.

Someone can argue the point, that the battle is internal, first, but those types, it seems to me, are dictatorial, they know better than you do, they are your judge, and I see things quite differently, having won that power struggle.

Question everything.

At some point progress has to be made forward, expediently, and some things must be taken for granted, but it may yet be a good idea to reserve the right to sever your connections (to things taken for granted) when they begin to smell like a rat.

If you care to hear more from me, I can go on, and I think the best way to unravel the whole mess is to offer one obvious workable solution, and then have that base of operations to compare that which is the working power struggle now.

A.
That which is now.

B.
That which can be.

But, and again, how can any of those communications occur if language itself has been twisted beyond meaning - for the victims?

The Legal Criminals know the lies, or they too are soon to know the full measure of their powerlessness.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Aug 29th, 2011 07:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
36th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
A caller brought up the subject that has the false, and misleading, label: "Illegal Immigration".

This is one of those human conditions that, in my opinion, Alex Jones is working on the wrong side.

I cannot find out what must be found out to uncover the required information needed to know if my opinion is accurate concerning which side Alex Jones is on in this subject that has the false, and misleading, label: "Illegal Immigration".

I don't know what Alex Jones thinks, or what Alex Jones proposes, as a means of solving the "Illegal Immigration" problem.

I can offer my take on it.

In an operating Democratic Federated Republic, not what we have at the "Federal" level, the separate and sovereign State governments solve their own internal problems, and the better solutions can be examples to those who have yet to solve the problem, and that is how a Democratic Federated Republic is supposed to work, by that designed competitive feature.

Think about how that would work compared to how the current situation is playing out now.

A.
The Nation State (the actual legal crime government that pretends to be a Federal Government, but it is not one) operators use the power they steal to cause the phenomenon that they then falsely advertise as: "Illegal Immigration".

B.
The Democratic Federated Republican competitive State Government operators handle the phenomenon of imigration their own inventive ways, and each separate and sovereign State deals with the problem one way, or the other way, and some operators of some States solve their problems better than other operators of some other States, within the operating Democratic Federated Republican form of government.

The example of what is, or A above, not B above, is a method by which Legal Criminals (Globalists) employ the power they steal (they steal power through involuntary taxation including the tax of "inflation") to steal more power, and the phenomenon that they falsely advertise as "Illegal Immigration" is just another method by which they, the Legal Criminals, use the power they steal in the work of stealing more power. They, the Legal Criminals, use the money they steal to import voters, they employ voters, they hire mercenaries from foreign lands, like Mexico, and these hired mercenaries are hired to move to this land, and to then follow orders, including the order to help steal more power, by voting for more stealing, and that is an accurate report of the phenomenon that is falsely advertised as the "Illegal Immigration" problem. It is not a problem to the Legal Criminals (Globalists), it is a method by which they spend the power the steal in the work of stealing more power.

The example of what can be, or B above, not A above, can be illustrated with inventive, free, thinking.

Think.

What would happen if the operators of the operating Democratic Federated Republic allowed each Sovereign and Separate State government operators all the responsibility they need to solve their own problems, including the influx of people from other lands outside of their own legal boundaries?

Imagine, for example, the following situation:

1.
Mexico is the place where a new revolution occurs and they begin to solve their own internal problems, and they see the mutual support that is gained by joining an operating Democratic Federated Republic, and they, the operators of the newly liberated Mexican State, petition the operators of the operating Democratic Federated Republican government for Statehood, so as to become the 51st State of The United States of America, as another Separate and Sovereign State within that voluntary Union.

2.
California undergoes a wrong turn, as the operators of that Separate and Sovereign State side with the Legal Criminals (Globalists) and those operators of California begin to hire mercenaries to enter their boarders and start working to use the power they steal to steal more power, inside California.

3.
Texas State operators begin to show signs of moving closer to the Legal Crime business, and further away from the Liberty business, and they too begin to hire mercenaries to enter their boarders to carry out their plans to steal more power and then use that stolen power to steal even more power, by voting for Legal Crime, and other bad things.

4.
Arizona State operators solve the problem.

Now that you have something other than the Script to work with, can you invent the way that the Arizona State operators solve this false problem?

What do the operators of the Federated Democratic Republic voluntary Union of Separate and Sovereign States do in each case illustrated above?


1.
What do the operators of the effective, competitive, Federated Democratic Republican form of government do about Mexico? Does Mexico ever reach a point where it can be accepted into the United States, as a competitive example of that which is the best that can be, reaching for Liberty? What do the operators of the Federated Democratic Republican form of government do when a new State petitions for admission into the voluntary Union? That is not the same question as "What will Obama do?", since Barry if the false leader of the false government. Barry is the puppet false front in front of the monopoly Legal Crime organization hiding behind a false legitimacy - not the same question.

2.
What do the operators of the effective, competitive, Federated Democratic Republican form of government do about California and Texas? What is the role of the legal fiction operators of the Federated Democratic Republican form of government, and what do they do when one of the Separate and Sovereign State legal fiction operators are making crime legal, and hiring foreign mercenaries, importing them, so as to enforce legal crimes within their own boarders?

3.
What is the plan invented, produced, and maintained by the operators who solve the actual problems of immigration, and what do the operators of the Democratic Federated Republican form of government do with that plan once that plan is working in Arizona?

What is the plan Alex Jones promotes on the false issue known as "Illegal Immigration"?

Alex Jones can't, reasonably, say that the current National government can fix the false "Illegal Immigration" problem that has been invented, produced, and is being maintained by the people who operate the National government. That is like saying that cutting off my head will solve my toothache.

Which state operators, of all the states ever to have existed, solve their immigration problems best? How do they solve those problems?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Aug 30th, 2011 01:42 am
  PM Quote Reply
37th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
However, what if the dollar was not the currency of choice used in international oil transactions?

BobR,

There are those, including me, who perceive a version of that dollar hegemony plan that includes regime change; whereby The Dollar Hegemony is going out, on schedule, and going in will be a new regime. It looks to me to be a Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and South American alliance, on schedule, to retake monopoly power.

And as you point out, correctly, the shoe (money monopoly enforcement) will be on the other foot. Those advantages that were realized by American consumers (not just, or only, the honest productive consumers, but including all consumers in America) will have the leverage working against them, not for them, so long as the legal monopoly, from the new regime, is enforceable, which is why the Legal Criminals (Globalist) must resort to Global war to usher in an effective regime change.

All forms of power will be made scarce by those who have an abundance of power in America, and that will happen on schedule, unless the honest productive people, in America, decide to retake the power stolen from them, at which time power can then be used to produce an abundance of power, in many competitive forms, to an as yet not ever realized state of abundance.

All that is needed is for the Honest Productive Americans to avoid the impending doom day parade: is to sever the connection to the Legal Criminals, and have ready a working competition to invent, produce, and maintain higher quality power sources, and lower cost power sources, not limited to oil, gas, coal, solar, wind, lunar, algae, food, metal, land, water, oxygen, labor, and legal money.

I disagree with the notion that this can't be avoided. The Doom Day Parade can be avoided easily; it is merely a matter of perception, followed by enough people sharing the awakening, and then acting upon that new dawn of accurate understanding.

I keep going back to the following quote:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Are you aware of the work done by Lyndsey Williams?

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis.html

Are you aware of the link between the original oil legal criminal monopolists as they caused the false "prohibition" campaign to eliminate alcohol as a viable alternative to the oil monopoly?

Are you aware of the use of water as fuel to lessen, if not eliminate petroleum based fuel consumption?

Are you aware of the evidence that supports the hypothesis that oil is not created by "fossils"?

Do you know about the progress in work on using algae as fuel, both from private, independent home producers, in Modular Vertical Farming Units, and commercial interests utilizing vast ponds of algae, for cheap, cost effective, and high quality, competitive motor fuel?

Can't you see, and accurately measure (rather than be duped by the false propaganda) the move to electric motor fuel produced at independent home sources of cheap electric power?

Where your viewpoint and my viewpoint part company is where your version says this:

There is no way out at this point.

The Legal Criminals routinely target all forms of power mediums within the targeted social networks, waters supplies, power stations, roads, bridges, sewer services, medical services, legal services, information services, and financial services, when the targeted social network those supplies are made scarce, on purpose, on schedule, as the targeted social network is on the bust cycle. Stop following orders that cause those power supplies to be severed, in the targeted social networks, and who is left to follow those orders, and carry out those willful legal crimes?

There are as many more ways out  as there are grains of sand in the universe. The doom day parade is a very costly road that is traveled by design, and one obvious, easy, and reliable way out is to stop traveling down that road. It is not only very costly to travel down that road, it is very difficult to actually maintain that destructive direction; the direction is unnatural, forced, and can only be traveled by way of those huge expenses ordered by those few people who have managed to invent, produce, and maintain this monolithic path to doom.

Simply stepping off that path, one person at a time, or all those who realize the need at once, is all that is needed. Honest productive people, when not misdirected into providing the means by which we suffer, figure out how to make power make more power, when not following the scripted path to doom day, and the Honest Productive People know how to produce abundance, how to produce prosperity, how to produce valuable things, how to produce things that turn less power into more power, and how to maintain liberty, and then that is what they do, which is what they do best - once unleashed from the bond to the parasites.

You can claim that oil power must flow, without which there will be dire consequences, if that is your claim, or you can claim that dollars must flow, without which there will be dire consequences, and those situations can be made to happen just that way, so long as replacement power sources are not allowed to compete for filling the demand for more power; as oil and dollar power throttles down into a managed scarcity, on schedule, there will be power expended in the necessary work required to eliminate competition, and that too is part of the managed road to doom, invented by, produced by, and maintained by the few who run Legal Crime.

What stops honest productive people from inventing, producing, and maintaining competitive alternatives to the monopoly powers?

Do you fail to give credit to those who earn it?

There is an unnatural absence of accurate perception, and there is an abundance of narrow minded, self defeating, abject obedience to falsehood, in my opinion, and as you have done, with accurate measures of physical data, there are ways to measure the accuracy of a competitive viewpoint which does compete in opposition to your stated viewpoint:

There is no way out at this point.

That is the scheduled future down cycle, or bust part of the cycle, designed to occur in America, as hegemonic power moves to the new regime, which may or may not be based in China. All that is needed, for anyone, anywhere, is to invent, produce, and maintain a competitive alternative, and the more who manage that simple process, the more obvious will be the best inventions, which can then polarize all who are lagging behind.

Belief in abject obedience to falsehood, it seems to me, is a closed loop, a self fulfilling, self evident, road leading exactly where those who invent, produce, and maintain those falsehoods desire the victims to march, and march faster, as they are told.

If you say there is no way out, does that mean, as far as you are concerned, there will be no way out?

How about some numbers?

What would happen if each Honest Productive American were to agree to work toward a new Liberty Day on July 4th 2012, and on that day everyone who agrees will no longer send another cent of their hard earned power to any of the Legal Criminals currently holding positions of power within the Legal Crime Network that has become known as The Federal Government, which is a false front, since it is not Federal, it is National, by design.

This was not intended to be a Federation, this was intended to be, by design, a Nation State, or Consolidated Government, and the Honest Productive Americans have that lie, too, working against them, and therefore the sooner that the Honest Productive People understand the full measure of that lie, the sooner they will be working to sever the links that cause them to provide the means by which we suffer.

Giving notice, from today, until the new declared day of Independence, affords all who have a vested interest in The Dollar Hegemony, time to move their investments out of that Pyramid Scheme and onto competitive alternatives, and by July 4th, 2012 there will have been time for the various competitors to compete for market share, and higher quality and lower cost alternatives will be the rule, rather than the exception, and even if the Legal Criminals continue to use the power they steal (through involuntary taxes that include the non-federal income tax, which is a sure fire measure of a despotic Nation State, and involuntary taxes that include the employment of a legal money monopoly induced business cycle whereby involuntary taxes flow from the Honest Productive People to the Legal Criminals on the bust part of the cycle during planned inflation, and involuntary taxes flow to the Legal Criminals as ownership of real property, commodities, stocks, bonds, and other forms of interest, during the boom parts of the managed business cycle), and even if the Legal Criminals continue to use the power they steal to enforce their monopoly power supplies, as they work to forcefully defeat competition, their actions will no longer be hidden behind the thin veil of legitimacy, or moral authority, their crimes will be known as crimes, and their potential victims will be blowing the whistle like a modern day Paul Revere.

If everyone, but me, and a few other self-censored individuals, do not declare their full intention to make a new independence day real, or make a Day of Liberty happen, on schedule, as you appear to claim, then of course, that is what will happen.

There is no way out at this point.

If that is the goal, that goal can certainly be reached. If, on the other hand, the goal is to work toward a new independence day, a new Liberty Day, then who can stop anyone from reaching that goal?

How about a new slogan too?

I will take back Liberty, die if you prefer that goal.

You words may trump mine now, being more powerful now, but the year is not over, and the next year hasn't even started, and many things are up in the air now, that were well suppressed by willful resort to deceit not  long  ago.

Even Alex Jones manages to gain currency on the Legal Crime Networks (a.k.a. Network Main Stream Television), and there is now a contender to the throne of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) (a.k.a. The United States of America), and he is one of us, an Honest Productive American, not one of them, not a Legal Criminal.

The game is not over yet.

Which side are you on?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 1st, 2011 04:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
38th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.garynorth.com/public/8431.cfm

Anyone,

The title for the article above is:

World Trade Center Building 7 and Conspiracy Theories

When a liar can no longer tell when their words are lies, the loop closes, and a case can be made for a rewrite of an old saying.

Live by the lie, die by the lie.

The term "Conspiracy Theorist" is a lie.

The words are mere symbols, and the meaning is false. The words can be Fried Chicken, so long as the false meaning remains as destructive to the victims of the lies; including the liars who can no longer tell that they are lying.

A quote from the article:

Only a handful of experts have ever publicly argued that the cause of the bildings' collapse was a system of controlled demolition. Anyone who dares to mention the pancake collapse of the third tower is rejected derisively as a conspiracy theorist.

That is cut and pasted so the misspelling isn't mine.

Note the use of the word handful, which is ambiguous, and likely to be ambiguous so as to be plausibly deniable. What is the number of people who have... hold on, there is another word worthy of noting.

Note the use of the word argued.

How about a factual statement instead of a theory, argument, expert opinion, or otherwise less than a specific, accurate, truthful statement?

Following are a list of links to people who have uncovered, or discovered, conclusive evidence in support of a guilty verdict, beyond a shadow of doubt, were there ever to be a trail, so as to judge the perpetrators of the crimes involving the destruction of 3 buildings in New York city on September 11 2001, and in this list the people who have accomplished  these tasks are numerous, many people, and the number of the people who have accomplished this task are knowable as that exact number, since they all have names, they all live on Earth, they have addresses, phone numbers, and they breath oxygen.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://www.911truth.org/

Returning to the quote from the article by Gary North:

Only a handful of experts have ever publicly argued that the cause of the bildings' collapse was a system of controlled demolition. Anyone who dares to mention the pancake collapse of the third tower is rejected derisively as a conspiracy theorist.

How many people can fit into one hand?

Who decides if a person is an expert or if a person is a "Conspiracy Theorist"?

Who decides if the authorities are criminals?

If the criminals get to decide that they are the authorities, then words can become meaningless for the victims, while words are still effective and useful tools used by the Legal Criminals.

Think please. Who ever, in your entire life, has ever used the term Legal Criminal. One person, so far, and you may want to know why language has escaped your command on this one.

Dictatorial regimes invent, produce, and maintain one way forms of exchange media.

The victims are the subjects of the one way exchanges that flow through the one way exchange mediums. Those who invent, produce, and distribute the media, which are words, images, symbols, language, money, and all forms of media, flowing one way down the channels of exchange, command those one way forms of media that they alone invent, and the victims are subject to those demand notices, those dictates, those one way communications, those orders, those commands, those crimes against humanity.

The victims get the smelly end.

The Legal Criminals know that there is a smelly end, so they at least know better than to obey, they no how to avoid avoid getting only the smelly end of those one way forms of media, the victims cannot know, if they are allowed to know, they would have a choice, and the only one's choosing to be victims, once they know, will be those who like to be victims, and then, by definition, if language isn't corrupted, they are not victims, they are merely people who like, who choose, to be injured in some way.

Love your lies.

Lick the boots of your oppressors.

Dig faster, die faster, cover the grave of the slave who died sooner, he won, it is now your turn.

Hurry up.

Obey.

There is no choice.

You can't even invent a word, and have the word gain currency, since the word has to pass through the gauntlet of self-appointed authorities who process the new word and either reject it, or accept it, and then the word either gains currency, or the word is sent into the memory hole.

Terms are similarly filtered internally and externally.

Legal Crime.

If a word does manage to get past the authorities, despite all the costs expended in the work of censorship, the word is then targeted for destruction, so as to regain control over language, and so as to keep the power of accurate communication out of the hands of the targeted victims.

Note, how difficult it is for you to read simple English right here, and know what I am talking about right here, right now. This is English, like: See spot run.

It depends upon what run means. How do you interpret the word see?

Conspiracy was once a word used by the victims so as to rally the victims, and polarize the victims, of the conspiracy, so as to afford the victims the power to avoid further victimization.

Note how I carefully avoid the use of the words justice, punishment, and I even try desperately to avoid the use of the terms trial, law, order, and judgement.

For lack of accurate currency, what power do the victims have left?

Grin and bear their condition of victimization, since no single victim has enough power alone to stop an organized crime ring that has managed to infiltrate and command the power of government.

Conspiracy fact is rendered powerless.

How about a modern day reference to a past event?

Paul Revere is riding down the street yelling, in English: The British are coming, and all who hear his message shoot Paul Revere (the messenger) as a Conspiracy Theorist.

What would have happened to Common Sense?

Those who are well trained victims would have shot that messenger too, as Thomas Paine is branded as just another Conspiracy Theorist.

Burn the book for fuel. Who published it? How much was the price of it?

I, for one, can't get past the censors in your brain. What happened to Patrick Henry?

You may have remembers Give me Liberty or give me death, but his later message was shot down, and you will refuse to know it.

Patrick Henry was one of the first conspiracy theorists in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) before the ink dried.

What happens if someone tries to blow the whistle on capitalism? They are called Monetary Cranks, Conspiracy Theorists, and that message of dire warning is rendered powerless as a means of rallying the troops in the effort to defend against organized victimization by a few powerful people; with or without badges.

Why not give credit where credit is due? There is no exclusive profit in it; at someone's exclusive expense.

Call someone a socialist, and the same shot goes through the heart of the message, killing the message. Where is the book titled The History of Socialism (by Steven Pearl Andrews)? I keep looking, but it may have been burned for fuel.

What happens when the message, despite all the forces aligned against the message (all the collective powers of censorship), when the message does manage to gain currency?

The Revolution will not be televised.

The shots aimed at the message are aimed at the messenger, when the message does make it past the censors, when the message threatens to gain currency, and threatens to consume market share.

A few cases in point, can be pointed out. MLK, JFK, and conspiracy facts from then on become even more difficult to crush, kill, and censor.

Resort to deceit, threats of violence, and violence.

Produce an abundance of fear.

I like these two:

1.
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm

2.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8403350824865189566

Fact: In case 1 the person was sent to prison
Fact: In case 2 the person suffered a premature death

When your closest dear loved ones are targeted, then, you may think twice about obeying the conditioned responses, jerking your knees upon command, the bell rings, you salivate, socialism is mentioned, you fear, you are angered, you seek retribution, punishment, bark like a dog, bark louder, and then when you are targeted you may invent your own new lies to escape the inevitable realization of the facts, you are the victim, you are not, you are, you are not, you are, anything but the truth, an argument you can't win, on purpose, for your own profit, while you die a miserable, horrifying, torturous, twisted, death.

I can't say, you may be joining in, and targeting, while that is an option, while you keep a close eye out for fellow members of the targeting group, as they may target you while you target the victims given to you, until the supply of victims run out. Live by the sword, die by it.

The road is going away from liberty when messengers are shot, figuratively, and literally; hence concepts like those expressed in one of the Bill of Rights.

As such:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Patrick Henry was right, that was an impudent last ditch effort to salvage the power of liberty in the face of legal crime, of the day, which was Nationalism, hidden behind the false front of Federalism.

Patrick Henry was one of the Federalists, by definition, but not by the terms of the times. He was then known as an Anti-Federalists, and that measures the power of falsehood, since "The Federalists" (tm), of that time, were the Nationalists, they had built and effective false front.

The meanings of words are rendered meaningless when language is rendered powerless.

What is a conspiracy?

What facts can be known about any conspiracy?

Who has the authority to officially recognize anything?

What have you been smoking? How much will you pay me for this bridge in Brooklyn?

Back to Gary North:

Conclusion: the following is not true. "All three are clearly controlled demos. Everyone that views it knows it." Almost no one who views it knows it, and anyone who points out the obvious -- the pancake collapse of all three -- risks either ostracism or patronizing smirks.

Why choose the word pancake, and the word collapse? Is Gary North salivating, and barking like a dog?

Building 7 falling free is as obvious as the need to avoid staring at the sun. Blindness is the cost of failing to know the truth.

Building 7 did not collapse, nor pancake. The accurate term in English is free fall.

Remove the accurate term in English and what is placed in place of the accurate term, and why is the accurate term removed, and why is the other term put in place of the accurate term?

Ask Alexander Hamilton?

I can pretend to do so.

Joe
"Al, set me straight here: why did you call yourself a Federalist when you were obviously a Nationalist?

Al
"I'm dead now, and turning in my grave I might add, so I can tell the truth now, but the accurate term then was Monarchist. I was a flaming Monarchist, and that would not sell, or rather the victims would not buy into a Consolidated Government, or Monarchy, since the intended victims had just suffered  greatly in the despicable work of getting rid of a Monarchy, so we had to choose the label of our worst enemies The Federalists."

Joe
"I know, I know, Al, I'm just working you for a confession. So, seriously, did you laugh all the way to your State Bank when the intended victims started calling their fellow friends of liberty Anti-Federalists, when they were the actual Federalists?"

Al
"LOL"

Joe
"All  the way to your monopoly bank?"

Al
"ROTFL"

Once there were 3 buildings, scraping the sky, they fell into holes in the ground, freely.

Look at the sun.

Look at the sun.

Stare at the sun, until you go blind.

Buildings may, some day, pancake. Where is one that has done so? Buildings may have collapsed. Where is one that has done so?

Stone age buildings?  

Even during the free fall of the buildings in New York the news reporters hired to spread falsehoods were reporting Controlled Demolition as the obvious events were obvious as yet to be rendered false.

What explains a common falsehood such as this?

What explains a naked emperor strutting around with his weeny dangling as all the sycophants busy themselves in the creative work of imagining fashionable attire figuratively placed upon the naked Emperor?

Gary North explains, while he participates.

What is at the end of this road is well documented by Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn in his work titled with Gulag. Talk about terror.

It has been said that one of the highest quality, and highest cost (to the victims) Legal Crime boss, a man names Joseph Stalin, spoke, and when he was done speaking the audience in the room applauded, and each in the room knew not to be the first to stop applauding. How long did they suffer the clap?

Fear is the current regime.

Why accept that sentence?

You have been told to do so.

Is it past time to stop being abjectly obedient to falsehood?

Stick your hand in a fire.

Stick your hand in a fire.

Where do you want to be by July 4th 2012? The road you are on leads somewhere, and you can fear it, or you can choose, by your own power of perception, and your own power of will, a higher quality, and lower cost option.

Back to Gary North:

"I wonder what else they lied about."

They lied about The Constitution.

Who are they?

Alexander Hamilton is one of the set of people used in the accurate sentence above referring to they who lied about The Constitution. Call me a conspiracy theorist, and call me a revisionist historian, call me late for dinner, I don't want to eat that meal, nor drink the cool-aid being served.

They lied about legal money.

Who are they?

They are some of  The Austrian Economists; within their group some lie, some do not, and they have names, and they leave paper trails, where their lies are documented facts.

When each and every Honest Productive American knows the full measure of their victimization, at the hands of the Legal Criminals, they will begin to mount a defense, and on the laundry list of things to do will be the invention, production, and maintenance of accurate, high quality, and lower cost mediums of exchange, such as accurate language, so as to be able to convey accurate meaning from one Honest Productive American to another, and such things as accurate money, accurate currency, which will be high quality, powerful, and low cost, but not for Legal Criminals.

Not this:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That is interestingly low cost to a very few, at the expense of many. If that is good enough for you, then that confesses which side you are on, even if it does not confess accurately within your own infected brain.

Good luck.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Sep 2nd, 2011 02:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
39th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1028.html

Anyone,

Gary North has just published another article on the September 11, 2001 crimes that have so far managed to work better unsolved; which is a clue for the clueless.

As a trained historian, I am interested in lots of major events in history that served as national or worldwide turning points. I ask the following questions:


1. What happened?
2. How do we know what happened?
3. What led up to the event?
4. How did the government report the event?
5. How did it subsequently explain the event?
6. How did the major media handle the government's explanation?
7. Who has benefited from the event?
8. Who has benefited from the official government explanation?
9. What are the alternative explanations?
10. Who would benefit if any of them became widely accepted?


I am going to field all 10 questions before reading another word from the official mouth piece of The Austrian Economists.

1. What happened?

I was driving a car to accomplish some errand for some productive work and I heard a radio broadcast interrupting the normal flow of music, which usually inspires me to turn the volume up, and commercials which usually inspire me to turn the volume way down low, and the interruption had to do with reports of events in New York. When the reports described the Legal Crimes of September 11, 2001, in progress, on that day, my first thought was False Flag, on the order of dressing up like Cherokee, or Lenape, or any bothersome group of undesirable people, and then conducting a False Flag Operation, or Black Ops, whereby a few innocent victims (of the home team) are massacred, or 2000 innocent victims (of the home team) are massacred, and then the massacre is blamed on "Indians" or "rag heads", so as to begin reporting a false version of the ongoing slaughter of the bothersome group.

False Flag Operations have been around for ages, and it isn't news for those who can recognize the routine. What happened is what happened, what I make of what happened doesn't change what happened.

2. How do we know what happened?

"We" don't know precisely what happened, but some people do. Those who planned what happened planned what happened, they knew, and some still know, did they forget? The facts of what they knew, and when they knew it, can be pieced together beyond a reasonable doubt, or not, depending upon how well those who planned what happened cover up what happened.

Those who suffer physical injury know their physical injuries in the form of pain. Survivors of those who died, suffer emotional pain, for example. First responders, suffer, the know what happened, they still know.

3. What led up to the event?

Some people went to work in places that were targeted for destruction, others did not. Some bet heavily against rising Airline stock for Airlines involved in the event, others were not as clued in on the pending events.

4. How did the government report the event?

Gary is resorting to an abuse of language. Gary is lumping every person into the one monolithic set of people called government, or not, I can't tell. We, in America, are self-governed as no other people ever in human history, if numbers of people are factored into the measure, so as to avoid comparing us to small tribes of people here, and there, now and then, and as such We the People govern, and some of us are Legal Criminals, and some of us are Honest Productive Americans, and some of us are hired by the Legal Criminals to lie, and some of us hire the people who lie by voting for people to lie for them.

Gary may be using the word government to mean those people who are hired to lie, and so the answer to the question by Gary North, if that is his use of that word, is that they lied; they did what they were hired to do.

They lied.

That is what the people who vote for them hire them to do, and that is what they do, so that is what they did, and their lies are the official reports published as the official lies.

If Gary North's question applies to any of us, in the group of We the People, then some of us asked questions as a means of reporting the events, so as to better understand the facts concerning what happened, so as to know the facts, and in so doing, from a position of knowledge of the facts, it is more likely to be in a position to avoid being similarly injured in the future. My first question, while driving in the car, was to ask what would be the next event after the False Flag event, since False Flag events are used to begin reporting a new false version of ongoing Legal Crimes, such as the events in the past whereby the Legal Criminals mass murdered the indigenous, or native, people here in this land we call America. The next event was not known until it happened, and it is still happening, the targets are rag heads who happen to be the indigenous population, the natives, who live in lands that are rich in oil supplies, and oil power is the power that backs the fraudulent dollar power, also known as The Dollar Hegemony, or The New World Order, or The New American Century, or take your pick from any number of false fronts for those Legal Criminals who operate from this land that we call America, for as long as America works as a home base, which isn't much longer.

5. How did it subsequently explain the event?

It is a mythical beast, or it is a list of names, or something in between. If it is the list of names that make up the top 10 or top 100, most destructive Legal Criminals, or the top 100 Legal Criminals who perpetrated the events on September 11, 2001, in New York, and elsewhere, then the answer remains the same: cover-up. The events are coverups, or False Flags, so as to lead into further cover-ups, such as a new aggressive war for profit in The Middle East, and even to cover-up Legal Crime at home, such as the falsely named Patriot Act. In the old days the Legal Criminals called their Acts by names like Alien and Sedition Acts, but today they resort to deceit, the old employees where too honest, over time the new employees lie more.

Legal Criminal A
"What should we call our latest Legal Crime?"

Legal Criminal B
"How about The Patriot Act?"

Legal Criminal A
"LOL"

Legal Criminal B
"ROFL"

Legal Criminal A and B in unison:
"All the way to their BANK!"

6. How did the major media handle the government's explanation?

Gary North is being stupid? I don't think so. What does Gary North mean by the use of the term major media? I know of one reporter who reported a report on a subsidized television broadcast network, a legal fiction company that is awarded a license to broadcast on a few official government sanctioned broadcast channels, whereby the person hired to report on one of those government subsidized television channels reported controlled demolition while a sky scraper in New York went down in free fall, just like every other successful controlled demolition. Many reporters are hired to report things on many media outlets, and if Gary North is narrowing down the number of media outlets to only those who are subsidized, licensed, by U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), then he should be specific, not ambiguous.

What does Gary North mean? Does Gary North mean to be ambiguous, so as to afford plausible dependability for his own personal satisfaction of avoiding accountability for his questions?

7. Who has benefited from the event?

Some of those who benefited are those who cashed in on their put options. Others who have benefited have published their desire to benefit from a New Pearl Harbor, and they did so before it happened, and their wishes came true, remarkably.

If the question is asked in earnest, the answer can be realized accurately. Paper trails still exist. Physical evidence still exists, despite all the tax dollars spent in the cover-up. A new False Flag may very soon replace the old one on the priority list, since the old one failed to polarize the victims against the Legal Criminals, hold the actual perpetrators to account, and that failure leaves them in a position of power to repeat the same type of False Flag Operation, perpetually.  The last False Flag, the September 11, 2001 False Flag, managed to polarize the victims against other victims, the cycle is primed for repetitive, or cyclic, perpetuation, and that isn't random, unless the victim has a vested interest in remaining victims, then the victims can make themselves believe that False Flags are random events, at which point, deep down into the mire of falsehood, the victim is no longer innocent, and therefore no longer a victim, the former innocent victim goes beyond plausible dependability and on into actual accountability along the paper trails, and digital trails that link those who produce the power that is then sent to the Legal Criminals who then use that power to keep the power flowing in that direction.  

Those who hire the liars, get what they pay for, and claiming otherwise can be trusted to be exactly what such a claim is, in fact.

8. Who has benefited from the official government explanation?

Who benefits from candy coating the lies produced by those who are hired to lie for those who hire them?

Even the word "candy coating" is not accurate.

Why does Gary North lie for the Legal Criminals, is Gary North paid to lie for the Legal Criminals, or is he working pro-bono, as a liar for the Legal Criminals, helping cover-up a decade old crime?

Will Gary North wipe his brain clean during the next False Flag, so as to be ready, on schedule, to lie when prompted, again?

9. What are the alternative explanations?

A False Flag Operation is a well known fact. The sun is a well known fact. Daylight is a well known fact. Is Gary North constructing a Man of Straw? Where is this impending Conspiracy Theorist with these "alternative explanations"?

A sky scraper accelerating to earth in free fall is exactly that, it  is what it is, a sky scraper accelerating to earth in free fall is a sky scrapper accelerating to earth in free fall. There is but one explanation, and it is the same explanation that has worked every time a sky scrapper accelerates to earth in free fall, falling into a hole in the ground where the building's foundation once supported all that mass that constitutes a sky scrapper.

Some people may require an explanation for the Sun, having grown up, to this point, without the necessary information required to know what the sun is, in fact; but not necessarily having to know the exact physical make up, or the exact process by which sunlight is produced, on a molecular level, but the damn thing orbits every day, so far, and being stupid about the sun is about as excusable, these days, as being willfully stupid about the False Flag Operation perpetrated by known criminals who confess, openly, and who happen to be hired to commit crimes by the people who hire them, and who happen to be hired into positions of almost absolute power, as far as the power that an individual human being can command.

I can't, for example, legally double the supply of dollars in circulation around the world, and get away with it, but the people who are hired to command that much power do, and that is another known fact, like knowing that the Sun is a source of power, it isn't brain surgery, or rocket science, for modern, ordinary, examples of mankind.

What game is Gary North playing? Is he another presstitute in the inventive vernacular offered by Gerald Celente, or is Gary North actually that stupid? Is there another explanation for Gary North publishing stupid questions?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=presstitute

Gerald is not given credit? He may not be the inventor, but he is working to make the word more current, as the word gains currency. Some day people will be using the term Legal Crime, hopefully to be recording past events, in history books, back when Legal Crime was common, and even ubiquitous, before Liberty Day.

10. Who would benefit if any of them became widely accepted?

Gary North is leading into a reverse of the common use of finding motive when investigating, and discovering, exculpatory evidence, leading to the accurate identification of those responsible for crimes, so as to hold those responsible for crimes accountable for the crimes that the criminals have committed, even if they happen to hold licenses, and have badges.

I used a word above that can help the reader understand the process.

Exculpatory evidence leads to a verdict of innocence as someone assumed to be innocent, before being convicted, beyond a shadow of doubt, is found to be innocent, and is not found to be guilty, because the evidence found proves innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt.

An example would be the discovery of a solid alibi.

Joe was accused of stealing half the purchasing power of every dollar used by everyone who uses dollars.

Joe was never hired as the chairman of The Federal Reserve System of Extortion.

That is my alibi. Even if I could double the entire supply of dollars from my garage, I can't get away with it, legally.

I can't print up enough money to hire people to destroy 3 buildings in New York full of people, and print up enough money to get away with it, either.

I have an alibi.

10. Who would benefit if any of them became widely accepted?

That is in reference to this:

9. What are the alternative explanations?

The best alternative explanation I've seen so far is the mini-nuke explanation; which explains the odd burned cars around "ground zero". Who benefits from the truth?

Is that what Gary North is asking?

I don't think so.

I think that Gary North is constructing a Man of Straw, and the Man of Straw will have a name placed on it, and the name will be Conspiracy Theorist, and all those who are duped by that brainwashing, like Pavlov's dogs, will salivate on command when that bell rings.

I can read on, to see what Gary North actually publishes next, in this second offering on the subject of the Legal Crimes of September 11, 2001.

These are all legitimate questions. The toughest one to answer is #1. You might not think that this is the case, but it is.

Gary North is the authority there, obviously, but I'm going to ask a competitive question after repeating Gary North's version of the toughest question.

1. What happened?

1. What happens next?

Which is tougher?

On with Gary North:

If a rich person or organization gave me a large amount of money to investigate 9-11, what would I do with it?

I can make another guess at what Gary North is doing with this second article he has just published on the subject of the Legal Crimes committed on September 11, 2001, and my guess is that Gary North is finding his way past some of his reliance upon an abject belief in falsehood, and if that is happening, then this is a very good study.  

People pass through a time when there is no more room for abject belief in falsehood, and that point at which that happens the person's perspective can no longer tolerate obvious falsehood, but it is a troubling time, as the old stupid self is replaced by the new more accurately perceiving self. It, to me, is like walking from one dark room, through a one way door, into a room where things can be seen, things that once were well hidden, and well hidden on purpose, and well hidden for profit, and no longer are the purposed, and the profits realized, and there is no way back into the dark room, the door closes, and while the door is open, at that moment, how ever long it takes, the door can be shut  as the person in the open doorway decides to stay in one, or the other room.

Gary may have that door open, and that is my guess, for now.

Something has to explain the behavior of the sycophants who actually think that the Emperor's cloths are beautiful, while the Emperor's weenie is swinging around as he struts. You can take me to task for repetitively resorting to this figurative illustration, a weenie fixation, but the illustration works well. The naked truth is as obvious as a naked man, or the sun, or the pain as you stick your hand in a fire. What explains the fact that so many people are violently defending abject falsehood, placing clothes that don't exist on naked men, legitimizing torturous mass murder?

Anyone of us, any person alive today, can be captured, legally, and before a few hours are over, any one of us, can be secreted away into a torture chamber, never to be seen by any of our loved one's ever again, all done legally, and picture your own hide in that position 6 hours from this moment. You are here now, 6 hours later, you are in a situation that is unspeakable, unbearable, and it is worse because human beings, or nearly human, beings, are working to make your pain as extreme as is humanly, or inhumanly possible, and it is unthinkable.

It is unspeakable.

It is unthinkable.

It is intended to be unspeakable, unthinkable, and unbearable, on purpose, for the profit of a very few, at the expense of everyone who produces anything that can be expended in that way.

Some people have actually lived through such things. They warn the rest of us in no uncertain terms.  Read Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn.

You have been warned.

What explains the behavior of the massive numbers of sycophants?

Here is the definition of the word:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sycophant

a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

Here is another definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sycophants

A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

That source traces the word back to informer, or accuser, but even that should read: false informer, and false accuser.

Paul Revere, and Thomas Paine were people who informed, as they informed the impending victims, and informed the current victims, as to their plight at the hands of those who caused the suffering.

Thomas Paine was especially informative, in an accurate, and not in a false, way:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

The army of sycophants, which are not the American Military (not as an institution, and not as a measure of the mean average membership), would shoot (figurative and literally; in the back), a modern day Thomas Paine (Gerald Celente) or Paul Revere (Alex Jones), as a Conspiracy Theorist.

What explains the army of sycophants?

They have slammed the door shut, as the door may have once opened a crack, and as the light shined in, they saw the dungeon that they know to be used on the victims, and they new, at that moment, that going through that door moves them up in the line, as the victims are picked through, and the next in line to be tortured is taken, and they will be taken sooner, rather than later. The door is slammed shut, never to be opened again, and anyone caught trying to open the door will be shot on sight, even if the sight is off by a wide margin, shoot first, ask no questions.

Go through that door, into the light, into the naked light of accurate perception, responsibility, and heaven forbid, accountability, into active, meaningful,  moral conscience driven consciousness, and be one step closer to the inevitable verdict of disfavor, and hell on earth at the hands of the emperor.

What explains the army of sycophants?

They volunteer to be victims, and that is where they decide to stay, and it is a lie, and that one lie leads to two lies to cover up that one lie, and then another lie for each new lie, and that is a non-linear, or exponential, increase in the number of lies required to cover up the first one, and eventually the person who slams that door shut, by hook or by crook, must keep it shut, and it is then a closed loop.

What explains the army of sycophants?

Among the Austrian Economics group is a person named Hans Herman Hoppe, and he offers information, an informer, on the subject of time preferences.

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"

Something for nothing is the lie that covers up the desire for something at the expense of someone else.

Not just the desire for something.  Not just for the desire for something falling out of the sky, winning the lottery, or the object of someone else's incredible generosity. Not that. Not gambling by random chance. The game is fixed.

The cover-up is specific. The cover-up is a desire for something, specifically something, and something that is gained at the specific expense of someone else.

It is the same lie as the lie of might making right.

The same lie used to create the illusion of legitimacy for every crime: Legal Crime.

The victim deserves to be victimized, and I am helping the victim, by teaching the victim to  learn to avoid being a victim: tough love. I kill them to save them from death. I deceive them to save them from deception. I hate them to save them from hate. I offer them abject slavery to save them from abject slavery. I torture them to save them from torture. I mass murder them to save them from mass murder, who else can?

How many lies can be hatched from that one lie?

What explains the army of sycophants?

If you can't  beat'em: join em'.

Take a number. The hamburger can be had today, which is a stay of execution, to be paid on Tuesday.

That is the false cover-up deal.

In reality, the accurate explanation, call it a theory from my end, is that those who shut the door are those who want to play a minor role in being a tyrant today, even if it means being a victim on Tuesday.

To understand this, call it a theory, you have to know yourself.

Why did you shut the door?

Which room are you in?

Were the crimes on September 11, 2001 ever investigated officially, so as to actually hold those responsible for those specific crimes specifically accountable to those criminals who perpetrated those specific crimes?

No, power is diverted into exposing the conspiracy theorists who don't exist.

Is it good enough to punish rag heads for those crimes, so as to get a perceived benefit in lower prices at that gas station?

If you are still reading, there may be hope yet.

On the subject of random number generators that Gary North links as he ends his second offering on the subject of the Legal Crimes of September 11, 2001 I can ask:

How do the "random" generators in question work?

If they do not have a means by which a random occurrence, such as very precise room temperature change, perhaps, any random thing that triggers the "random" number being generated, then the "random" generator isn't random, it is programed, not random.

Flipping a coin, for example, is not random when the person flipping the coin can flip the coin a fixed number of turns each time.

Fixing the number is fixing the number.

Random is random.

Confusing the two, on purpose, requires willful intent, and if there is someone willfully intending to confuse the two, they do so with a specific goal in mind, which isn't going to be self-confusing, it is going to be, by definition, a goal to confuse a targeted person other than the person who willfully intends to confuse the two things.

Who has a desire to cause someone else to confuse the fixing of a number with a random number?

Who invented the shell game? Why did someone invent the shell game, or the pyramid scheme, or legal crime?

What inspires someone to deceive their own power to perceive accurately?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Sep 2nd, 2011 03:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
40th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
southernmissouri2007,

I do not agree with you because the deception involves a deeper confusion of reality.

There can be voluntary associations, and those associations can be called government.

There can be a voluntary association that can be called a socialist government.

There can be a voluntary association that can be called a capitalist government.

There can be a voluntary association that can be called a mixture of a socialist and a capitalist government.

A person can be anti-government when a person is against a voluntary association.

What would a person who is anti-government (when a person is against a voluntary association) be for, or what would someone against a voluntary association be supporting as someone was thinking and acting in ways that are measurably against voluntary associations that are called governments?

The majority of voting Democrats inside the legal power of The Nation known as The United States of America are against voluntary associations which can be called governments and therefore they are anti-government.

The majority of voting Republicans inside the same legal fiction boundaries are against voluntary associations, for the same reasons as the Democrats.

Both Democrats and Republicans are anti-government when the governments they are against are characterized by their voluntary nature.

What are they for?

What do they stand for, as they stand against voluntary associations?

They stand for involuntary associations that they call government.

They are pro slavery, by that definition.

They are anti-liberty, by that definition.

Just ask one, or yourself, to measure the thoughts, and the actions, of the person, the individual person in question, if they support the enforcement of involuntary taxes.

When you respond, I can then find out if I agree with you or not. Your response can clue me in on your thoughts and actions that let me know if you are a friend of liberty, and therefore my friend, of if you are a foe of liberty, and therefore my enemy, and your responses can clue me in on what you do support, and if you support enforced involuntary taxes, then you are one of the Legal Criminals, by that definition, as you define yourself in that way, and I can know better from then on as to who I need to avoid, and why I need to avoid you, and your kind, if that is how you define yourself, as someone who supports involuntary associations through involuntary taxation.

If I get no response, what does that indicate?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 07:02 pm
  PM Quote Reply
41st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
zengirl,


I think Alex is working at this very thing, it seems to me anyway, that he is obviously trying to tone down the interruptions. There is also a consideration that has to do with LIVE discussions whereby something that is obvious to Alex may not be obvious to the listener, something having to do with the subject matter, something said by the caller, something that triggers a thought by Alex that is specific to the subject, and specific to the words spoken by the caller, but not something detected by the radio listener, as if for example, but not the only example, the caller pushes one of Alex's buttons, and not necessarily a willful intent upon the caller, to push Alex's buttons.

Alex may have just read something, or heard something, about the topic, and the urge to interrupt is momentarily overwhelming, for Alex, despite, what seems obvious to me, a huge effort on Alex's part to avoid interrupting.

Suppose, for example, that Alex was invited to a political debate, and the smooth talking politicians, and the smooth talking presstitutes work the tactic of pushing Alex's buttons to make him react emotionally, and suppose that this happens so as to see why it is not the best idea to interrupt people, not because it is bad to be emotional, but because the effect is tyrannical, or dictatorial, as if what Alex has to say is more important, to Alex, than what the caller has to say.

People, or sheeple, are afraid of emotional people who may threaten their slumber, and the Legal Criminals know this, and they use this, and they have a lot of science behind this, as the Legal Criminals manipulate their victims.

Alex Jones, as far as I can tell, doesn't speak to the sheeple, why bother?

If he ran for office, and the slimy presstitutes tried pushing his buttons, who would be afraid of Alex Jones if Alex Jones fought back, with emotion?

See what I mean?

On a very basic level there are two types of people.

A.
Those who are victims and criminals, one is the other, and they need someone telling them what to think and what to do, and once they have their orders they can then follow those orders, and they can be belligerent about following those orders if they are told to be belligerent. Might makes right, that is their creed. Something for nothing is their slogan. Falsehood is their staple diet. They live, eat, breath, and drink one way communication, dictatorship, absolute unquestioned obedience, and lies.

B.
Those who seek something better, higher quality, and lower cost, and we know that our own perspective is weak without competition from other viewpoints, standing on the shoulders of giants, so as to find the best viewpoint sooner, and therefore we listen, and if we speak we do so because our viewpoint challenges what may, or many not be, an inferior viewpoint, no matter who speaks the competitive viewpoint up for consideration by all who will listen.

Few people spell these things out as well as I do, so far as I know, as yet. I stopped reading from the script awhile ago.  

You can offer a competitive viewpoint, and I will listen.

Who won't?

Who tells you that you are wrong? Who demands that you confess your error? Who imposes their superior viewpoint upon you?

The slimey people, the master/slave types, use lies to confuse the two types above, and that works well to accomplish two things as follows:

The master/slave types appear to be better by close confusion with the liberated types, since the shine of the liberated types, by that confusion, makes the master/slave types look better.

That is why, for example, the slimy Rick Perry is parroting the things spoken by Ron Paul. The shiny illumination of truth expressed by Ron Paul is stolen by the lies regurgitated by Rick Perry, and that confusion adds power to Rick Perry, if the viewer confuses the two, or is victim to the lie.

That is one of the two things accomplished by confusing the two groups.

The other goal is to make the liberated group ugly by close association with the master slave group, to make the two seem like one, by confusion, weakens the liberated group, as the mud sticks, so to speak.

An example of this is the offering of a supposed situation whereby Alex Jones is running for office and the slimy master/slave types push his buttons in a televised "live" debate, where they get to edit the final product of that broadcast. They push his buttons, Alex responds in kind, exposing the lies, and even being emotional about it, and that tactic does not work on the liberate group, but that tactic can work on people who are as yet not firmly in one group or the other, and that tactic is used to reinforce the lies that are firmly held as truth by the master/slave group sheeple.

They can call Alex Jones: Hitler, and what happens?

A.
The sheeple get the message, and now they call Alex Jones: Hitler, on command, and until they are told to call Alex Jones: Jesus, at which time that is the lie they will pretend to believe, or make believe.

B.
Those on the fence are presented with a choice, to move closer into the false master/slave closed loop group or move further away, and therefore closer into the liberated group, by their own power of accurate perception, and their own power of will to judge the evidence presented to them, at that time, so far as they still have command of that power.

C.
Those in the liberated group fully understand what is going on, as the master/slave group use lies to accomplish their goals of destroying all that is good in life.

Try not to be afraid to speak your mind, and try not to apologize in advance for doing so, because all that is part of the false world constructed by the Legal Criminals, or, if you wish, do as you please.

I try not to read from the script. You, as far as I am concerned, are as welcome to do so, at your liberty.

It is obvious to me that you are not someone who threatens liberty, and therefore, as far as I can tell, you are on the side of liberty.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 07:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
42nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I'm still not buying LVT personally. If we ever were systematically change the way property rights are addressed I feel that allodial titles should be most prevalent. I am not for anyone being able to lay any form of taxation on land. If you can be taxed on any form of property, you simply DO NOT own it. You have the illusion of ownership.

If your idea of "participating" in this topic means blabbing ad nauseam about things that have little or nothing to do with this topic (just to hear yourself talk), then yes.

Anyone,

There are two quotes above. They are diametric opposites. One is a welcome, challenging, and a competitive viewpoint, and the other is false, and dictatorial.

Having returned to face the wrath of the dictatorial oppressor, libeler, in an effort compete with a competitive viewpoint, I can see, and I can know better, as to the cost of doing so, as time goes by.

To address the competitive viewpoint, and hopefully avoid the dictatorial one, I can offer agreement, instead of argument.

What is the goal?

If the goal is to control all the people, then tax the land where all the people live, and make the tax involuntary, whereby those who are taxed must pay, or failure to pay results in swift and brutal punishment.

That is the dictators choice. I prefer to call them Legal Criminals, since they are not mere criminals, they are the hi-bred criminal types who access the rule of law, so as to make crime legal.

Call that babbling if you want to censor such things. Shoot the messenger.

A curious thing happened some time ago, whereby the social connection between those who tax and those who are taxed changed from a dictatorial, or involuntary, association, to one that was not, and measurably not involuntary.

How did they tax, then?

I'm speaking about the time between the involuntary association between The British Dictatorship, or Monarchy, taxing the people in The Colonies, that later became known as The United State; that time period.

What was the method of taxing in New Jersey during those days under The Articles of Confederation, compared competitively, with the method of taxation in Pennsylvania, in that same time period, and what was the method of taxation between The Federal government, under The Articles of Confederation, and the Separate and Sovereign States?

Will the answer to my questions be welcome, competitive, and lend toward an improved overall perspective, or will the dictator punish me again?

How do you know when a Legal Criminal is lying? They resort to libel to censor a competitive viewpoint?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 10:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
43rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1029.html

The phrase "sovereign debt" has become popular. I used Google to search for "sovereign debt" and got over six million hits. Yet I cannot recall hearing the phrase as recently as 2007. If I ever did hear it, I did not pay attention to it. It was called "government debt" back then.

The adjective "sovereign" refers to legal sovereignty, a characteristic of civil governments. It is applied to national governments. What does it mean? It means that a private citizen or a lower civil government cannot sue a government agency in a national court without the consent of that court, because the national level of civil government contains the nation's supreme court. The nation answers to no higher sovereignty.

The call for the establishment of a world government is a call to establish a higher sovereignty: a supreme court that determines who may or may not bring a lawsuit in its jurisdiction.


Gary North has switched gears from the topic of 911 back to what he obviously knows best, which is political economy, only I know better than Gary North, as far as I know so far, among those vocal few who profess such authority.

The quoted words above address the political aspect of political economy, of which Gary North is almost always spot on, accurate, and rarely expresses a false, or misleading viewpoint.

To those words quoted above I can offer a response, before reading the rest of the latest offering from Gary North.

http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/15.1/

Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century

Please use your own brain for awhile. Consider a jury. You are on that jury. You have been picked randomly, as Trial by Jury was initially intended to work. The power of law is focused on the presumption of innocence; however there is a claim made by someone, lawfully, that someone else is guilty of some very serious crime, and that person stands before you, faced with this accusation.

You, by the power of law afforded to you, as a jury, have the power to veto any claim of guilty upon that person. That is the extent of your sovereign, individual, power.

You also have a collective power, as a 12th part in judging the meaning of law in this case. You represent one 12th part in unleashing the power of law if you agree with 11 other people as to the guilt of the person who you presume to be innocent, until you are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt, and you, as a part of a whole, a 12th part, 1 of 12, you, collectively, can open the bottle, and let the genie out.

Consider please: a lie is powerless once the intended victims of the lie gain the inside information required to expose the lie, as a lie, and once the intended victim gains the power of accurate perception, in regards to the lie, the victim gains the power of knowledge, and the victim is no longer powerless in the face of the lie. That power to know better requires the power of good judgement, which is a consequence of a working moral conscience.

Look at the words:

Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century

You are on a jury.

You have the single, sovereign, lawful, individual, exclusive, only, one, power to acquit the accused, and set the presumed to be innocent person free, to liberate him, or her, and that is your legal power just like everyone else, who share that same absolute power alone, as your single, exclusive, solitary lawful power.

If you want to punish, after reviewing the evidence, to your satisfaction, your individual power of judgement, then you have to get 11 other people to agree, and absent that process, no one, ever, has to face the wrath of our government.

You can be fooled. You can be told lies, and then you can make believe that the lies are true, and you can then be disarmed, and you can then be rendered powerless, or you can know better.

If the people return to common sense, and return to voluntary association, and return to liberty, and return to due process of law, and return to Trial by Jury, and return to a competitive Democratic Federated Republican form of government, the money we create will be competitive, it will be higher in quality, and it will be lower in cost compared to any other monetary product, and people like Mayer Amsched Rothchild, or his predecessors, will care.

They will have to care enough to produce something that other people want, or they will have to make everything they consume alone, or they will eat their fellow criminals, or they will be accused, tried, and very likely found guilty, and punishment will rain down upon them as their victims access due process, in favor of vengeance, and instead of retribution hiding behind a thin veil, false front, of pretend justice.

Just US

Back to Gary North.

In the seventeenth century, the phrase "divine right of kings" referred to the king as immune to lawsuits. The theory insisted that there was no court which could lawfully impose sanctions on the king, other than God's court. As an agent of God, the theory asserted, the king was supreme in matters political.  

Please consider reading the following:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

From that you may gain a higher quality and lower cost (to you) perspective on the history of political economy. When a group of people hit bottom, a large group of networked people had had enough, they decided to express their own power, and the result was something called Magna Carta, and it included Trial by Jury.

Trial by Jury was an offer, that was not to be refused, offered to a king. The king, who had driven everyone in that social network to that condition of having hit bottom, complained about the offer, that he could not refuse, because Trial by Jury, as the complaint went, gave every free man as much power as the king.

Every single freeman in England was given the power to veto any law, and thereby render any law powerless, and each individual person, each sovereign citizen, had that power from that day onward, at least until Trial by Jury was corrupted by those among us who are good at corrupting all that is good.

Good is in the eye of the beholder. You have two, I have one good one, the other one is lazy, and not so good.

No one but you can overpower the power of lies, and until you can gain that power, you will continue to be the victim of lies.

Back to Gary North.

Then came the American Revolution. That ended Parliamentary sovereignty in North America. The colonials established a higher court.

Know, please, that the time between Parliamentary sovereignty and the enforcement of The Constitution of the United States of American was a time when The Articles of Confederation worked as the law of the land. Under those Articles a former colony, or State, such as Pennsylvania, or Massachusetts, could be a part of the voluntary union or part from it, as a rule, and that rule was changed.

Note too, please, that under those Articles, between the time when people were legal slaves to the British Monarchy, and the time when The Constitution was enacted, and enforced, in that time period in between those rules of law, The People were legally afforded the legal power to throw out a criminal government, or rebel, or proceed with insurrection, as was the case in Massachusetts during the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion.

Time line:

A.
Master/Slave rule by the British Monarchy upon the targeted victims living in The 13 Colonies.

B.
Voluntary association, Democratic Federated Republican form of government experiment, in active rebellion, processing insurrection, and defeating the invading mercenary war profiteers sent by the Monarchy leadership, with help from the French.

C.
Return to involuntary servitude as the supporters of Monarchy, such as Alexander Hamilton, perpetrated the fraud that became known as The Constitution, as those criminals, including Robert Morris, sold a lie to the sovereign people of America, and revoked, with that fraud, that Constitution, the power of Trial by Jury, and the power of competition among separate and sovereign States, and the power to rebel against a criminal government.

Please note these facts, and if you have any doubt, and reasonable doubt at all, or even a shadow of doubt, as the the accuracy of the words you are reading, ask those vital questions, and get the accurate answers, and settle for no less. Stop, please, settling for lies. They are not good enough.

While atheism is a legally recognized option, lack of citizens' faith in a nation's sovereignty – faith in the right of revolution – is allowed only in theory. To deny in public that the national government is beyond the sanctions imposed by a higher institutional authority is heresy. When exercised in wartime, it is treason.

I do not have access to Gary North, so I may never know what he means with those words. I would like to know, and I can try harder, as I try to make sense of those words. Those words appear to be interesting, and worth the effort to understand.

I can use help with those words. Anyone?

Right now I will take a break and get some lunch, no time to edit.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Sep 4th, 2011 03:52 am
  PM Quote Reply
44th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Stimulus Bill,

First we must develop a positive vision of the USA we want to live in.  Without that, we will not know what we are struggling FOR -- we will only know what we are struggling AGAINST.  And that is precisely how the enemy has usurped our electoral process.  They've divided us into red and blue teams, told us what we're supposed to object to, and funded both sets of candidates so that whoever wins will represent THEIR interests. 

When human life is understood as a power struggle, it can then be understood that the goal is to use the power available to make more power available, and that can be understood also as a goal of increasing the quality of life while reducing the cost of life at the same time. That as a goal avoids crime entirely, no need to fight crime, crime no longer pays.

1) The government "OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People" must facilitate the economic freedom of ALL its People.  If banks provide the cash-flow that serves as the life-blood of the economy, those banks must be federalized and provide interest-free loans to borrowers who will be required to invest that money in America's economy and eventually pay it back.  The current infinite growth paradigm in our fiat monetary system (dictated by Central Banks that loan money into existence at interest) is on a collision course with the reality of a planet with finite resources.

The enemy, the people I call Legal Criminals, make power scarce on purpose, so as to cause people to do anything they are told to do, so as to then receive the power they need, begging for power made scarce, and in order to accomplish that goal the Legal Criminals have to gain power over all sources of power, so as to monopolize the production of power, and in order to do that they have to destroy all competition, and among the methods they employ to reach and then maintain those goals, are deceit, threats of violence, and aggressive violence against the innocent, and incorporation of competitors into their exclusive cartel.

If you do not understand that then you won't see the problems associated with your first item on the list of discussion points.

You use the term "federalized" and I wonder if you understand the meaning of that term. What is the difference between a "federalized", single, one and only legal bank, and a Central Bank? The cause of such things as the business cycle is only possible when the victims are led to believe that they have no choice but the one choice for their currency, credit, and capital needs, or in other words their power to purchase. The obvious solution to the monopoly legal money problem is legal money competition. When legal money competition is allowed to exist, when it is not against the law, on a National level, the obvious result will be a steady increase in the quality of the money being offered by the competitors, as the cost of the money being offered by the competitors are forced down too, and the result is improvement, lower costs of living, and higher quality of life, as power is used to make more power, because the power to purchase increases by the force of competition, as better, and better, and better forms of currency are invented, produced, and utilized.

If the Nation here in America wasn't a Nation State, if it were constructed, and then maintained, as a Federation, then competition in all good things would be possible, by design, as each separate and sovereign state would be competing with the others for market share, which would be tax paying voters, who would vote with their feet, when the other methods of expressing their individual political and economic powers failed to cause the desired result.

When you make the statement that the banks must be federalized it sounds to me like you are saying that a central bank must be created, and then you claim that it is the central bank which dictates the issue of money, or some other such wording, and that can be an obvious contradiction. What do you actually mean?

Ron Paul has a good plan to shackle the Nation State with a gold standard, and if I understand his plan, he would also repeal the legal tender laws, which as far as I understand that plan, there would no longer be agents hired by the Nation State so as to enforce a single money issue, and that would fix the problem on both ends, as each separate and sovereign State, such as California, and New York, would be free to offer their own competitive currencies, and they would have to enforce their own monopolies if those government employees had that bright idea, and then the voters could walk to greener pastures, from California, if that State enforced a legal money monopoly, and they could move to New York if that State copied the Nation State example of using gold, or gold and silver, as legal currency. That would turn the Nation state back into something resembling a Democratic Federated Republic, or a Federation, or a Republic, which this Nation State we live under is not, and it was not designed to be one, it was designed to be a Consolidated Government, or Nation State.

2) Federal, State and Local governments should ONLY be allowed to expand their powers by Public Referendum.  We the People must be allowed to decide which services we will pay for.

We the People have been duped since Alexander Hamilton and the other monarchists, mercantilists, slave traders, banking monopolists, and nationalists, legal criminals to use one word, perpetrated the fraud that became known as The Constitution. Patrick Henry, among many others, were not duped, and they offered fair warning. The Bill of Rights was a last ditch effort to fight the usurpation of The Constitution, but virtually all the things Patrick Henry, and others, warned about, concerning the intentions of the people behind The Constitution, have come true. Read your history, or be condemned to repeat it. This is not a Federal system, it is a National system, a monopoly power, a consolidated government, a Nation State, and that is what it was designed to be, it was designed to be a dictatorship, and the dictatorship was enabled by The Constitution, because The Constitution was intended to be plausibly deniable, or constructively interpreted, as warned by Patrick Henry and others, during the process that can be accurately described as a fraud, or criminal regime change, or usurpation, or coup d'état.

Who is legally authorized to say what this supposed Federal government can or cannot do? You? Me? Us? How many people refer to the Bill of Rights when they dare to question the power of those hired employees, those governors, presidents, congressmen, judges, tax collectors, and those people who are authorized to interpret The Constitution?

You don't have to take my word on this, you can read the warnings offered by the people who blew the whistle on The Constitution when that fraud was being perpetrated by the Legal Criminals who invented it, produced it, and are maintaining it to this day.

If the idea of liberty once again gains currency, among the victims who were once liberated by their own power of accurate perception, and their own power to employ the power available to make power abundant, then the Legal Criminals will eventually die on the fraudulent vines that currently sustain them, since The People will quickly learn how to stop feeding the legal criminals through those roots leading to those vines, we can cut those connections like cutting a credit card. We can produce our own supplies of power, and the sooner we learn that, the sooner we return on the road of liberty. We can produce our own competitive currency, our own money, our own credit, and we certainly don't need to pay criminals to make these things for our own good. They lie, and they are hired by people who hire them to lie.

3) A democracy cannot function without public trust.  False or misleading statements for political or financial gain should be prosecuted as acts of Treason.  IMO, this should be mandated via a Constitutional Amendment.

There are many competitive angles by which The People can begin working to sever the connections to the Legal Criminals, like lighting a match, blowing out the match, and then bringing the hot match end close to the tic buried into the skin. One person picking off one tic is one step in the right direction. Everyone picking off every tic all at once is a huge step in the right direction. Whichever method works best can be copied by people who do come around, finally, and begin to seek methods to get off this despicable path, and turn back to Liberty. The Constitutional amendment is one way, but if you look into it, you may find, as I did, that it is a wrong turn.

Not hiring liars to lie for you, is a good start. Prevention is worth a pound of cure.

An actual Federal government is designed to have no connection to the individual (sovereign) people, other than to have in place a ready method by which to defend against foreign Nation States who conduct aggressive wars for profit, when we, in this Federation, are the targets. A single separate and sovereign State government within the Federation may have employees who are liars, whereby the liars who hire them in that state keep hiring liars in that state, for reasons that become painfully obvious to the victims, who are tax payers, and within the Federation those victims have options, freedom, and there may be a competitive state that isn't filled with liars hiring liars to run their State government, and so what happens, by design, in that Federation?

The people who have had enough of the liars hiring liars into office move to a place, within the Federation, where the people are honest, and where the honest people hire honest people to run their State governments.

Which State will flourish?

Which State will die on the vine?

That is the use of competition to avoid the use of monopoly government, by design, and it has proven to be workable.

Do you understand the thinking behind a Federation? Do you need more authority on this subject than my feeble words?

5) What to do about lobbyists?  Maybe if we get everything else right, the current fiasco will simply fade away.

A Nation State, by design, is one single, and absolute, authority, and it cannot be questioned, by law. Questioning the single monopoly legal fiction is against the law. Do you understand how that works, by design?

Do you need more proof than my powerless words to know these facts?

6) If corporations are to have all of the rights of people under the law, they must also have all the responsibilities of people under the law.  And corporate officers must be held criminally accountable for the actions of the corporations they control.  We must therefore change their charter.  Currently, corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders --even if that means destroying the environment to externalize costs of production, or cannibalizing their own consumer market by moving jobs to cheaper labor markets.  And they are not legally accountable for very much else.  Translation:  Our legislature has mandated that all corporate CEOs act like psychopaths -- under penalty of law.

The single, monopoly, Nation State is a corporation, by any other name it smells as bad, the accurate English term is legal fiction. The tactic is as old as dirt. The idea is to create a false entity and then use the false entity as a cover for things done that no one would ever tolerate without the false cover, and when people begin to use their power to stop those things being done by the people hidden behind the false front, the guilty people blame the false front, and the victims expend their power fighting something that doesn't exist, while the guilty simply change the title they use as a false front.

How often do you here someone blaming Wall Street, or government, or The State, for the bad things done by people? People are responsible, and therefore people can be held accountable, not States, not governments, not guns, not pointed sticks, not tools, not lies, but people, actual people, with names, addresses, phone numbers, people do bad things, and people do one bad thing that works, and they lie, and the lie they create is a false front, or a legal fiction, so as to divert the focus of defensive power upon the legal fiction, so as to weaken the victims, and render the victims powerless in defense against all the bad things done by very bad people - people I call Legal Criminals.

OK, I think you get the idea.

The solution to the problem can't be the continued support of the problem. Do you understand how that works?

If the problem is a number of people, about 5 or 10 percent of the population, more or less, employing deceit, threats of violence, and aggressive violence upon every competitor who doesn't join in on the effort, and do as they are told, then the solution to that problem can't be to join in on that effort, doing as told.

Do you see your own contradiction?

You quote from a document that expresses the Spirit of 1776, which may have been a misdirected spirit of Liberty, leading to war, unfortunately.

Do you understand how that worked? A bunch of people decided to combine their power in defense against a monopoly government power, a Monarchy power, whereby a few, about 5 or 10 percent of the population, more or less, employed all manner of bad things to subjugate the rest of the population into a master/slave association, or involuntary association, and when the targeted victims declared their independence, the leadership of the monopoly government power ordered an aggressive war for profit, an invasion, and occupation, rape, murder, and enslavement; but the friends of liberty prevailed under an Experimental Democratic Federated Republican form of government: The Articles of Confederation.

That is the context of The Declaration of Independence.

What happened after the British were driven out?

There was an attempt by the governors of Massachusetts to conduct aggressive wars for profit up north, to seize control of land in Canada, and their wars failed, and they had to pay the bills accrued from that waste of criminal power, and then those governors began printing fraudulent money so as to steal the wealth from their own tax payers. The tax payers included many former soldiers who fought and won the battle against the British for doing the same thing, so when their own home grown dictators tried the same trick, the ex-revolutionary war veterans rebelled, so as to do exactly the same thing they did before, to defend their own liberty, and to "alter or to abolish" the criminal regime within one of the separate and sovereign States within the Federated government under The Articles of Confederation.

Why do you think George Washington, who promised to avoid political office, took office?

He turned his coat. Once he defended the spirit of liberty and then he crushed it.

You won't trust my words, of course, and I'm not going to waste my time proving this to you, what would be the point? When the loop is closed, when a belief in falsehood is defended vehemently, there is only one way out: from within.

If you ask questions, if you want proof, I'll point you to it.

The Declaration of Independence is a report that announces the facts of liberty, including a power by which people can, if they will, abolish a criminal government.

The Constitution makes defense against a criminal government illegal, it can't be any clearer, but words are not deeds, and meaning does not exist in words, people invent, produce, and maintain meaning - individually.

Good luck with your efforts. It may work to accomplish something, and if it accomplishes legalized monetary competition, that will be enough, we will have then the power to avoid being victims of Legal Crime.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Sep 6th, 2011 10:22 pm
  PM Quote Reply
45th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I've already explained (earlier in this thread) why the payment of land rent is compulsory regardless of whether it's collected publicly or privately. And just as I expected, you completely ignored that explanation, because the perceived validity of your anti-LVT argument depends entirely upon people buying into the right-wing fantasy that it's compulsory only when collected publicly.


Anyone,

My goal is to converse with the competitive, welcome, reasonable viewpoint, but the dictatorial viewpoint appears to be overpowering. Appearances can be deceiving.  

Taxes can be voluntary, to say otherwise is dictatorial.

A tax can be as simple as an insurance policy. The concept is easy to understand. A person decides to buy into an investment with a promise of a return, so long as the recipient of the transfer of purchasing power remains solvent, and does as promised.
 
If the transfer of purchasing power does not pan out as promised, the effect is the same effect published as a warning by Thomas Paine as such:

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Person A fears something, anything, and inspired by that fear the person seeks an equitable method by which those fears can be addressed. How about the fear of being tortured by people currently running the thing that people call The Federal Government?

Suppose such fears grew in one person, then many more, than a whole lot of people, and that large number of people eventually constitutes something similar to the 20 million people murdered by the thing that people called Stalin's Bolshevik version of Dictatorship, or whatever term you find appropriate.

What can be done?

Tax the land, send that money to Stalin, and see what happens?

Suppose the fearful one's, those 20 million, buy into an insurance policy, and if one of them is taken, sent to the gulag, tortured, and murdered, the rest of the 20 million allow their pool of funds to aid the survivors in that family. Suppose the entire family is sent to the gulag, even while they are forced to pay their land taxes, as told, by Stalin, or the latest dictator, Stalin's successor to be, right here in this forum, what happens then?

What happens if one of the policy holders, who voluntarily bought into the scheme to insure each other against the dictators, past, present, and future, when their entire family is wiped out by the dictators?

How about a closer look?

Each potential victim fearing the latest dictatorial regime, as the dictators collect land tax, or as they collect families, involuntarily, each volunteer volunteers to add a portion of their own surplus power to a central location, a voluntary insurance policy, and from that voluntary insurance policy a payment will be sent to a policy holder if the policy holder is abducted by the dictators, and that is a simple arrangement.

What happens if the policy holder's whole family is abducted by the current dictators who enforce this method of having the victims supply the means by which the victims suffer, with the involuntary land tax, the thing that has to exist, and cannot not exist, according to that false, misleading, and destructive lie?

More for everyone else?

Is there more for everyone else if the fund that is produced specifically to aid the policy holders, against loss by dictators, runs into the problem of having an entire family tortured to death by the dictators, what happend in that case, who is paid in that case?

Is there then more for everyone else, as a number of policy holders are bulldozed into a ditch, so as to please the dictators with their lies about the impossibility of avoiding involuntary taxes?

That question is aimed at reasonable people, not the dictator running this despotism, here, where a welcome forum member is verbally abused by the regime, for the crime of offering a competitive viewpoint.

Can there be a better example of what can go wrong inside someone's brain?

Naturally I disagree, for reasons already given. Now can we agree to disagree, or are you going to insist we go around in endless circles?

The endless circle, sounds a lot like a situation whereby an involuntary tax is enforced, whereby the taxed people are then forced to provide the means by which they suffer at the hands of the people doing the taxing. The reason why it is endless is understandable from the dictators viewpoint; since killing off all the victims will result in the need to actually do productive work, so the dictators, with their involuntary taxes, such as the land tax fraud, must keep the productive one's alive, and reproducing, so as to have enough good things to steal, that way, perpetually.

As to what the forum dictator refers to I can look to find out, and quote the exchange as it was published by the dictator ruining this show, or running it, whichever viewpoint you choose as your own.

The dictator libeler quotes my words and then responds with the reference to an "endless circle".

My words:

That is the dictators choice. I prefer to call them Legal Criminals, since they are not mere criminals, they are the hi-bred criminal types who access the rule of law, so as to make crime legal.

I'm at a loss as to how my words turned out to be an  "endless circle". I can guess. When the dictator constructs a false reality, whereby there must be an involuntary tax enforced by the tax collecting group, upon the tax paying group, such as this land tax scam, then that lie must be defended with another lie, and then two more, and then four more, and that may be the "endless circle" being foisted up and slung at me, to see if that lie will stick, this time.

I don't see that lie sticking to me. I'm not buying into the inevitability of the involuntary tax, not the land tax, and not the income tax, and if there must be, on the road to liberty, a tax between a Federal government and separate, competitive, State governments, then I would look into that tax as that tax was collected under The Articles of Confederation, to see how well, or how poorly, that tax worked.

Did the Federal governors, those congress people, charge a land tax upon each set of State governors during the time when The Articles of Confederation were working?

The design of a Democratic Federated Republican experimental, competitive, form of government is such that the Federal governors tax the State Governors, not The People in each State, and if in one State the governors collect land taxes, and the people don't like it, they can move to another State, where The People prefer not to be paying land taxes, and that is how that is supposed to work, by that design, and that is expressly not an involuntary land tax, unless all the States are collecting land taxes, and then The People are, by that definition, providing the means by which they suffer, when they are left without a choice: pay the land tax nation wide, or get out.

Unless, unless, there is an option, unless there is another federation somewhere, where honest productive people are welcome, and where the hired governors don't enforce a land tax, then the people can vote with their feet that way.

There are solutions to the supposed involuntary land tax frauds, and their invented problems, as they, by their dictates, and their lies, and their threats, and their violence, enforce no alternatives. The victims may have to invent options, since the dictators make sure that options are not options. They like to invent arguments that go on, and on, without resolution. That is their business, and they are good at their work, from their viewpoint. From my viewpoint a lie, to the victim, is not good. From my viewpoint an involuntary tax, land or otherwise calculated, is not good for the victim. From my viewpoint libel, to the victim, is not good. From my viewpoint a forum, with forum rules, where the forum operators rise themselves above the rules is not good for those who still obey the rules.

Call my disagreeing with you censorship if your ego is that fragile.

Libel is verbal abuse, and the obvious inspiration to resort to libel, as this person has done, is a case of shooting the messenger, which is merely censorship, and my ego, or my person, or my personality has nothing to do with the message I offer. Turning a discussion into a personal attack is an old tactic, recognizable as the nose on my face. The concept is easy to understand as the perpetrator of libel resorts to other means, other than factual transfers of information.

This coming from someone who all but accused me of being the anti-Christ.

That is a mixture of tactics, including the tactic of creating a Man of Straw. The idea is to create this false being, and then the creator of the false being speaks for the false being, and then the creator of the false being associates his target, which is me in this case, with his own creation, and the audience is supposed to belief that I said the words spoken by the creator of the false being.

The believers in the falsehood, created by the dictator, can search for my words, and find, if they want to question their blind belief in the falsehood created by the dictator, and what they will find is someone publishing the words that have been attributed to me, and I will not have published those words, those words are published by the creator of the false being, the Man of Straw.

The dictator is factually a dictator, measurably so, as the dictator dictates, one way, his way.

I don't take dictation, so what is the point? I see a possible, obvious motive: censorship.

So far my work on this forum has been removed, not deleted, but removed from the topic that my work had been published into, which was a thread that was created by the dictator, if I recall, and then the dictator dictated the title of the new thread where he placed my work, which is another measurable example of what a dictator does, when a dictator dictates.

Will Josf ever get to the friggin point?

I think I have, competitively, gotten the point. The dictator claims that involuntary taxes are inevitable, the involuntary taxes must be collected, there is no other choice, and therefore involuntary land tax, according to this dictator, must be the only solution to some manufactured problem. My point is the point at which the victims have had enough of those manufactured problems, whereby the dictators claim that the only solution to the problem is the cause of the problem, but not in those words, the dictators fabricate nice clothes to place on their manufactured problems and their use of their manufactured problems as the solution to their manufactured problems are hidden behind those false fronts.

I think my point is competitive. You may not.

Calling me a "dictator" over and over again is not contributing anything of substance to this topic, but is merely flamebaiting, and flamebaiting is against forum rules. So if you don't like being "punished" for violating forum rules, then, instead of whining like a spoiled child when those rules are enforced, simply stop violating them.

As with many cases, such as who fired the first shot when the ATF agents tortured and mass murdered all those innocent babies in Waco, I can use the same forum that everyone uses, to quote the first shot:

If your idea of "participating" in this topic means blabbing ad nauseam about things that have little or nothing to do with this topic (just to hear yourself talk), then yes.

Actual facts mean nothing to dictators who have stolen the power to injure innocent people, so my guess as to what happens next is that the dictator here will censor the message he doesn't like in more ways than just libel.

I could be wrong.

Is anyone willing to wager, at what odds?

This accusatory, off-topic troll post of yours has convinced me that you're incapable of rational discussion, so I hereby propose once again that we agree to disagree. Will you be a mature adult and accept this offer, or do you have a personal obsession with me now?

I think an apology is in order. But absent that, I can make a deal. If you wish to enforce your land tax, be my guest, that is fair, and I'll protest against it. How is that for a deal?

If you resort to deceit, so as to enforce your land tax, let's be fair, and I'll call you on it.

Example:

This accusatory, off-topic troll post of yours has convinced me that you're incapable of rational discussion, so I hereby propose once again that we agree to disagree. Will you be a mature adult and accept this offer, or do you have a personal obsession with me now?

That is libel.

You are being called on that libel.

If you resort to threats, let's be fair, I'll call you on it - OK?

Calling me a "dictator" over and over again is not contributing anything of substance to this topic, but is merely flamebaiting, and flamebaiting is against forum rules. So if you don't like being "punished" for violating forum rules, then, instead of whining like a spoiled child when those rules are enforced, simply stop violating them.

That is a threat.

Violence may be your last resort, to enforce your land tax, but you have a lot of help in that department, but I think your helpers have bigger fish to fry than me.

Good luck.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Sep 6th, 2011 11:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
46th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am not at all encouraged by what I've seen here. 

Anyone,

Courage, or encouragement, can be there, and missed. From my view the better future will be obvious, and it will be inventive, and honest, and productive, and while I've been looking I see that happening, because I look.

At the same time there has been an accelerate rate of increase in the supply of lies, threats, and violence upon the innocent, as if a defining moment has been building, as the productive, liberating force is no longer able to be contained by the oppressive dictatorial force, where a time will occur, and that time will pass by, and that time will be known in history, and the winners will remember that time for as long a they survive. If the oppressive force wins, the winners will not last much longer, it seems to me, and the human species will end soon. If the productive force wins the winners will last much longer, it seems to me, much longer than the Earth provides the power to sustain life - perhaps.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 04:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
47th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Stimulus Bill, or anyone,

Along the lines of what American 2.0 can look like I can pass on one of the indicators that appear to offer a positive measure.

The link has  to do with something called The Dictators Dilemma.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD127/sec2.html#fnB4

Google was not helping me find  that link, and the chart that was originally attached to that web page.

Here is the chart:




I had saved that on my own web forum:

http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=398&forum_id=4&page=11

A quote from the link may offer some positive data:

The technology of communication has changed and with it, corresponding political biases have shifted. In a broader historical context, advancements in the means of communication have profoundly influenced characteristics within and interactions between societies since the time when language was invented. Writing created permanence; the printing press widened distribution; the telegraph conquered distance; the telephone facilitated interactivity; and television mastered visual images. Now, asynchronous electronic telecommunication networks likewise represent another fundamental, substantial, and discontinuous improvement in the ability to communicate. Modern communication innovations differ from previous technologies in fundamental ways that relatively favor sovereign individuals over sovereign governments. (Wriston, 1993). "If we look for historical precedents for this diffusion of power through information away from the elites, the Renaissance comes to mind" (Builder, 1993: 159).

The graphic in Figure 2.1 is helpful in understanding how the dictator's dilemma is a result of advances in communication technologies. The orthogonal axes represent fundamental characteristics of all communications media: Who is able to communicate with whom? Broadcast media, like television, reach large audiences but the ability to broadcast is greatly limited by economic, political and technological constraints. Interactive media, like telephones, can approach universal access, but the number of recipients per message is rarely more than one. Influence increases as more people get the word and autonomy increases with the percentage of the society that can originate and share its own ideas. The dictator's task, to maximize influence while limiting autonomy, used to be easier when technological improvements in telecommunications moved generally in linear paths along the horizontal or vertical axes. The optimal position, from the dictator's perspective, would be in the bottom right-hand corner where everybody receives all of the leader's dictates and none from anyone else. The Jeffersonian democratic ideal resides toward the top right-hand corner where ideas compete in a marketplace comprising many message originators and many recipients. "We the people" implies a public that can communicate with itself. This diagram shares important similarities with the schema proposed by Robert Dahl in his theory of polyarchies. Dahl's concept of "inclusive hegemonies" exists in the bottom right-hand corner and "polyarchies" in the top right-hand corner.[5]


If that  does not offer some measure of positive perspective, the following may, as this source had gone through hell, as we all do, relatively speaking, and onto the other side the source offers a usable perspective.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/nobel-lit1970.htm

We will be told: What can literature do against the pitiless onslaught of naked violence? Let us not forget that violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with LYING. Between them there is the closest, the most profound and natural bond: nothing screens violence except lies, and the only way lies can hold out is by violence. Whoever has once announced violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose lying as his PRINCIPLE. At birth, violence behaves openly and even proudly. But as soon as it becomes stronger and firmly established, it senses the thinning of the air around it and cannot go on without befogging itself in lies, coating itself with lying's sugary oratory. It does not always or necessarily go straight for the gullet; usually it demands of its victims only allegiance to the lie, only complicity in the lie.

The simple act of an ordinary courageous man is not to take part, not to support lies! Let that come into the world and even reign over it, but not through me. Writers and artists can do more: they can VANQUISH LIES! In the struggle against lies, art has always won and always will. Conspicuously, incontestably for everyone. Lies can stand up against much in the world, but not against art.

Once lies have been dispelled, the repulsive nakedness of violence will be exposed--and hollow violence will collapse.

That, my friends, is why I think we can help the world in its red-hot hour: not by the nay-saying of having no armaments, not by abandoning oneself to the carefree life, but by going into battle!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 8th, 2011 12:41 am
  PM Quote Reply
48th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Why isn't Ron Paul or Alex Jones here?  Why isn't anyone else here?

Stimulus Bill,

I like very much the way you think, having a use for math, and a healthy respect for any challenge to all conclusions. The results do not look good, certainly, and that is almost ubiquitous, no matter how you calculate things out, excepting a few methods.

I found one.

My exception, the measure that appears to offer positive conclusions, suffers the test you accurately identify.

Why are those people who profess to know so much, so remote, and unaffected by exceptions to the rule of pending doom?

I will now see if you can test my exception, and I will use math.

You are in the same spot as Alex Jones, Ron Paul, or anyone else, as you view the data I'm going to present to you.

Suppose one other person, other than me, can see what I am about to tell you, and then that one other person begins to realize how things can be, and how things can be very soon, almost over night.

I have yet to find that one other person.

I've looked, and it makes no sense to me, as to why no one else can see this.

I have to start and build up to this from a few angles, and I've done this so many times, I know it backwards and forwards.

What if?

You wake up tomorrow and you find other people waking up and seeing the same thing, and what they see, you see, and I see, and it is an official Federal license to sell you, me, and anyone, two new monetary products that could be called, simply, Product 1, and Product 2.

These products represent a new federally licensed monetary product, or legal unit of legal money, and this will be a money that competes directly with every other legal money Globally, including the fraudulent Federal Reserve notes, or dollars, which are National, not Federal, and not Private, as some people advertise.

You, and every other American, or anyone on Earth, who has access to a computer, and the internet, can see this new web page, and can start navigating, and find Product 1 first, then I can move onto Product 2.

Product 1 is new home mortgage loan, denominated in the new legal money unit, call it Dollar2, or LM2, the name matters, but not yet, the idea matters now. I'll use LMC2 for now, Legal Money Competitor 2.

The idea is to disconnect every home and every business owner from this:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Product 1 offers a peaceful, productive, legal, way out.

You, me, anyone, logs onto the computer, and we do everything anyone already does to get a loan, our credit rating is checked, and if we qualify, based upon an improved credit rating system, or even, for now, the existing credit rating system, for now, and we get a no interest home loan, and a no interest business property loan, we get new denomination legal money, we pay off our existing mortgages, or we buy new.

Before you begin working on that I have to run some numbers by you.

Suppose that there are 100 million honest productive Americans currently paying twice the price for their homes and suppose that the average price is 100 thousand dollars for each home.

They buy one home to get one home, and they pay one extra home, a home that does not exist, in interest to the operators of The Federal Reserve System of Extortion, and you probably know how that works as well as I do, whereby the average bank employee is not getting the gravy, the gravy goes to the top.

Please consider challenging anything I have to say but hear me out first, and look at the numbers.

100 million people pay 100 thousand dollars for one home and 100 thousand dollars in interest goes to the top of the top of the banking fraud.

100,000,000 people
100,000 units of legal money flowing to the top of the top of the banking fraud

Counting zeros

10,000,000,000,000

Product 1 cuts that out.

Will it sell?

In whose interest is it to stop this from selling?

You wake up. I wake up. I can turn in my dollars and get a new loan denominated in a new competitive money unit, a new legal money unit, LMC2, pay off my mortgage, and effectively cut my monthly payments in half, since I no longer pay interest on that loan, and I can do the same thing for a new business property loan, buying new, or paying off an existing mortgage, cutting that monthly payment in half, paying no interest.

That can be seen by anyone. Anyone can look, see, believe, know, understand, they pay half of their largest monthly bill, or so, more or less, a big leap toward liberty from the banking cartel.

The big leap is seen as big for each individual.

The big leap can even be tallied on the web page.

How many new loans occur in how much time?

All of them, all those 100 million people, how much is that worth, to whom?

One and 13 zeros worth?

That is product 1, and among the obvious questions, that you can help me uncover, is the question about who pays for the costs of all those loans, including the costs of processing the loans, enforcing payments, repossessions, in case of default, etc.

How much does it cost, first, and who can hazard an accurate guess, if the legal loan business is an internet program? How much does it cost to run Pay Pal, or E-Bay, or Amazon.com?

Product 2 intends to pay the loan processors their piece of the action, to allow the processors of the loans to gain a profit, and do so legally, in the competitive money business.

Product 2 is a power loan, or a loan offered to the same people who qualify for Product 1, and the loan is available for purchases that are currently, and officially, by some accurate measure, capable of producing more than they cost, such as a Solar Panel.

A Solar Panel is just one of many examples of what can be a purchase purchased by a Product 2 loan, and only so long as they continue to calculate out as a productive investment.

Product 2 loans allow the processor to collect 1% interest on those loans sold and processed.

A bidding process is used to license Product 1 and Product 2 loan processors. PayPal can bid, who would not?

How much can someone make if someone can sell legal money at 1% interest?

How much would  it cost someone to process Product 1 and Product 2 loans, and how many people would take advantage of a loan that allowed a person to buy something that earns them a profit at the same time the purchase earns the money processor 1% interest on the loan processed?

How about another type of thing that could be a Product 2 loan?

Modular Vertical Farming Units; where the purchaser can begin to make their own food at home, higher quality food, at a lower cost, and sell surplus food, to make ends meet, so long as the purchase does calculate out as a productive purchase with a net "cash flow".

Product 1 works like giving away the razor, to sell the razor blades.

Americans are trained to speak money, but they are trained, from birth, to only speak one money, and they are trained to have a knee jerk reaction to anyone's effort to question the dominance of that one money, and that is all crashing down around us, on schedule.

It will soon be the right time to invent, produce, and maintain our own currency rather than do without our own currency as those who can destroy the dollar do destroy the dollar on their schedule, so as to usher in something even worse for us and something even better for them.

While we are on track to do without powerful currency, we will be in the best position to seize back our control over our own legal money.

Americans are trained to speak money.

Wake up, see the web page, you can click, click, click, and reduce your home mortgage in half, so long as, by some measure, preferably a more accurate measure over a less accurate measure, you have earned good faith and credit.

Wake up, see the web page, click, click, click, your current business mortgage is cut in half, or you can start your own business, since your employer, for the last 25 years, just went to Asia.

What will you make at your new business?

Wake up, see the web page, click, click, click, there is a list of all the things people now want with their new Product 2 loans.

Start making that stuff.

What stuff?

Stuff that costs this much power, and when done there is this much more power, thereby qualifying it as a Product 2 loan purchase.

Well, that is the tip of the ice berg. You are in their seat now. Ignore it. Be challenged by it. What say you?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Sep 8th, 2011 01:52 pm
  PM Quote Reply
49th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
09-08-2011

Listening to Alex Jones rebroadcast, it is early am for me.

Alex points to a Global money monopoly as American, European, and Asian money competitors merge into one, or some such expectation; creating SDRs, or something.

I do not see this. There will always be a pretend competition, so as to keep the targeted victims divided and fighting each other, which sounds confusing but only when the viewpoint is duplicitous.

Think in terms of the lessons offered by the book 1984.

3 is a significant number, so as to keep people on a false schedule, today we are good, tomorrow we are bad, next day we are on deck, then we are good again. Duplicity requires a short memory, and if there is only one thing that the victims focus on then there is no way to forget the one thing, it is always there, but with 3 things the fake competition can trick people into a false belief in one being the winner, the good guys, until those good guys become so obviously horrible, they are then exposed as being bad, while the actual power shifts to the new false front, from Eastasia, to Eurasia, then to Oceania, and by the time Oceania is know to be really, really, bad, the victims forgot how bad Eastasia was, the actual Legal Criminals move operations back to the new good guys.

Anyone caught remembering is left without a leg to stand on, since all evidence is censored down into the memory hole. That tactic happens right here on this forum; for example the GeoLlibertarian member finds a competitive perspective challenging his lies, so what does he do, he erases history, but I keep my own records, so his tactic doesn't work.

There is no real competition, on purpose, but there is a false competition propped up so as to keep the targeted victims thinking that there are reasons for their steadily increasing costs of living, and their steadily declining standards of living, since the false competitors are doing what they can, but the competition is so much better, or the competition is so bad, the competition is criminal, it is the competition that cause our trouble, and if only we could copy what the competition is doing, etc., on and on, but to no avail, for some strange reason things are not working, when in reality the force of competition does not exist, as each of the three leadership groups are in on the joke, each of the three false competitors are in on the gag, and the actual Legal Criminals hire puppets to run each fake competitor, where the fake competitors can have someone who believes in their sides competitive power up to a point, and if that point is exceeded, a lone gunman appears out of nowhere.

What would happen if one of the three competitors invented, produced, and maintained a steadily improving legal money system? Even going back to gold as money is a huge improvement compared to the best legal money on the planet at this time. Why, please answer the question, why are the legal currencies that are worst for the honest productive people the same legal currencies that dominate the global markets?

How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face?

You have no choice as to which money you are paid, because you have no choice as to which money you must have to pay taxes.

If it was not true, if there is true competition, then the quality of money will increase, by the force of competition, and the cost of money will decrease, yet, obviously, and measurably, the fake competitors are actually cooperating to keep the quality of money low, and the cost of money high, as money is used, in each of the fake competitor "nations", to move the surplus value from those who create it to those who steal it, with their money monopolies that work as monopolies withing their own boarders.

The three major competitors work as one cartel, and if the victims knew it, they would see only one enemy, not three.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Henry Ford

Are you still confused?

How about another angle of view?

What would happen if this place, this thing we are told is U.S.A., became a working Democratic Federated Republic, instead of one Nation State?

What would happen if one, and then two, and then three, of the State governments decide to use any of the many currencies made throughout the world instead of just one money?

Is that too tough to imagine?

Pick one State to start with, and then work it out.

I'll pick California because I live here, and then I'll pick New Jersey since I lived there when young.

First California decides to allow competition in money markets and the people hired to run California change the laws so that anyone can pay taxes in whatever currency they find to be the most powerful currency at the lowest cost.

How does that work from your own viewpoint?

Any of the tax payers in California can begin to demand payments, for what they are selling, in Euros, or Yuan, or dollars, or gold, or silver, or whatever they think is the best money, and then they pay their taxes in the worst money they know to be worst, and everyone is thereby working in currency speculation.

You go to work and you are paid, by your decision, in gold, say, or silver, or whatever today is the best money, today, and you go home with that money, you earn that money. You keep piling up your best money, and you have to pay for things you want with the best money demanded by those who sell you stuff, but when you pay taxes, you exchange your best money for the worst money that you know to be the worst money on the day you pay taxes.

I, you, your neighbor, and soon everyone in California, then New Jersey demands payment in gold, or silver, or whichever money I, you, or your neighbor thinks is the best money, and that is the income you get, when you trade what you sell for money, and then before you pay California tax payments, you sell your gold, or silver, or whatever you think is the best money, for units of the worst money, that worst money you know to be worst, and that is the money you use to pay tax debt in California, or later in New Jersey when the people hired to run New Jersey change their laws too.

Since it is now a working Democratic Federated Republic and no longer a single Nation State, the people running the Federation no longer tax The People directly, instead the people hired to run the Federation can only get their tax payments from each State in the Federation. California, being smartly run by their hired governors, pay the people running the Federation in Federal Reserve notes, as they too work on currency speculation, as they get whatever currency that The People send to them as tax payments, and they then take those currencies and buy dollars to pay the Federation what the Federation wants as payment. Right now the supposed Federal government demand dollars.

Got that?

You demand the best money to be paid to you for what you produce. You then buy the worst money to pay your State taxes, and you have no Federal tax payments, because now we live in a Federation, not a Nation State. The people you hire to run your State take the worst money they send you and they buy dollars, because dollars are demanded by the people hired to run the Federation.

How does that work for you?

Why don't the people running the Nation State demand gold as payment for tax debt instead of dollars printed by The Federal Reserve System of Extortion?

Is that not a self-evident truth?

The answer is that the pyramid scheme won't work if there is competition, such as gold, which is a very competitive, powerful, money, when compared to the fraudulent stuff.

A one world currency won't work, the victims will no longer volunteer to provide the means by which they suffer, they will be clued in when the lie is one lie, the one lie will be too obvious.

Work on it some, you may get it, before it is too late.

Please.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 03:01 am
  PM Quote Reply
50th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Buck_Nekkid,

Why not make our own money so that we can stop using the fraudulent stuff, and then be in a powerful position to avoid being victims instead of being weakened every time the Legal Criminals want us weak on their schedule?

Along the lines of this:

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Henry Ford

If you want more specifics how about the following example:

http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm

Not playing their games, without our own powerful connecting medium in place and working for us, can be like union workers going on strike.

Problem:
Not enough income and too much expense.

Solution:
Stop generating an income.

The problem isn't solved by more of the problem.

The problem is solved by using the power available to make more power.

As for Ron Paul, if you care hear another perspective, I can offer my decades of experience keeping track of Ron Paul. Sure, he is right leaning, or capitalist leaning, but  at some point it may be a good idea to find out where the people who lean to socialism, to the left, share ideals with the people who lean to capitalism on the right, and there may be a whole lot more in common than what is covered up by all the lies.

In particular, it may interest you to know, that I know where Ron Paul and Alex Jones are wrong, where their ideas lead to despotism, and I know where their ideas lead to liberty. Where their ideas lead to liberty, their ideas are almost the same ideas as the socialists, and where the socialists harbor notions that lead to despotism, those notions are remarkably the same notions shared by the right leaning capitalists.

In simple terms:

Ideas that move toward more, and more, voluntary associations (also known as anarchy) move toward liberty.

Ideas the move toward more, and more, involuntary associations (also known as crime) move away from liberty.

Competition in avoiding crime may be one obvious idea shared by those on the right and left as they seek to move closer to liberty, and there are ways to move that way, step by step; where competitors offer higher quality methods, at lower costs, and eventually the methods improve beyond any yet known to mankind.

If one person moves that way, that is good.

If everyone moves that way, at once, except for the incorrigible criminals (with or without badges), what happens?

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.
Henry Ford

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 03:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
51st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Well said. And this is why, with every passing year, I start leaning more and more toward feeling like an anarchist more than anything. Ron Paul, Alex Jones, ANYone that would assume himself to be a leader, aspire to be one, while a populous backs him up, will knowingly or unknowingly create an autocracy. Thousands of years of history, and always the same result.

Buck_Nekkid,


There are exceptions, and if my viewpoint is not as accurate as the viewpoint your words appear to me, to be false, then it may be a good idea to know better.

A.
Thousands of years of history, and always the same result.

B.
There are exceptions

If A is true, why waste any time looking into B?

If B is true, is it worth the effort to know better?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 04:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
52nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/a-presidential-declaration-of-independence-from-wall-street

Stimulus Bill,

I saw that in my morning perusal of news and I see a need to post that here, and a need to comment on a very specific distinction between that message and the viewpoint I see.

The road to liberty will not be dictatorial and monopolistic, it will be open, honest, welcome, and therefore it will be competitive; which is the opposite of dictatorial and monopolistic.

I saw that link and I went as straight as I could to the part where that viewpoint deals with the legal money supply, and as far as I can tell that proposed solution is more of the same legal monopoly money supply enforced problem that poses as a solution to the very problem it creates, and therefore it may work to help move closer to liberty, but only if those who seize control of that legal monopoly money supply use that power to create an abundance of power, which is to say that they use that power to allow people to create an abundance of power with that power, which is to say that once those dictators seize that dictatorial power they become benevolent after having proven themselves to be dictators (legal criminals).

If that does not make sense to you, I can work on solving that, if you see that as a problem.

What can I say? I don't read from the script.

If the assumption is that the dictators will be benevolent, and it turns out that they are, how will that be known, when that happens?

If the idea is to avoid such assumptions, then the legal money supply will be a legal competition, and then the force of competition will continuously force the power of money, which is the quality of money, higher, and that same force of legal competition will force the cost of money, which is interest, lower.

If that does not make sense, then the fact that it does not make sense is very interesting - to me.

I know that the Legal Criminals are fully aware of the things I know to be true - as my words intend to convey, on this road to liberty.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 04:46 pm
  PM Quote Reply
53rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Honest Productive Americans,

I call upon you today to inform you of something that has just crossed my desk, and I am right now in the process of picking through this data to see if there are things worth knowing within the stream of data.

You can judge this as a test upon your future President of The U.S.A., whomever you get in that office. Test them. Test me. Test yourself.

The link is a link to a network of people who are on a similar path as the path I choose to be on, which is the path that claims to be working toward liberty, and it will be a path that can be measured accurately as the people on that path progress along that chosen path.

There is in that data, from that link, a proposed Presidential Address, which can work as a competitive example.

Here is that link:

http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/a-presidential-declaration-of-independence-from-wall-street

The title is a good one, since the thing that goes by the name Wall Street is the same thing that I call Legal Crime.

I can offer as evidence to the accusation that the thing known as Legal Crime is the same thing as the thing known as Wall Street by offering two links. The next two links help identify the perpetrators of the crime that became known as World War II, and this is important, because the same Legal Crime organization, if not the same leaders of that organization, are now repeating these crimes as they work toward causing World War III.

Let know one be fooled into being less than aware of the full measure of the danger ahead.

Two links:

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/

The same organized legal crime cartel, which is accurately measurable as a legal banking monopoly, a Dollar Hegemony, have, in the past, caused World War II, and they, those people who make up Wall Street, are fixin' to do a number on us, in the form of World War III, and that is well underway, in a big way, even if you refuse to see it.

So that offers a clue, or two, as to the significance of someone offering a competitive Presidential Address that proposes to go after Wall Street head-on, by disconnecting from Wall Street, which is almost the same tactic shared by me, and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's solution, and my solution, is to replace the Wall Street legal money monopoly with legal competition, for reasons that can be made clear to anyone with a working brain, whereby the brain has the capacity for sound, honest, moral judgment.

Moving from that competitive Presidential Address this effort can move to the true nature of the proposed solution, looking for either monopoly (criminal) power or legal competition (liberty) power.

A quote from the competitive Presidential Address:

I have instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to take immediate action to assume control of the Federal Reserve and restructure it to function as an independent, but publicly transparent, federal agency accountable to the president and the Congress. The new federalized Federal Reserve will have a mandate to stabilize the money supply, contain housing and stock market bubbles, discourage speculation, and assure the availability of credit on fair and affordable terms to eligible Main Street borrowers.

As President I would not say that, my proposition is spelled out as Product 1 and Product 2, which can be elaborated in great detail, but not here and now.

That competitive Presidential Address addresses the Wall Street legal banking monopoly problem by retaking control of the legal banking monopoly, as far as I can tell.

Further investigation may uncover useful information.

Next link:

http://neweconomyworkinggroup.org/visions/living-wealth-money-system

That is a detailed description of money. Money is the power to purchase, to me, and if the power to purchase increases, then the quality of money increases.

What is the highest quality money?

Where is it?

Who makes it?

Can I copy it?

Can we copy it?

Why can't we make it?

Why can't we copy the highest quality of money?

Use your own brain, please.

The cost of money is interest.

When competition drives the quality of money up, the same force of competition drives the cost  of money down, and this is easy to understand capitalist truth. Don't be fooled by the capitalist liars.

Why not allow the force of competition to force the quality of money up (which is the power to purchase) while allowing the force of competition to force the cost of money down?

Is that not simple? Is that not something a 3rd grader can know, and know well enough to use that vital information?

Why are we cherishing our stupidity? I've looked in the mirror, you may want to do so too, before answering that vital question.

The next link leads to the area that I have yet to peruse. I'll comment after that investigation.

Here is the link (competitive solutions to pressing problems):

http://neweconomyworkinggroup.org/visions/living-wealth-money-system/money-system-design-options

Should official money originate as bank debt or direct government issue?
[Click to expand]
Should the power to originate money be centralized or decentralized?
[Click to expand]
Should a nation have one currency or many?
[Click to expand]
Should financial institutions be operated for public or for private benefit?
[Click to expand]
Should the money system be regulated or left to market forces?
[Click to expand]


Wow, there are a lot of vital questions, and I'm going to go directly to the last one on that list, and I can cut and paste the answer offered (once clicking on the link) - then I can offer comments.

The shape and function of the money system will depend in large measure on whether it is subject to appropriate public regulation to limit the size of individual institutions, place a ceiling on interest rates, prevent fraud and deception, and support locally rooted, preferably cooperative, ownership in the social enterprise model. The results of a reckless social engineering experiment with financial system deregulation provide an unambiguous demonstration of the consequences of that path.

To help the reader know the stakes here, better, I'm going to explain something, and then lead the reader to my next question:

What will the best money look like once the best money is produced by whomever it is produced, and then what will the better money look like once the new money takes away market share from the best money that is no longer the best?

The best money can be known, by way of explaining the worst money.

Here is a very good measure, as explanation, of the worst money:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Honest productive people send their earnings to liars who use that money to make the honest productive people suffer. Thomas Paine offers an explanation of that transfer of power here:

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

What is the money proposed by the people who constitute the link to that network of people who offer a competitive Presidential Address, and presumably a competitive method of disconnecting The People from Wall Street, and presumably offer a competitive money, a money that is better for The People compared to The Dollar Hegemony money?

What is the money?

Show me the money.

I am looking.

How about this:

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 05:44 pm
  PM Quote Reply
54th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Wow!

The quote at the beginning has me on the edge of my seat.

The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle.

http://www.todayinsci.com/B/Bakunin_Mikhail/BakuninMikhail-Quotations.htm

That is the full quote (from one source), not the quote at the start of the media titled: Human Resources.

Bukunin, as far as I know, was one of the people thrown out of The First International, and I think that Stephen Pearl Andrews was similarly censored - but my historical understanding may be far off of the truth here.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Sep 10th, 2011 08:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
55th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

Whenever I read these reports of how one side is against the other for this reason or that reason I'm reminded of how a Federation is supposed to work, and how a Nation State is specifically not a Federation.

A Federation is not supposed to replace the State governments, or the county government, or the city governments, or the corporation governments, or the military governments, or the financial governments, or the family governments, or the religious governments, or even the individual governments, the Federation legal license is awarded for the purposes of keeping the State government demands placed on the Federal government supplied to the State governments.

The States (actually the people hired to run The States) make demands upon the Federal government, to which the people hired to run the Federal government are taxed with the job of supplying those demands.

A Federation is not supposed to be directly connected to the people, such as the case with direct taxes, including the fraudulent "inflation" tax.

What was the form of tax placed upon each of the Separate and Sovereign State governments under The Articles of Confederation as funds to run the Federal government were transferred from the accounts of The States to the account of the Federal government?

It was not a case of having a Federal agent reaching into your pocket to take whatever he, or she, wanted at any given moment, while you were asleep.

The idea behind the Federation is to access the force of competition, which is the same idea as the idea behind regulating the force of monopoly; since monopoly cannot exist where competition exists, so the willful invention, production, and use of competition does, in fact, end monopoly force, such as the monopoly force that is commonly known as a Nation State, or a State Bank, or a Central Bank, or whatever name is embroidered on the napkins as the Legal Criminals eat the lives of their victims.  

The Nation State enforces a monopoly on taxing the people directly within a government designed to be a Nation State - for example.

A Democratic Federated Republic, idea, employs the force of competition, when each State within the Republic experiments with various types of plans by which the hired governors tax the people who hire the governors, which adds a feature of Democracy to the Federation idea, since The People hire the few people who run their State governments within their Federated Republic and thereby the thing invented, and used, is a Democratic Federated Republic. The Republic is the word used to describe the combination of all the States and the Federal government into one thing, which is the Republic.

The People hire people to run Separate and Sovereign States, and the hired governors hire people to run the Federal government, and a tax structure is used to connect The People to the State, to connect accounts of surplus wealth earned by The People, held in their own personal accounts, and then power flows from The People to accounts opened for the expenses of State government purchases, directly or indirectly, depending upon how The People demand such things to be done, and depending upon how the hired employees running the State governments  implement  the demands of the people.  The people running the State governments are  then taxed by the Federal government and power flows from the State accounts to the Federal accounts, and there is no direct connection between the Federal account and the accounts of The People. That is done by design. That is done that way so as to preserve, rather than destroy, competition.  That is done that way so as to preserve competition and in so doing the force of monopoly power is regulated right out of business, as the force of competition is held by each individual  person who  then has the power to veto any State governments abuse of the power they are given, which amounts to be a power stolen when that power is abused.

That competitive feature, designed into a  Democratic  Federated Republican form of government ends the practice whereby the people end up providing the means by which they suffer. That  design feature is the enemy of  monopolists, despots, and Legal Criminals.

The Republic is the thing that includes the Federal government, which is hired by the State governments, and The People hire the few people they hire to run each of their State governments, making that idea, that plan, that government what  it is by design, and it is democratic, that is that feature, whereby The People recognize their part in the whole idea, whereby The People are the employers of their own government.  

Despots, monopolists, and Legal Criminals despise the idea of democracy when democracy is defined by The People as The People hire specialists to run their democratic governments, or fire them, at will.

The competition part of the Democratic Federated Republican form of government, or the competition part within the whole thing, the thing called a Republic, is the part where The People can move from one State to another State when one State becomes despotic, and that will cause  the despotic State to grow weak, as the power of taxation grows weak, as the tax payers walk.

Hired governors of each State are forced to supply what The People want, or The People walk. That is a design feature within a Democratic Federated Republican form of government.

Despots, monopolists, and Legal Criminals hate that plan, because that plan ends their plan, killing their plan, dropping their plan dead cold in it's tracks.

One State within the Republic may try a combination of socialism, capitalism, fascism, and communism whereby the people who hire the people who run that State lose control of their employees and their employees  begin to enforce that unwelcome, involuntary, combination of socialism, capitalism, fascism, and communism, leaving the employers only one option, as the people they hire begin to say  "love it or leave it".

When the despots who pop up now and again within a Democratic Federated Republic say "love it or leave it" to The People, the design feature is a  good place to go, a better place to go, a higher quality place to go, and a lower cost place to go, where The People then go, and love that place, and leave the place where the despots pop up, now and again, within the Democratic Federated Republic.  Each State within a Democratic Federated Republic isn't part  of one Cartel, where all the hired employees have joined  forces against The People, in the work of exploiting The People, that is the opposite of a Democratic Federated Republic, because each State is the same as each other State, as all the governors in each State agree to exploit all The People the same way.

The former employers within the formerly voluntary State are taxed with the need  to move to another State in a working Democratic Federated Republic, where the employers, or The People, still hold their employees to account, and where the association is still voluntary, and in so doing the employees in the higher quality, and lower cost State, supply what The People demand, and not the other way around.

The despotic State forces The People out, and that State grows weak, having no more victims to exploit. The People  move to a better State, and the better State grows stronger, as more powerful people move in, and as more powerful  people are able to make even more power  since they are  no longer providing the means by which they suffer. That is a force that forces the employees to supply only what  The People demand.

That is the force of competition.

Despots have no income when competition is in force, so they hate competition, and they may even work to convince their victims to hate competition too.

The force of competition, by that Democratic Federated Republican design of government, is such that The People are allowed to express their power of will, their power of choice, their power called Liberty, within the Republic, as one State may become  more, and more, draconian,  more, and more,  despotic, more, and more criminal, for whatever reason, it does not matter, in a Democratic Federated Republic, as far as The People are concerned, they can walk in Liberty.

As they walk from the more despotic States to the less despotic States, within the Republic,  the people hired to run the Federal Government may be encouraged by their employers to do one of two things as The People  tend to walk from the low quality and high cost States to the high quality and low cost States.

1.
Forbid the slaves to take refuge in one State as the refugees escape the despotic State, and expend their power to return the runaway slaves to the States they left behind. The hired governors may decide to choose that routine, at which point they define Legal Crime by those specific actions.

2.
Protect the State that accepts the refugees as the refugees escape the despotic State. The people hired to run The Federal part of the Democratic Federated Republic do what they are hired to do, by using the power entrusted in the Federal government,   to defend the State accepting Liberated people, who seek refuge, in cases where the State that claims the refugees to be property of that State, from attack, as the despotic State conducts an aggressive war for profit against the State where the refugees seek refuge.   

When one State goes bad the Federal government is taxed with the job of helping any States attacked by the State gone bad - foreign or domestic.

All of that is of no consequence within a Consolidated government or Nation State, whereby the National government owns The People directly, at which point The People who don't love  such things are given a choice, so far:

1.
Love it

2.
Leave it behind and seek refuge in a place where  the employees who are hired to run the government are not criminals.  

So far only Democratic Federated Republics are such places.

All of that is of no consequence within a fraudulent Democratic Federated Republic where  the name of the government is one thing and the actual fact of what the government is, is the opposite thing (depends upon what is is), and whereby the victims are stupefied by the fraud that enslaves them;  whereupon there are two choices.

1.
Unconditional obedience to falsehood

2.
Wise up before you are on of them without reservation or moral conscience.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Sep 10th, 2011 09:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
56th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Milton Friedman made this line famous: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."

Anyone,

That is a quote from the link offered in the last post. The concept of inflation can include the following:

Many people work as part of a network of workers where each worker performs a specific specialized task, some people carry things, some people hammer things, some people repair things, some people encourage people, some people make people laugh, some people make food, some people process food, some people serve food, some people build houses, some people build tools, and the network can be seen as a human body, where one specialist is like a red blood cell, and another specialist is a white blood cell, and another specialist is a fat cell, and another specialist is a muscle cell, nerve cell, lung cell, toe nail cell, etc.

Inflation is when each cell is ordered to do the job that isn't that cells specialty. A red blood cell is told to do the muscle cells job, and a lung cell is ordered to do a fat cells job.

What happens?

Inflation.

You are not supposed to know this, too bad  for you.  

The whole thing works as each thing does it's job.

Call the time when everything works normal life, and call that time of life a time before inflation occurs, and then consider what happens during inflation while still using the human body analogy as the network of people continue to  be connected, but then something other than normal life happens.

What happens?  

Don't answer the question accurately, make up a bunch of lies instead.

We can know that one of the specialists, or one of the cells, is part of a process in the network of people where inflation occurs.

Here again:

Milton Friedman made this line famous: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."

Gary North agrees. I don't. What actually happens? Is there too much of something, or is there not enough of something?

If the answer is such that the thing called inflation is "a monetary phenomenon" then there is too much of something, and that is where I strongly disagree with Gary North and that Milton Friedman dude.

There is not enough of  the power that is available being used to make more power, and that is "inflation", and it isn't necessarily a monetary phenomenon, it is a legal monopoly monetary problem, but that is fixing the case,  that is a circular argument, or an argument for the sake of argument, or that is a case of begging the question.

Blood, food, oxygen, electricity, and many additional chemicals, elements, and currents of stuff work as currency in the human body, not just one monopoly, fix all, currency, and that may be the best lesson that can be learned by the analogy between political economy and the human body.

When there is too much oxygen what happens in the human body?

When there is too much food what happens in the human body?

When the human being focuses attention only on conditions when there is too much of something, they fail to see the opposite occurrence, which is not enough of something.

When there is too much oxygen there is not enough intelligent allocation of power whereby the use of the available power is used to make more power. Ron Paul uses the term Malinvestment.  

When there is too much malinvenstment, there isn't enough non-mal-investment.  

That can help a human being focus attention on the process known as investment, and here is a point of illumination, and here is a point at which the reader can know something worth knowing.

Power used to make more power results in more power.

Starting out with less power.

Power is then used to make more power.

Ending up with more power.

What happens?

You are not allowed to know, but I can let you know, even though you are not allowed to know, it is against the law to know, but I'm telling you anyway, and you will probably refuse to know, since you don't want to be punished for knowing.

Don't read the answer if you refuse to know.

What happens when power is invested and more  power is produced?

Deflation.

Don't know that, because knowing that is against the law, you can't know that, don't know it.

Remain stupefied.

You are allowed to remain stupefied.

By all means, remain stupefied.

You have permission to remain stupefied.

Obey.

Do not disobey.

Don't know what you are told not to know.

Have a nice day.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Sep 11th, 2011 05:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
57th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Change MUST come from the "powerless" because those in power will always want to retain and expand their power.

Stimulus Bill,

You have touched upon a few contentious things and my first response has to do with a contention I have with the above viewpoint. I have pointed out to you, and anyone having the power to listen, that there is an easy way out of this march to hell on earth and all that is needed is for those who have the power to use their power, instead of those having their power stolen, and then used against those who have power.

I don't like the use of the word "change" since it is an amoral word used by people who are measurably immoral and they use the word to cover up their immorality by using a word that is often used by people who use the same word to convey moral things. Why not choose a word that does not leave so much room for falsehood to find it's way in?

I don't like seeing language used in ways that allow so much falsehood to creep into the effort to fight against it. Those who steal power from the honest productive people who make power are those among us who have reached a consensus and their consensus has to do with an agreement to form a cartel, or organized crime ring, where the criminals in that agreement polarize their power to steal, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by vicious, horrible, and terrifying destructive violence, to steal more, and more, and more.

Why would anyone ignore a viable way out? What is the point of ignoring a very powerful method of improving the path traveled by the honest productive people, so as to incrementally, or all at once, stop sending productive power to a small group of criminals who then use that power to destroy?

That is my most pressing interest in this thread, at this time, but there is more that I see as contention, and contention must be divorced from the false cover story used by the criminals. Contention is not argument for the sake of argument. Contention is a process of discovering higher quality and lower cost measures of reality, by comparison with lower quality and higher cost measures of reality, so as to improve, not change, the viewpoint viewed. When one viewpoint is diametrically opposite the other viewpoint, the viewer is placed in a position to do the impossible, which is to know that both opposite viewpoints are true, at the same time, like two cars trying to exist in the same place at the same time when both cars reach each other from opposite headings, going fast, in a head-on collision.

Seeking a consensus answer to that question is the purpose of this thread.

How can there be a consensus answer if answers are ignored? Either the solution isn't consensus, which may very well be worth knowing, or the actual problem is consensus, again please consider the fact that many people have reached a consensus to join in on the Legal Crime business, to use law for the purposes of targeting and exploiting innocent victims. Another possible problem with consensus may be that the path to consensus is not known, and therefore the first step must be to build the path to consensus - such as making a willful decision to find at least one thing to offer as a conclusive first step on that road.

Such as:

Stop sending power to the legal criminals.

We grow weaker, and they grow stronger.

Legal criminals have obviously progressed (changed) well past disorganized, powerless, chaotic, disorder, and have reached well past the step of forming consensus.

If you can't beat em' Join em' - many have.

Might makes right - many work to prove that this is a fact, just ask one.

Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you - and then send them the bill (see The Constitution Amendment 14 for the bill collecting bill).

All men are bad, it take one exceptional person... to prove it by example. - see The Prince by Nicoli Machiavelli

They deserve to be punished, I'm teaching them a valuable lesson.

Obey

[For the record, I have received 27 times as much radiation exposure since March 11th as the legal annual limit for X-ray technicians in this country.  You probably have too, but you wouldn't know it unless you have your own monitoring equipment like I do.]

All I have is this:

http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=677&forum_id=6

No where to run, no where to hide?

Do you know the truth about Peak Oil?

I've looked into that and once I first heard of that I began a second run for Congress in my district, but the facts I uncovered led me to improve my course (change course) from a false belief in "Peal Oil" to a reasonable understanding of the forces involved in that charade.

I came up with this:

Power produced into a condition of abundance reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

I call that Joe's Law, and from that I can explain such things as inflation. From that discovery of that political/economic law I am more able to separate the falsehoods from the facts concerning these things with these labels on them whereby the obvious tactic is brain washing, or behavior modification, or response conditioning, or whatever word works best to convey accurate meaning - instead of reinforcing falsehood.

Crimes are crimes, and placing misleading labels on crimes cover up the crimes, and that is a contention I have with "Peak Oil".

I have a similar contention with "Global Warming".

Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less?

I no longer believe in falsehoods such as those words convey to me. I don't read from that script. I've shed the false language. The use of false language renders the users weaker. I rewrite words I read when the words I read are written in false language.

Example:

Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less?

I re-write that, for my own understanding, I translate that into a meaningful question:

How many people are led to believe in the legitimacy of criminals hiding behind a false front of voluntary government; when the actual nature of the connection is of a group of criminals to their targeted victims?

There are two types of possible answers:

A. True
B. False

A person who answers either question (your version or mine) will answer either truthfully or they will willfully lie.

There are two subsets of answers possible:

A. True
A1. Inaccurate
A2. Accurate

B. False
B1. Inaccurate
B2. Accurate

A person who does believe in the legitimacy of an organized crime group may say so, and their answer is true in that case, they believe in the lie.

A person who says that he, or she, does not believe in the legitimacy of an organized crime group, posing as a group of people providing security, while actually victimizing the victims measurably, willfully, on purpose, for profit, but, the person does believe in the legitimacy of an organize crime group - whereby the person is unaware of his own beliefs, and the proof is provided by actions, not words.

Your version of the question, to me, leads no where.

Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less?

What is this thing you call government? There are so many possible definitions, how is anyone supposed to know what you mean?

Is that the point? Is the point such that the idea is to make words so ambiguous as to be meaningless, on purpose, for fun, or profit? The word government is supposed to mean only one thing, the thing you say it is, and/or the thing the person reading the word thinks it is, at that moment?

How can there ever be consensus if language is ambiguous to a point of meaningless?

Isn't that what you're supposed to be getting for the taxes you pay?

I rewrite that in my own head, so as to understand that question, as I see it.

Your question:
Isn't that what you're supposed to be getting for the taxes you pay?

My version:
Do you hire people to make you suffer, so long as other people suffer even more, or, if that isn't your willful intent, and having an opposite goal in mind, do you pay the extortion fee so as to forestall your own inevitable demise at the hands of those criminals who extort fees from you, where you care nothing about those whose injuries you do finance with the payments of your extortion fees?

See? A person may actually desire other people's suffering, for a supposed satisfaction of vengeance planted in their conscious thought process, so they pay to see other people suffer, even if they know they will also have to suffer, eventually, or a little suffering at the moment. That scenario is quite different from, or opposite, a person who pays the extortion fee so as to avoid going to jail, and any thoughts of what happens to anyone else as a result of that transfer of that power to those criminals is willfully ignored, not to be acknowledged, beyond the realm of caring.  

A
Voluntary association (you voluntarily pay for your own suffering, so long as other people suffer more than you do), the person hires extortionists to do what they do best.

B.
Involuntary association (as far as you know there is no choice but to pay the extortion fee), failing to pay on time will result in even greater injury, there are no other options - ever, pay, and get back to work.

That brings me back to my greatest contention.

If there is an obvious alternative, why go on pretending that there is no obvious alternative?

C.
Stop paying the extortion fees, since the extortion cabal grows stronger, and the victims grow weaker, do so on a schedule, step by step.

How?

How about Product 1 and Product 2, it isn't rocket science, and a 5 year old could understand the forces involved, and make a clear decision as to the workability of that solution.

How deep down the road to hell have we fallen, so far?

Much has been said about the prices others once paid for our liberty.

That sounds like a long way down, since most of those cases are people who have had their behavior so modified as to murder people to save them.

I am reminded of a phrase offered by someone else; whose name I don't remember, and I'm going to edit the phrase to fit the occasion.

Raping your victims back to virginity.

Much has been said about the prices others once paid for our liberty.

What did they do, exactly, as they paid those prices for "our" liberty? I'm curious.

Did they stop transferring their power to people who then make us suffer with that power transferred to them by those people who have paid those prices for "our" liberty?

How deep does it go?

Why not simply stop transferring the power you have made to those people who then use that power to make us suffer?

Answer:

Why not, because we need the power of voluntary connectivity, we can't just cut that link, that won't work, we have to keep our links connected while severing the link to the Legal Criminals.

We need purchasing power, a medium of exchange, of some minimal standard of value, some minimal capacity to purchase, without which we can no longer benefit from cooperative effort, which is an exponential increase in the output of our individual powers resulting from that cooperative effort. That is the half true part of the "Peak Oil" scam.

Division of labor
Specialization
Economies of scale
Competition (driving quality up and cost down, not to be confuse with crime, competition is not crime, crime is crime, competition is competition, why confuse the two?)
Honest productivity
Trust
Agreement
Consensus (to avoid sending power to people who use power to make us suffer)
Consensus (to work in concert for our mutual benefit, also known as equitable commerce)
Accurate powerful competitive exchange mediums (being accurate is being able to avoid exploitation by those who would be criminals among us)
Food
Water
Oxygen
Fuel
Law
Money
Language

Which of the above laundry list can be left out of the voluntary social network and then, absent that vital ingredient, voluntary social network still works expediently, efficiently, and productively, to supply all that the honest productive people demand, including security of person and property, liberty, productive employment, progress toward higher quality of life, for all, and lower cost of life, for all but those who prefer crime, as victims or otherwise?

Did I miss something?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Sep 11th, 2011 06:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
58th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29091.htm

Anyone,

On both sides are people who speak for their opponents so as to create a weak opponent.

Hi, I'm here to show you why that guy is so stupid. According to me he said this, and see, see, see how stupid that guy is?

Keynesian economic policies help stabilize the economy because peoples’ lack of purchasing power can be cured by government investments, which in turn creates employment and income. 

What does the writer mean when the writer chooses the word government?

Who can know?

If asked, would the person confess the truth, or would the person dodge the questions asked?

I've tried.

I do know that both sides, Austrian, and Keynesian, have things they prefer not to confess, or acknowledge.

Austrians won't answer questions such as:

What would the Free Market produce as the highest quality and lowest cost money, if the Free Market allowed anyone to produce and offer money; where the consumers pick the highest quality over the lowest quality money, and the consumers pick the lowest cost over the highest cost money being produced in that Free Market.

That goes right to the Austrians Special Interest in using the power of law to make money scarce, so as to hike up the price of money, so they won't touch that question with a ten foot pole.

Keynesian economists, as far as I can tell, are Straw Men, there are none, all there are are people who point to these men of straw. Where is one?

I see none.

If I find one I'll ask:

Is it a necessity that a few people make a lot of people pay taxes, or else everyone is doomed to suffer anarchy; so taking those taxes must happen, even if the people who pay the taxes decide that they must not pay those taxes since they know that paying those taxes amount to the tax payers providing the means by which the tax payers suffer, and the tax collectors, like you, maintain this false belief in the absolute necessity to keep collecting those taxes, that, just so happens, to make your kind very, very, very powerful?

That is the loaded question.

The unloaded question looks more like this:

Do you support, in any way, materially, or psychologically, involuntary associations?

I remind readers, assuming that there are any, that a Democratic Federated Republican form of competitive government experiment, by trial and error, and while accessing the force of competition is, as far as lawful governments go, a voluntary association, and as another reminder, an involuntary association is crime by another name, smells just as bad to the victims, and just as sweat to the criminals.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Wed Sep 14th, 2011 02:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
59th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Oh how I crave for a blank slate.

Freeski,

Why not buy one?

I can offer a few comments other than the quick sound bite reply. One comment is to support your point with a study, an invention, and an experiment along the lines of your point, and the experiment was a success, and there are people today still using the idea by some measure.

The invention became known as Equitable Commerce and the inventor recorded the work that, again, still manages to work in some places.

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

If you have not yet inherited a fortune, and if you are not yet in command of enough things of value stored up in places where you can readily use that stored power, and if you are fully capable of producing much more out of much less, but you don't yet have legal monetary credit, and you don't even want to borrow things to get started since the lenders charge too much for borrowing, or no one is yet loaning you things to get started at any price, then the invention is such that the inventor becomes his own source of good faith and credit, and if the inventor can't make ends meet, all the costs of failure are charged to the person who fails, in a reasonable way, leaving no room for ambiguity, or misguided defense against injury which turns out to be punishment for the sake of punishment.

In other words: anyone can print their own money, sell it, and that invention is as good, or as bad, as the person doing the printing, in keeping a promise to pay the holder of the money.

Example:

Someone moves into town, broke, penniless, and instead of begging on the corner the person begins to sell his own good faith and credit, by promising to pay people in the future for things purchased today, such as wood, and glue, and a hammer, and nails, as the inventor of competitive money sells coupons that are redeemable in chairs, or tables and chairs, and later in book shelves, and dressers, bed frames, and other things of value.

Someone else moves into town selling promises to pay in the future for things purchased today as the person doing the promising, selling his good faith and credit, buys seeds, and well drilling, a well pump, shovels, and other things needed for farming, and the promise to pay is worth an amount of food.

Someone else moves into town, someone who needs a place to stay, not wanting to beg, and willing to provide medical services, having no money, since money was taken out of circulation by the law power, the doctor prints up promises to pay treatments, based upon some finite measure of cost to the doctor. One hour of treatment, or a promise to stitch 10 stitches.

Someone else moves into town less skilled but certainly capable of supplying whatever the people in the town need since everyone in the town, so far, still needs something, or wants something, since everyone isn't quite yet absolutely satisfied to a point of needing, or wanting, nothing more, ever.

Where does someone go to find out what other people may want, so as to find out what someone can do, so as to be gainfully employed?

For lack of accurate forms of currency, an individual is powerless in the work that is necessary to communicate productively with other people, and the more people that are connected to each other accurately, the less time and energy is wasted as people work toward producing things no one wants.

Call all the forms of accurate currency by one word, call it money.

Then explain to me why there is only one legal money.

I think that the reason why there is only one legal money is as obvious as the reason why a person does not stick their hand in a fire, or stare at the sun.

There is only one legal money because that is how honest productive people are made to provide the means by which we suffer.

There is only one legal money because that is how criminals connect to victims so as to transfer the power produced by the victims as that power flows to the criminals.

A visual illustration helps convey the point:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Those are my comments that intend to agree with your point.

It really is that simple but we have developed this supposed "civil society" and brainwashed the people to believe it's a good thing, that "someone" needs to organize it... rather than just letting it be and seeing what happens. Who says our lives should be structured?

I do not agree with that viewpoint.

Voluntary structures can be understood as forms of life.

A human body for example.

Cells within the human body are structured within the human body. The structure is such that all the cells function harmoniously so long as the human body lives.

Involuntary structures can be understood as structures that destroy life.

Cancer is a structure, for example, that destroys a human body.

Each cancer cell is structured to reproduce another cancer cell, feeding from the living cells, and reaching a point where the cancer cells kill the living being, and its own source of power.

Which structures work to sustain life?

Which structures work to destroy life?

Why confuse the structures that work to sustain life with the structures that destroy life?

When structures that work to sustain life are confused with structures that destroy life there are two obvious consequences that can result from that confusion.

A.
Structures that work to sustain life can be misunderstood as they are confused with structures that work to destroy life, and the confusion may then weaken the power of those structures that work to sustain life.

B.
Structures that work to destroy life can be misunderstood as they are confused with structures that work to sustain life, and the confusion may then strengthen the power of those structures that work to destroy life.

Accurate perception can be understood as structure that can empower someone with the power to sustain life.

That same power of accurate perception can be used by a cancerous type of person as a cancerous type of person uses that power to accurately target potential victims, to attack a potential victim, and consume a potential victim, even to a point where the victim is destroyed, and therefore the source of power flowing to the cancerous type of person is gone.

Inaccurate perception can be understood as a structure that can weaken someone infected by that condition of inaccurate perception especially when that type of structure is produced by someone who knows better, as the deceptive structure is invented, produced, and forced upon the targeted victims, causing inaccurate perception upon the targeted, exploited, people within that involuntary structure that has been made involuntary by that use of deceit.

So, that leads back to my comment that does not agree with that point, and the question of why would anyone confuse a voluntary structure with an involuntary structure, or why would anyone confuse a life sustaining structure with a life destroying structure, as if all structures are guilty of doing bad things because of the things done by the bad ones?

Or

If some money, such as Legal Monopoly Extortion and Fraud Money, are bad, are all forms of money bad, even the accurate, powerful, and low cost, productive, and non-criminal, non-deceptive, non-threatening, and non-violent money forms?

Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

And

If some structures, such as involuntary associations, are bad, on purpose, for profit, as those involuntary structures are designed to make the victims provide the means by which they suffer, are all structures bad, including voluntary structures such as reproductive mating (the opposite of rape), families, companies, cities, counties, even States, and even Democratic Federated Republics, so long as they are, in fact, structured as voluntary associations?

Why throw out the baby with the bath water?

And

Why torture and murder the babies, and nurture the bath water instead?

Or

Isn't it time for good people to unite and work together to use the power we have to make life quality higher, and make the cost of life lower, instead of sending all the surplus power we can ever make to people who then use that power to make us suffer?

Or

How can the cart pull the horse? We can't overpower our oppressors until we gain the power to do so, and that can't happen while all our surplus power flows to the people who oppress us.

Or

Meet the enemy, it is US.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Sep 14th, 2011 03:01 pm
  PM Quote Reply
60th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
southernmissouri2007,

I think that it is much easier to understand the message from a much simpler viewpoint. Instead of signing onto the idea of equality, think in terms of power.

If a person has more power than anther person: will that power be used to exploit or not exploit the weaker person?

That is much easier to understand than having to begin conceptualizing equality.

There is no such thing as equality, until someone begins to invent equality, and then someone works to produce equality, and how much effort must be spent, how much power is used up, in maintaining equality?

Here is the relevant quote:

"all animals are equal"

Why?

Who says so?

Why does someone say such a thing?

Is that true?

If it is not true, but someone is led to believe that it is true, then someone is being lied to, and someone is the victim of a lie, which is different from someone inventing that idea, or that perception, or that viewpoint that is not true.

Is it true?

If it is true, it can be measured as true.

So why spend any time, if it isn't true, and if it can't be measured as true, on it?

If it isn't true, why does it exist? Who invented that deceptive invention?

Why would someone create something that is not true, that thing that is not true in particular, what is the point of inventing a false claim that all animals, or all people, are equal?

To me the lesson offered by George Orwell is Orwellian; or hidden, as an opposite meaning.

If you are left with the idea that it is good to know that all people are equal, if that is what you are made to believe after reading Animal Farm, then I think you are being set-up to be even less able to avoid an even more destructive lie.  In effect, if that is true, then George Orwell is one of the pigs; he is Squealer.

Does that make sense?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Sep 15th, 2011 04:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
61st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1033.html

Anyone,

There are simple truths and then there are complexities that branch out from those simple truths. One simple truth helps in the work of understanding how those complexities grow out like roots and branches from those simple truths.

To illustrate:

If all things were simple, then more people can understand, and that means that no one would have the power of knowledge over anyone else. A few examples of this illustration of why things are made complex, on purpose, so as to gain the power of knowledge over those targeted people who are confused by those invented complexities, include 2 laws constructed by the people who controlled the National government, as those people set about doing the work required to increase the flow of power flowing to the National government from the sources of power where that power is produced.

Examples of things done to purposefully make things complicated so as to gain power over targeted victims:

A. Federal Income Tax
B. Federal Reserve Act
C. Political Economy

Gary North, in the link above, works on the complexity of Political Economy, so as to then publish the work he does, and the motive appears to be such that Gary North offers knowledge to those people who stumble upon that work done by Gary North.

I, for one, appreciate the effort, as I already see measurable value in knowledge, and the power of meaning, being conveyed by Gary North with those published words. Gary North clues the read in on the links between Oil and The Dollar, for example. There are other examples of information that can lead to knowledge.

Example:

This is because we are the most productive nation on earth.

Stop, please, and know the meaning of those words, in context.

Despite a Federal Income Tax that connects the people running the Nation State to their victims, despite that measurable transfer of power that causes us, or we the people, to provide the means by which we suffer, as those thieves at the National Level of Government use the power they steal to steal more, as they make that Income Tax Law more, and more, and more complicated, and more, and more, deceptive, and more, and more, and more of a transfer that makes us weak, and makes them stronger, despite that, we are the most productive people on earth.

Despite the Federal Reserve System of Extortion, we are the most productive people on earth.

Then Gary stumbles.

Gary uses the word Nation. I don't see The Honest Productive People in America as a Nation. We are free minded, free acting, people, and that is why we are the most productive people on earth. Don't forget that fact.

The Nation State is a complicated creation of Legal Crime, also known as Despotism, and those people among us who fought, and won, The War of Independence fought against Despotism, against Legal Crime, and against a Nation State. Friends of liberty do not fight against people who make us provide the means by which we suffer so as to create another despotism so that we can then provide the means by which we suffer all over again, like a broken record, unless we are made to be that stupid, on purpose, for the profit of a very few.

We are not a Nation, do not swallow that pill whole, it is an infection, a disease, it is cancerous.

The free among us prefer a Federation, a true, voluntary, equitable, defensive, Federation; whereby the people running the Federal Government are not, by law they are forbidden, to be directly connected to the people, they are forbidden by law to have their hands directly into the pockets of the honest productive people who produce all the good faith, all the credit, and all things valuable within each Separate and Sovereign State, and within this Federal form of Government, also known as a Republic.

To be clear:

A Democratic Federated Republican form of government did exist under The Articles of Confederation when the people drove out the invading British army that was here, in this land, conducting an aggressive war for profit. Then a few very bad people turned that Democratic Federated Republic into a Nation State. That is not news, that is accurate history, well recorded, and it can be as in-your-face as any other fact can be, such as a person facing a hot poker slowly making its way into the soft tissue of an eye staring right at the person shoving that device of torture for pay. You pay to be tortured in despotism. Is that simple enough?

You can know this, or you can continued to be deceived by this, and from this error your roots, branches, and leaves will grow out and find sewage, darkness, and poison. We are not, by design, if we have anything to say about it, a Nation State, or Despotism, or Organized Legal Crime, if we have anything to say about it, we are a government by the people, for the people, of the people, such as a working Democratic Federated Republic, such as that thing that worked to help the liberated people drive out the invading foreign army of criminals, during that War for Independence, and that form of government was written down as The Articles of Confederation. It was not a Nation State, like it is now. It was not Legal Crime, like it is now. It did not include a direct connection between those running the Nation State and the pockets of the people who produce more than any other group of people on the planet earth - then.

Despite all the provision flowing to the Legal Criminals running the Nation State, here at home, despite us providing the means by which we suffer, despite all that power making us weaker, and making our oppressors stronger, we are still the most productive group of people in the planet earth - for now.

Know that, it is a source of power. Knowledge is a source of power for those who know. Confusion driven into law by willful complexity is also a power held by a few over many.

The Federal Income Tax, for example, is not Federal, it is a product of an obvious, measurable, working Despotism, or Legal Crime, or Nation State, or Monopoly Power, or Cartel, or Organized Crime hiding behind at thinning veil of legitimacy, and it is as complex as is required to exclude the confused from the club of insiders.

The Federal Reserve Act, for another example, is not Federal, it is another very destructive invention from which the power that could have been used to make life on earth better, and less costly, is power used instead to make us suffer. We provide the means by which we suffer through the complexity of that crime called The Federal Reserve System of Extortion. Your oppressors don't call it what it is, so why do you call it what it isn't?

Are you really that stupefied by their brilliance? I'm not.

We provide the means by which we suffer through The Federal Income Tax theft, and the Federal Reserve Act fraud, and this is not news. If this is news to you, then get up, go to the mirror, and look at the enemy of Liberty staring back at you, you are a dupe.

Too bad for us.

Stop feeding the legal criminals, they have grown to become more and more criminally insane, and their insanity, and their power to make us suffer, is accelerating, growing to intolerable levels, as part of an overall strategy, as regime change is soon to be in your face, and you may find the new reality harder to look at than your own duped face in the mirror.

Once The Dollar Hegemony is out, and the new regime is in, and the new regime is located in China, the plan is to make us suffer even more, as never before, and what are you going to do about it then?

Pay more taxes to the fraudulent Federal government so that they ease our pain?

What money are you going to use to pay those taxes?

Where has your brain been these past decades, in storage?

Where has your power of will been, collecting spider webs?

Where has your common sense gone, into hiding?

It is nearly time for me to begin the journey up north to Reno, where I plan on meeting, and listening to, the Austrian Economists at their Liberty Convention. I won't get a word in edge wise, if those odds pan out as before, but I can still listen. I don't have enough money to buy a seat listening to Ron Paul, but I did buy a seat to hear what someone has to say about The Constitution History. I'll get a measure of the most powerful organized effort to defend liberty to date, even if it is founded upon a very shaky foundation. I can return and report, if I'm not censored here again.

I can return and work further on this effort here, within the sounds of silence, here where the despots work, as they censor things they prefer not to be allowed to be publish (not for public consumption) - which is an all to familiar story. How can someone lie, and still sound truthful? Make the lie complex.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Sep 19th, 2011 02:41 pm
  PM Quote Reply
62nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Hardly anyone could disagree, but say our solution was to realign wealth distribution to make it equal, doesn't that put us in charge of other people's affairs? What authority do we have to compel any human being to do anything?

Just by participating in "the system, we are trying to control others. Maybe we don't need "a system" at all?


Freeski,

When a connection between one person and another person is involuntary the motive behind that connection is probably such that one person takes something from another person, and that type of connection works with as many number of people as are connected in that type of connection.

In other words: How do a few people get control over most everyone else? What KIND of system is at play?

Why blame all systems for the actions of a few systems?

Why blame systems at all; when only people can abuse them?

If liberty, which can include systems, is confused with legal crime (or despotism): one looks as bad, or as good, as the other, so who cares which system is used, when they both are nearly the same thing?

If you don't think that liberty can include a system, then there may be a need to refine the messages that intend to communicate that idea, beginning with a better understood definition of the word system.

If liberty does not include any systems, then how will the liberated people work together to accomplish the necessary things that are necessary in liberty such as the production of life sustaining stuff, and the avoidance of dictatorial, oppressive, criminal, systems?

Is the discovery of accurate threats to human life, and then the employment of that knowledge seeking to avoid succumbing to those threats a process that can be systematic, such as the system known as the scientific method?

When language is corrupted to a point of weakness, can there be a way to communicate effectively?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Sep 19th, 2011 03:26 pm
  PM Quote Reply
63rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
southernmissouri2007,

I have not read that book. I can offer a viewpoint that may help answer your questions. When the left and the right of the political powers in America agree on something, it may be a good idea to understand why that agreement exists.

For example:

Noam Chomsky is considered to be a long standing voice from the left in America and he has written extensively about the subject of criminal actions perpetrated upon the Palestinian people by people running the Israeli Government.

Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for president last election cycle, and a long time congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives, another representative of the American left, has also been critical of the actions perpetrated by the people running the Israeli Government, in reference to the crimes committed upon the innocent people of Palestine.

That is the left.

On the right side of American politics are Ron Paul, whose efforts include an end to the financing done by the American Government of Israel, for sound economic reasons explained by Ron Paul.

Can Alex Jones be considered one of the right leaning voices in America, and if so, what does he offer as a competitive viewpoint on Zionism?

Why are right and left voices producing the same messages of warning to a world gone mad?

If many people have been led to believe that a few people can be exceptional, elite, and above moral law, then such a belief may make such a lie true, in those cases.

In those cases where many people believe that a few exceptional people, a few elites, are above moral law, then those few can torture with impunity, and those few can mass murder with impunity, and those few can continue torturing, and mass murdering perpetually, because many people accept that behavior, from those few, allow it, and not only do nothing to stop it, the many who have risen those few above the law support those few in mind, spirit, and body, as the power from the many flows to the few, financing the few, so that the few have all the power they need to keep torturing, and to continue mass murdering their targeted innocent victims.

That is what I think, and I am not left or right. I am not claimed by any God either, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, none claim me as their own property, since I question their authority when I see their authority making believe that a few people can be raised above moral law.

When lies become belief, what happens next?

When the victims are blamed for being punished: does that constitute a confession of crime by the criminal?

Who authorizes the slaughter of innocent people, and what lies do they invent to cover up those crimes?

How can an innocent person, who is a potential victim, accurately identify friend from foe, if not by accurate discrimination between those who are connected voluntarily to torturing mass murderers, and those who refuse to be tied into that cabal?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Sep 19th, 2011 03:58 pm
  PM Quote Reply
64th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
When I refer to The System, I'm referring to the notion of a top-down planned, managed and controlled economy and social structure. Such a beast is immoral at its core, and if that's not enough, it simply cannot exist without widespread corruption.

Freeski,

When I refer to criminals, I call them criminals, and when I refer to criminals who hide behind a false front of legality, I call them legal criminals. Why call something by any other name than what it is? The false fronts hide the facts, so why, again, call something anything other than the name that describes the thing the best?

When the victims are stupefied into inaction, including actions that can avoid victimization peacefully, can it then be accurately known that false labels contribute toward that stupefication?

As to the Animal Farm story, again, the falsehood includes the claim that all Animals are equal. When that false claim is demonstrably false it may be a good idea to understand why someone would invent such a false claim. All people are not equal, and equality is not an achievable goal, so why are people claiming such false things, when such false things are demonstrably false, or why are some people stupefied into thinking such false things are true?

The motive behind such a lie is obvious, the motive is to convince targeted victims that the targeted victims can be "protected" by a few authorities offering equality, or any other lie, just so long as the targeted victims are made to believe in the lie.

Lies are half true, in many cases, or, in other words, there are some good looking things to see when looking at the false fronts that hide the lies, and those good looking things that appear to be good things on that false front of equality is the good looking concept of law when law applies to everyone, without exception.

This is also understandable as a bait and switch tactic used by criminals; with or without badges.

The bait:

Law applies to everyone without exception.

The False Front:

Equality is Law applying to everyone without exception.

The switch:

Equality becomes a goal to reach as the few excepted people take power from the targeted victims so as to provide "equality" to all the victims, which is a goal that cannot be achieved, which is an impossible goal, and therefore the tax money sent to the people who claim to offer "equality" can never supply "equality" despite all efforts to do so, perpetually.

Pull the curtain back, pull back the false front, and the true motive is exposed, the false front of equality is now known to be a confidence scheme, and instead of providing Law that excepts no one, where everyone is "equal under law", where every law applies to everyone the same way, without exception, the false lawyers, and the false judges, and the false law makers, and the false law enforcers, except themselves from law, and they use law to cover up crimes, they make crime legal for them, and they make crime illegal for their victims.

That is the meaning of Animal Farm, if you can look past the fraud that is Orwell, as Orwell covers up the true meaning of Legal Crime. The message is hidden, and effort is required to see it, as accurate perception won't be delivered to you on a silver platter. Accurate discernment, and factual discrimination, is an individual power, and we are all equally bound by that physical power of judgement. We are not equal, the powers we face are equally applied to us, such as gravity. One of us may weigh a whole lot compared to another one of  us, but gravity accelerates each of us at the same rate.

Men are not all created equal, there are women too, and there are as many variations of inequality as there are people. If the message is that all living things are equally important to God, then God can say so, and God's interpreters can do a better job of delivering the message, and if they can't, then they are certainly not equal in that capacity. Perhaps God is testing you on this one. Who decides if you pass or not?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Sep 29th, 2011 12:01 pm
  PM Quote Reply
65th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sorry Josf, you are banned from using this forum! Continued to engage in inecessant flamebaiting after being warned not to do so.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 29th, 2011 12:16 pm
  PM Quote Reply
66th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The context in which the censors acted at The Prison Planet Forum involved words that I failed to copy and paste here - unfortunately.

Hold ON!

I still have that browser open so I can "Go back one Page"

My last post was this:

++++++++++++++++++++++

How do you know one from another? If each person defending against the NWO (avoiding then entirely) can be accurately discriminated from one who willfully supports the NWO, how is that done?

How about setting a date in which their fraudulent money will be set aside in favor of something that isn't connected to the NWO?

If a person running a business announces on their web site that yes, they too will switch over to the better money on that date, then could that not serve to spread the word, rally the troops, and support a workable method by which those who no longer want to support the NWO do that very thing?

Your suggestion could include a list, and that list would be similar to the list of people signing the Declaration of Independence.

I can suggest that the companies started by Elon Musk might be on that list; but how can I know for sure?

I think you are on the right track, with a very good idea, a goal is in view, and a way to get closer to the goal.

Thanks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++


From here:
improving the infowar; ethical businesses


Back up more pages:
I wrote this:


+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Anyone,

On the topic:

If the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) can be interpreted to mean anything to anyone then what significance, to anyone, is any of the other amendments?

If you have trouble understanding that sentence - blame me?

The 16th is merely an announcement concerning how the legal criminals steal from their targeted victims.

How about that sentence; any trouble understanding that sentence?

That is a competitive viewpoint that does not need to be connected to me, it is a competitive viewpoint no matter which person voices it.

Attacking the person, instead of the message, is what dictators do, no matter what the dictators say - or write - unless they actually confess their true color.
++++++++++++++++++++


That was in response to personal attacks aimed at me, not my words, personal attacks intending to silence an unwanted message - kill the messenger.
I see no point in cutting and pasting the personal attacks which may, or may not, remain published on the Prison Planet Forum, I'll try to find the supposed "repeated warnings".
Here is a forum post by someone who was engaged in the supposed discussion and he does not identify authority to do anything, so the supposed warning is understandable as a threat:




+++++++++++++++++++++
'When you walk in with a chip on your shoulder and challenge studied understanding with nothing more than superficial understanding and verbosity; someone's going to knock it off for you...

Now opinion must be based on reality, some provable truth that can be shared and understood by others... you have demonstrated no basis for your opinion, and you refuse to provide any.

This is not a message/opinion forum... it is an educational forum and library, a proof based truth forum... sorry, if at being told this it plummets you into "abject" terror. Perhaps you should take your nuanced questions and all knowing subjective opinions elsewhere?

JTCoyoté
++++++++++++++++++++++++



That is in reference to the following words I wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QuoteOut of the omnipotence of your wisdom you type a mountain of nonsensical word splatter such as your posts on this thread --none of which have shown a substantial counter argument, or even a modicum of understanding as to what the argument is. Your first confession.

Any reasonable person,

I can offer that I am not interested in arguments. I can offer that abject insult is obvious as to the content of it and it's intent. As to a confession I can speak for myself, and I do not need an interpreter.

The question concerns an amendment to The Constitution. If the operators of The Constitution need anything they know how to take it, and that is clear from history on up to the present day. The words sited (The Constitution, including the 16th Amendment) are for public consumption, they are not words meant to apply to the people who seize control of the General Government, or National Government, the thing that is categorically not a Federation, and certainly not a Democratic Federated Re pubic.

I confess those words, and those words are words that describe actual reality accurately.

QuoteOut of the omnipotence of your wisdom you type a mountain of nonsensical word splatter such as your posts on this thread --none of which have shown a substantial counter argument, or even a modicum of understanding as to what the argument is. Your first confession.
Those are words that are fabrications of imagination, and those words amount to, or measure up as, abject insult.

Forums are supposed to be policed by each forum member as each forum member is taxed with the honorable agreement to refrain from resorting to abject insult, or, absent that honorable, agreeable, voluntary rule, abject insult will be used by those who use it.

QuoteOut of the omnipotence of your wisdom you type
Who invented this fabricated person who can be described as someone with "omnipotence" of "wisdom"?

The question concerns the 16th Amendment. The people who are supposedly hired to run the Consolidated, or National, government torture and mass murder on a regular basis, and they need a steady supply of revenue (surplus wealth) from which to finance their crimes that include torture and mass murder, and so, on a scale of relevant injury, the abuse of the law power to collect a percentage of income is perceived as more or less significant than torture and mass murder?

Pointing to the 16th Amendment and asking of it is Constitutional or not, it seems to me, is insignificant compared to the fact that a very few people wield the power to say what is or is not Constitutional at their pleasure.

That is not me being omnipotent. That is not me being wise. That is a demonstrable observation of fact.

When 1 person asks the question, on a forum, the idea may be that the question deserves an accurate answer. In order to answer the question accurately it seems to me that it is necessary to identify who does have the power to determine if anything is constitutional or not, and that necessary answer leads to a significant question concerning power. Who has the power to act according to their own interpretation of the constitution?

Is one opinion more, or less, valid than another opinion?

Will one person with one opinion resort to abject criticism as a method of enforcing their opinion in the face of a competitive opinion?

These questions arise, in my view, and I'm not suggesting that my view is more powerful because it is my view. I see answers that compete to answer the question accurately.

Quote you type a mountain of nonsensical word splatter such as your posts on this thread
Abject insult is resorted to for a reason. The resort to abject insult confesses something that is not confessed truly.

Quotenone of which have shown a substantial counter argument
If someone thinks that something is worth arguing about, then someone can argue, and that is not me. As valid as someone's competitive viewpoint may be, concerning whatever they have an interest in, is none of my business, as to the income tax there are a few observable facts.

People use what limited power they have to make more power, and that surplus power can be called taxable income.

That taxable income flows from those who create it to those who collect it.

Those are facts. What happens if someone no longer agrees with that transfer of wealth and once disagreement in that transfer of wealth is realized are there things that can be done, such as asking of that transfer of wealth is worth fighting against?

My answer is no, since that is a lost cause, since the torturing mass murderers run the General Government, and that is much more serious, since fighting against the income tax is like taking aspirin to cure decapitation. Shove the aspirin in the mouth of the decapitated head in the basket.

That is my opinion. It is measurable. My opinion is measurable. Abject insult is measurable too.

Quoteor even a modicum of understanding as to what the argument is.
I see no interest in an argument. Why does that forum member attach me to some nebulous argument? What is the point of making that association?

QuoteThe world is projection, my good fellow, and your posts here have shown yours.
As I understand projection, or transference, the process is such that someone who acts wrongly will accuse someone else of acting wrongly.  What does that have to do with me?

If it is true, that I am projecting, or transferring, then how can I know when the claim is made by someone who offers no evidence, no explanation other than abject insult. I would like to know examples of projection, if that is what I am doing, so as to avoid repeating such things. What words published by me are examples of projection?

QuoteYou have engaged in, with at least 5000 words, what you accused me of by inference in your first post here. To your "credit" you have not only projected your "dictatorial command" but you have shown yourself in flickering arrogance, and insulting condescension, tsk-tsk. Your second confession
It is common to be insulted abjectly, as is this case, what is absent is actual evidence that could direct me, or anyone, to illustrate these supposed cases of projection.

I can ask for clarification, direct quotes, whereby my words exemplify a case of projection - please.

QuotePut up some supportable proof, or put a sock in it... you've rambled on incessantly, attacking virtually everything said here as wrong... without support of proof, other than your ability for filibuster.
There is now an order for me to choose between two options as dictated by the person demanding those two options from me and my reading of those two options are:

A.
Read from the script I hand to you.
B.
You will be censored.

Those are not options, those are dictates. I don't follow orders well. I still think it is wrong to obey unconditionally - without question.

As to the proof of The Constitution being enforced by people who interpret it, as they please, I can offer an example:

http://www.petitiononline.com/brownirs/

The Browns are being destroyed for asking a question.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

QuoteAMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
QuoteSection 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
Ask and you may prove to be exemplary.

Moving onto the forum member known as MonkeyPuppet's published words:

QuoteCute.  I'm a "proponent" of a criminal enterprise?
If the shoe fits, often, the wearer denies it. These are words, here, and actual receipts along the paper trail (or digital trail) can prove what is supported and by whom, to what extent, and absent a confession, acts confess.

QuoteNow, let me be as wordy, but with substantiating information (as opposed to sophistic rhetoric) to back up my position on the subject.
A connection between my viewpoint and the viewpoint expressed by MonkeyPuppet is either justified or it is unjustified. I have no interest in the arguments concerning what MonkeyPuppet thinks is, or is not, Constitutional about the 16th Amendment, nor the opinions of the members of the current Supreme Court, nor the opinions of the current President of U.S.A. (Inc.), since I now that all those arguments are window dressing, cover stories, distractions, shunts, misdirections, busy work, arguments for the sake of argument, willful, purposeful, confusion, so as to disarm the targeted victims.

If MonkeyPuppet  wants to clearly express her arguments, or whatever his that forum members special interest, it has nothing to do with me, or my viewpoint, as my viewpoint is specifically not connected to that viewpoint, unless someone specifically connects my viewpoint to another viewpoint. Is my viewpoint connected in any way to another viewpoint, as if in some strange argumentative arrangement that somehow manages to leave me out of the connection?

QuoteIt is the federal income tax.
I see almost no connection between my viewpoint and the viewpoint of the person who chose the name MonkeyPuppet - with that exception above.

Unless the meaning of the word Federal is meaningless the income tax is not a federal tax, it is a National tax, it is a tax that connects the people running the Nation State with the people who produce wealth directly, as it works in reality, not as it may work according to someone who volunteers to interpret the misnamed federal income tax.

People, actual people, work, and a part of their pay goes from them to the people who are hired to run the Nation State.

If that is not a fact, then someone could explain all those numbers on my pile of check stubs where my earnings, each week, were reduced by a transfer, a paper (or digital) record, from me, to the misnamed Federal government.

People, not just me, earn what we need and a part of our earnings are transferred to those people hired to run the Nation State that is mislabeled as a "federal" government, which it is demonstrably not a federal government if the word federal has a specific meaning, not two meanings, where one meaning is a synonym for a National Government and the other meaning is defined by such as examples as the Democratic Federated Republican form of government examples provided in history as The Articles of Confederation. Con - Federation.

That is my connection to the opinion expressed by MonkeyPuppet; whereby this so called "federal" government is not a federal government, it is a Nation State, or despotism, or legal crime ring. They say what words mean, and they prove it.

That is my connection to the expressed opinion of MonkeyPuppet, and not much else.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

After the supposed warning from the undeclared authority policing (censoring) that forum I wrote these words:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QuoteI've explained why a portion of your earnings are transferred to the federal government.  You're simply refusing to read... that's willful ignorance.
Anyone,

The point at which my connection to the opinion of MonkeyPuppet's opinion terminates is the point which any opinion other than the one that counts is as good as any other one, it is irrelevant. Those who enforce the National monopoly on force do as they please, and they have already proven their power to be sufficient to over come these few forum members who may or may not discuss, or may or may not argue the meanings of the words written on papers.

There are many things I do not read, because many things are irrelevant, and because I have only so much time.

QuoteYour payer is stealing from you and handing it over.  
You don't know me, yet you appear to claim to know me. How does that work out in your mind? When I pay I pay because the options are more costly at the moment, to suggest that someone else is responsible for my decisions, if that is what you are doing, is false. If that is what you are doing, you are claiming things that are false. I can't tell what you are doing, exactly, so I try to leave you, and your opinion, out of my reports of the information I understand to be true, such as the relevance of any other opinion besides the opinion that counts.

QuoteThey then file a federal tax form which claims that all the monies paid to you were generated via the engagement of an activity which falls under federal taxing jurisdiction.
In those words above are meanings that suggest that you support some nebulous federal taxing jurisdiction, which I don't, when people steal, by way of deceit, and by way of threats of violence, and by way of examples of violence, they steal, those ways. I don't call it "federal taxing jurisdiction" since I know better than to parrot those lies. It is crime, and it has been made legal by criminals. The victims can decide to deal with being victims in their own ways. My was isn't to support such things by parroting the official sounding lies.

It is not federal, it is National.

It is not "taxing" it is stealing.

It is not a jurisdiction so much as it is turf or territory over specific targeted people not so much as it is territory over land, as a matter of consequence the people tend to be within geographical areas but even that connection between the targeted people and the actual geographical location of the people being targeted is in a word: transient. There may be a better word.

QuoteIt may be untrue, but that doesn't matter to your payer... they don't know the law and simply follow instructions from CPA's, tax attorneys and from the publications put out by the IRS which have no force or effect of law.

Your use of the word "they" as a set of people who act in the manner you say, that may be true of some people, some times, and it may be a large number of people doing what you say they do, but my guess is that there are about as many variations from your supposed reasons as there are people and even more since each person may decide to do something this day, for this reason, and the next day the rationale may change completely, even if the actual transfers of money remain the same. I call the process extortion when the payments are done with reservation, and I call the process stealing when the payments are made despite the objections of those who express reservations. I don't read from that false script, and if more accurate terms appear to be foreign to your ears, that is your business, not mine. When the payments are voluntary I call that investment. If someone is ignorant, then someone is ignorant. You can claim that I am ignorant concerning your viewpoint, and I can agree. You can claim that my use of words like extortion is ignorant, and I can disagree. Whose opinion matters?

Whose opinion counts?

QuoteThe IRS is complicit, for sure, but only insofar as they refuse to request confirmation from you as to the nature of the activity which generated the income.
The IRS can't be complicit, for sure, since the IRS is a legal fiction. People decide and people act. If people decide to target other people for exploitation that is what they do with or without a badge, or a license, or supposed authorization from some a supposed authority. You then use the word "they" as if everyone in the IRS is one person, which is demonstrably false. Some people in the IRS set policy, others follow orders. Which "they" falls under the set of people doing the things you say they do for the reasons that you say they do those things? They extort.  That is what they do when they extort. When they collect from people who voluntarily send them money then they are collecting money paid to them voluntarily, unless the "volunteers" are suffering from a fraud, where the volunteers think that they are making a sound investment based upon what they are told, when in reality they are the victims of fraud.

QuoteOh wait, they DO... and you file a 1040 confirming that as fact when it may or may not be the case.
I confirm no such thing, when the legal criminals can torture me or murder me I know the score, and if I'm told to sign I sign as directed until such time as I have the power to disconnect from those legal criminals, at which time I will, and then I will have opted out, having found an option. Just because you, and some other people in the same army of liars, parrots, and thieves claim that my reasons for doing something are my reasons does not make your claims true. When the army begins torturing and mass murdering that is most certainly true as measured by the screams of pain and the piles of murdered bodies.

I know that all that window dressing is a pack of lies, and it was so from the beginning, at the National level, and I'm not alone, those who opposed that usurpation have warned those who became victim to it.

QuoteTo make things worse, there are regulations requiring those for whom certain tax forms have been filed must subsequently file other forms to account for the money trail.
Regulations can't "require", which is another lie, that you parrot because you may not know better, or you invent, or whatever reason you harbor for publishing such lies. A word on a document somewhere in some place does not require anything. A person may use a word written in a document stored in some building to justify their actions, and their actions may be called a requirement by them as they explain why they act, if that is what they do in any case whatsoever.

You then use the word must as if there are no options according to you and to whomever else agrees with you as to what must be done. I don't. I will always question such things especially since I understand why such things are raised falsely from a suggestion seeking agreement, such as a Stop sign on a road, and something that must be done as if there are no options.

Why use the word "must" and the word "require" and other such nonsense? I can guess. You are among those who claim that laws are mandatory, not optional. A criminal doesn't think so, and laws are not mandatory, they are optional, and therefore the obvious question is: who are these people who actually believe that these laws are required and that they must be followed - the victims?

Pay

There is no option.

Obey

Do not question (it says so right in The Constitution)

QuoteThe original reporting instrument (the W-4 or 1099) is the only evidence they need to enforce those regulations.
Excuse, rationale, parlor trick, fraud, color of law, fake, or lie, but "evidence" - you choose the word evidence as if some word magically makes stealing something other than stealing, or that some word on some paper makes extortion something other than extortion, and your opinion somehow trumps mine?  

QuoteBlame your employer, not the IRS, the federal government, the Constitution or the 16th Amendment.  As I've said repeatedly, the problem is ignorance.
Often the dictators among us pretend to blame the victims - they know better - but that is the story and they stick to it.

Blame the IRS?

If any measure of defensive power is wasted on blaming the IRS, which is a legal fiction, then that rouse works to that extent.

If any measure of defensive power is wasted on blaming the federal government, which is a false name on a fraudulent legal fiction, then that rouse works to that extent.

If any measure of defensive power is wasted on blaming the Constitution, which is a usurpation, then that rouse works to that extent.

If any measure of defensive power is wasted on blaming the 16th Amendment, which is a description of how the legal criminals steal from the people they target, as with all those other rouses the actual legal criminals will perpetuate their actual crimes which now include torture, mass murder, and threatening the survivability of the human species.

QuoteAs I've said repeatedly, the problem is ignorance.
Such as an ignorant misapplication of defensive power that does not accurately identify the legal criminals who run the National level extortion racket?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And these:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QuoteWhen you walk in with a chip on your shoulder and challenge studied understanding with nothing more than superficial understanding and verbosity; someone's going to knock it off for you...

Now opinion must be based on reality some truth that can be shared and understood by others... you have demonstrated no basis for your opinion. and you refuse to provide any.

This is not a message/opinion forum... it is an educational forum and library, a proof based truth forum... sorry, if at being told this, it plummets you into "abject" terror. Perhaps you should take your nuanced questions and all knowing subjective opinions elsewhere?
Anyone,

How can you tell when a dictator is lying?

Ask?

What constitutes a chip on one's shoulders? Are there any examples of such things so as to know what a chip on one's shoulder is?

Once this chip is knocked off, where is it, where is this chip that is knocked off?

QuoteNow opinion must be based on reality some truth that can be shared and understood by others... you have demonstrated no basis for your opinion. and you refuse to provide any.
Which opinion is in question? Why is the character assassin avoiding details that could lead to an exemplary illustration of that which is claimed?

 
QuoteThis is not a message/opinion forum... it is an educational forum and library, a proof based truth forum... sorry, if at being told this, it plummets you into "abject" terror.
Character assassins resort to this construction as a general rule. The idea is to create this Man of Straw, this fictitious person who "plummets" or does other imaginary things and then this fictitious construction will be given a name and the name of this fictitious being will be the same name as someone who is targeted for character assassination, so that the imaginary character of the fictitious being will be falsely associated with the targeted victim.

This is not news.

QuotePerhaps you should take your nuanced questions and all knowing subjective opinions elsewhere?
If there is any request by anyone along the lines of me being requested, politely, to refrain from participating in this, or any, public discussion I can take such things under consideration, certainly.

If, on the other hand, the idea is to censor an unwelcome exposure of lies, then that can be known too.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No warning, a threat followed by censorship, for the crime of failing to read from the script dictated by the dictators.

What do dictators do?

1. Lie
2. Threaten
3. Resort to violence

Knowing better is just that








Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Sep 29th, 2011 12:45 pm
  PM Quote Reply
67th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
In an effort to know better I sent a message to the following Prison Planet Contact e-mail address:

writers@infowars.com

I sent the following:

Censorship

Hi,

Not expecting anything, just asking, what was my real crime, according to any serious person, which resulted in the punishment of censorship?

http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=679&forum_id=4&jump_to=4924#p4924

I've been a member of The John Birch Society

I've won honorable mention for a contest entry written to JPFO

I've managed to get on the National level election ballot for U.S. Congress in my district as a Libertarian candidate in 1996

I've worked with National efforts to hand deliver petitions to standing Congressmen.

You have trolls running your forums, and your answer to me will confess your stand on censorship.

No answer is an answer.

Resort to deception is an answer.

I can look at the Prison Planet Forum from another I.P. address to report to you that one of my forum topics on your forum is listed with 88 replies and 5345 page views.

I was not given any warning, the sentence was executed upon me without any allowance for a reasonable defense, and that exemplifies dictatorship. If your group sends that message, then your goal is obvious to anyone caring to know the truth.

Joe Kelley

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Sep 29th, 2011 12:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
68th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
As was the case with banishment from The Austrian Forum awhile ago my published words have not been immediately deleted from the forum by the censors.

These are lessons to be learned as to just how deep the infection of legalized crime goes into the fabric of human society.

What drives censorship other than the obvious fear of being exposed as a liar to oneself, let alone the fear of being exposed as a person who resorts to deception as a means of gaining power over the people who are targeted with lies?

Suppose, for the sake of knowing better, and specifically not for the sake of argument, suppose that a person was reaching for the goal of liberty, and as such that person was, by that willful act of reaching for the goal of liberty, moving willfully away from crime, would such a person resort to deceit to reach that goal?

Who would be the target of fabricated falsehoods if someone did find deceit to be a thing that could move a person closer to liberty, and therefore move a person further away from crime?

How about an example?

Anyone?


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Sep 29th, 2011 03:49 pm
  PM Quote Reply
69th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Anyone,

The people at Prison Planet responded by erasing all traces of the words that they do not want other people to read.

Please note the significance of that effort.

If all that the people at Prison Planet wanted was to maintain an open and honest dialogue, and to do that they discourage what they call "flame baiting", then why would they see any need to pick through their forum and remove pages of their own forum where they published words that had no problem with any of their readers, where the words were viewed thousands of times according to their own published page view counts, and no one was "baited" into flames?

What was the real reason for my censor and what was the real reason for removing all those published words?

Dictators, or any cartel, monopoly, or single power cannot exist while competition exists; therefore competition must be eliminated in order for dictators to maintain a single power.

Please consider that competitive perspective.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 11th, 2011 06:07 pm
  PM Quote Reply
70th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 5721
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Red Flag

Please note:

My forced removal from the Prison Planet Forum was, precisely, a cult like effort to censor the messages I offer to anyone seeking a competitive viewpoint.

Either Alex Jones has cult members working for him, infiltrating his organization, or Alex Jones is just another layer of deception.

Listen to the heart felt words in the video as one person works to expose the lies, and note how deep the lies go.

When you refuse to hear words, listen please, those words may help you expose your own cherished lies.

What the Alex Jones cult members did not want to hear included words that effectively expose their own despotic duplicity. When I showed them how they too are despots, how they too censor, and how they too resort to deceit, they confessed that fact by actions, while they claimed to be the opposite, while they demonized the messenger who dared to expose their lies.

We are change, and Alex Jones, may be as corrupted as any of the people they say are corrupted, and that is worth noting.

I have first hand experience in this, as documented in this incomplete record of that very experience between the cult member of Alex Jones and the competitive messages I published on their forum. My words were meticulously deleted from that forum, sent down the memory hole. Why?



Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 06:05 pm  
Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Prison Planet Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems