 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Governments A and B
Governments A are examples of organized crime employed by criminals upon victims.
Governments B are examples of defense against crime employed by former victims no longer being victimized by criminals.
The concept here is to understand what happens in any meeting among human beings whereby there is any indication of lack of trust by anyone.
The slightest hint of distrust during a meeting among human beings becomes a process that can be explained in a phrase:
"Take me to your leader."
The same process occurs, earlier, as two, or many, people connect to each other in some way involving some medium of exchange, in person, facial expressions, gestures with body parts, language, money (trading things, or commerce), written words, sounds through devices like radio, visual images through television, internet or networks complete with video chat features, etc.
"Take me to your leader."
Before distrust there is a part of the exchange that establishes TRUST.
Trust is a form of leadership and it is outside any one human being.
Trust is given to all examples of human beings thereby having that POWER, or that capacity to trust.
Trust is created into human beings as a species, whereby we would not be human beings, we would be beasts, were we created without this capacity, this POWER, of trust.
Why am I so stuck on this "take me to your leader" principle?
Pledge of Allegiance to an object that was created by criminals who are led by a leadership principle known as Might Makes Right?
What is the history of that FLAG, and what is the trustworthy history of that INVOLUNTARY UNION created under that FLAG?
It is CRIME MADE LEGAL.
I trust that crime made legal can cause the extermination of every single human being, leaving only barbaric savage beasts who will then consume one another down to the last one, because that is how that guiding principle works out IN DEMONSTRABLE FACT.
Where do I get these ideas?
What do you think the following words intend to communicate? What do you trust to be the essential principles being offered by this speaker to anyone who may care to listen carefully?
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the...
What is the conduct of people following (blindly) The Pledge of Allegiance to The Flag of The United States which was created out of very carefully EXPOSED deception by criminals who employed deception as a means of injuring many innocent people?
Neither can I be trusted were I to Pledge Allegiance to that Flag nor can I trust those who are misled by such deception.
Before moving on, I have a warning to offer to you. Do NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER in this case. I am being told that the orderly step by step process of starting a Grand Jury begins with this very controversial subject matter, so the source of this very controversial subject matter is not me. I am pointing out (the messenger in this case) that this is a grave error to start out on this wrong foot.
I am not alone
There are many people waking up to the facts concerning what has been going on deceitfully for over 200 years.
I do not demonized the concept of socialism or capitalism, as does the person in the link above, so my trust in that source of information is reserved to being only a trust in the fact that more, and more, and more, people are becoming aware of the TIP OF THE ICEBERG concerning how deception has been working among us for over 200 years in these so called Untied States.
It is not a Federation, it is not a Republic, it is crime having been made legal in 1788, and that fact was well established by those people who were falsely labeled as Anti-Federalists.
What about the Flag? Obviously there are problems with Pledging some nebulous (ambiguous) fealty to a secular Flag, for who, and for what purpose, but there is also another can of worms concerning the history of that specific (Admiralty) Flag.
I cringe when I hear people repeating (robotic like or worse: in earnest) the word "indivisible," for what do you actually think that means?
Masters don't want their slaves running away, they want to maintain an indivisible bond of masters upon slaves, and that was originally (in this country) knowable as The Dirty Compromise done in secret so as to CONSOLIDATE in to an INVOLUNTARY MONOPOLY UNION OF CRIMINALS, and thereby crushing competition and Liberty in one fell swoop.
So if you want to offer that can of worms, I'm not accepting it, I cannot, it would be me accepting a lie, and I will do no such thing, but if you do offer that Pledge of Allegiance to THAT Flag, then you supply the can, and if I am the only one opening it up, then you, and whoever you get to follow you, will be following those worms in that can, and eventually those worms bust loose.
Flag stuff
Corporate FLAG of the British East India Company?
The problem is that, although Betsy did make flags for the State Navy Board as early as 1777 and continued until 1816, there is no official record of her making the "first" flag with the round pattern of stars. Although Betsy did, in fact, know how to make stars with one snip of the scissors, again there is no proof that she did so for the flag in question. At best, the whole Betsy Ross story is simply an undocumented, but interesting, American tradition.
So you can have your offer, I reject it, there is no way (unless in hell) I am going to pledge allegiance to a lie. When I hear "citizens" obeying the order (without question) to repeat said "oath" I hear the following:
1. What is being said:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands under God with liberty and justice for all.
2. What I hear:
I pledge allegiance to the corporation of the Union of Professional Liars and Thieves and to the crushed Republics for which it stands victorious over, under Satan, with might making right for all.
Knowing what I know now, there is no way I can maintain any sense of trust, or honor, while repeating those words as if doing so were to accomplish any worthy goal whatsoever.
I can summarize my viewpoint on this and I can counter offer the offer by which someone, somewhere, claims that I must make a pledge in order to employ due process of law generally, and specifically a Grand Jury.
I pledge allegiance to the creator of all authority, a power not commanded by a single human being, nor a group of human beings, for human beings are not the source of authority, so my pledge is to all who will listen, that true authority can be found through voluntary consent, among human beings, so can we continue finding it, please?
Failure to recognize the true meaning of democracy is predicated upon the ignorance of sharing a belief in the false, counterfeit, meaning.
1.
False meaning
Level 1:
Democracy is Mob Rule whereby a nebulous entity known as The Majority is ambiguously in the wrong concerning a nebulous entity known as The Minority.
Rule by Agent Provocateur?
Level 2:
Democracy is Mob Rule, whereby The Majority (a list of names of actual people) perpetrates crimes upon innocent minorities (a list of names of actual people).
2.
True meaning
Democracy is the sum total of moral power acted out by individual people as moral people interpose their will between criminals and innocent victims in such a way as to effectively prevent crime.
Ghandi effect? ------- link Gerard at NLA 10/7/13 Monday Meetup
Note: There are no degrees of falsehood associated with the true meaning of democracy, since the false (counterfeit) version at Level 1 is further from the truth, and the Level 2 version of false democracy (counterfeit democracy) is closer to the truth, or in some way, as the saying goes, half true.
There is typically some truth to any lie, so as to afford the lie a measure of false legitimacy.
Illustrations:
A person in a group reports to the other members in the group that The Constitution was, in demonstrable fact, a usurpation of Liberty. Everyone in the group, other than the one person reporting the facts, focuses their own, individual, aggressive thoughts upon the one reporting the facts, and then the Mob becomes Angrier, as the level of aggression feeds upon itself as a collective, self-sustaining, self-accelerating, emotional state of shared hate, until a point is reached whereby one person
[BARRETOR?] in the group begins to escalate the power of shared hatred to a point of aggressive action, and the end result is that the reporter who reported the facts is tortured and murdered by being hung for many seconds on the end of a rope, perhaps an hour of hanging, in pain, by a rope, strung from a tree.
That is supposedly a case of democracy according to those who counterfeit the meaning of the word, as the word dates back to, at least, ancient Athens, Greece.
An illustration of a counter to the false, and counterfeit meaning, is such that another, more powerful group, which may actually be one person, interposes their power of moral law, cuts down the reporter of fact, before the reporter of fact is dead, and the democrat in that case, employing democracy, gives himself, or herself license, and authority, to democratize the situation, by freeing that victim from that group of criminals. The democrat doing the democratizing of that situation can claim that moral people are the majority of people as moral people don't go around torturing and hanging people who merely report the facts to criminals who may not want to confess to their own accountability concerning the crimes that are currently being perpetrated by criminals who may be merely following orders, or who may be willfully targeting innocent people for the fun and profit they enjoy as they consume their victims.
I don't know if that report above will bear witness, at all, these days.
A shared lie is not far from shared hatred of innocence.