| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2 3 |
|
|||||||||||||
| Copy | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:52 pm |
|
21st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/breaking-up-centralized-us.htmlFriends of Liberty, Much of the current conflict among possible friends of liberty could be avoided (it seems to me) if we could accurately identify friends from foes. I have yet to read the whole article above, and I may pass it off, since the tone of that article, to me, smells rat like. I say it smells rat like in the sense of smell referred to by Patrick Henry when he smelled a rat, or so the story goes, back in the days of liberty - before The Constitution. If I say to you, or to anyone, that "The Constitution" usurped Liberty in an otherwise freer America - the knee jerk reaction might be the word "No". No, Joe, you are wrong since "The Constitution" is our protection against usurpations of Liberty. Why jerk the knee? What has knee jerking produced so far? To that question I call upon the subject of James Madison. He jerked his knee, wrote the Federalist Papers (the ones not written by the Nationalist named Alexander Hamilton - who disguised his "nationalism" behind a false flag of "federalism"), and later, later on after knee jerk federalist paper euphoria, James Madison saw the light. James Madison went from a proponent, all blind with colorful language, promises of paradise, and other lies, went from a proponent of The Constitution to somewhat of a skeptic - certainly not as skeptical as, say, Patrick Henry. Reading Patrick Henry, as a critic of the nationalism being paraded around as "federalism", in that day, reading his predictions of "what will be" if that "Constitution" were ever to be enforced, God forbid, reading those predictions is to read what is. Patrick Henry warned us, we (the true friends of liberty), for the most part, didn't listen. James Madison came around. You can too. What follows the knee jerking "No" shouted in my direction (which has happened in actual reality, in public meetings, as all heads turn at once and shout in unison, and I have a witness, it isn't recorded for viewing on YouTube, but it is true) is, what follows the "no" is, politics. Why resort to politics? Power is the answer. There is power in numbers. Now, friends of liberty, guess what the Nationalist feared the most? Did they fear the rabble, the insurgents, the rebels, and the ignorant masses, or just the ignorant masses? You may be as wide eyed (in wonder) as I was when I read how the Nationalists managed to get their "Constitution" enforced into law. Well...the story continues doesn't it?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:52 pm |
|
22nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EMSpkHq1HI "A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:52 pm |
|
23rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
That above is from this: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23231.htm The next quote from that source could inspire discussion, as it does inspire me to comment. What is being reported in that message? What does the following (specifically) mean? Why will interest rates skyrocket? What prevents someone from buying money from another source of money, at a discount, while the "dollar" price skyrockets? That is my comment, and I will now return to reading the message concerning the future of mankind, from a monetary (interesting) perspective. I didn't get very far in reading before being inspired to comment again. What does that mean, exactly, as that above reports to anyone who will listen, those words? What does that mean? What happened to the choice, the freedom of choice, to purchase money, at a discount, while the "dollar" price sours into the stratosphere, as the "dollar" becomes even scarcer to everyone except the recipients of "bail-outs" and "subsidies" (amounting to trillions of dollar units of legal currency)? Where did all that money go, and what did it buy, exactly? How can all that money be "in circulation" at the same time as the dollar becomes so scarce, so hard to find, as to drive interest rates up into the sky? What is missing from this equation? What is missing in addition to the choice afforded by competition? What did all that money buy, exactly? Who has all that money, those trillions, and what did they buy, and what will they buy, and will all those trillions of bail-out subsidies flow rapidly through "the economy" soon, or later? How can the money supply double (since September 2008), and at the same time, how can money be scarce enough to drive the price of money to the ceiling? This: If he stops printing, (god forbid), why will consumers of money be left without a competitive supply of discounted legal purchasing power? Could it be another case of mal-investment? Is that an interesting possibility or nothing to worry about and nothing to be concerned about, and nothing worth thinking about, in reality? Remember this: How good does it sound, if you don't mind listening, to hear how your wealth subsidizes a build up of power in the hands of the Chinese State (not the Chinese government "by the people" and "for the people", rather, your power to purchase is spent on increasing the power of the Chinese "State")? How do you like that sound? Will you like that sound when, not if, the Chinese State begins to dictate to you how you will think, how you will act, and how much you will earn by your labor? I think you may then be left without the power or the affordability to ignore that sound. That may be just me thinking, a distant thought, hearing a distant sound, but why is that ever so distant sound so deafening to my ears? Am I as crazy as people like to think I am, for some reason? I'll read on. Is that the same thing as saying "The rate of wealth being transferred from producers of wealth to the legal criminals who control the legal money monopoly pyramid scheme is beyond a sustainable rate as the producers of wealth are being sucked dry and left to feed upon them-selves in a torturous and slow death"? That rate of wealth transfer (by monopoly banking interest) is now being flown into China, to subsidize the competition, at the expense of both American and Chinese laborers (the producers of wealth). And I have this all backwards? I'm the stupid one? As I have learned recently, during a viewing of a video documentary on money linked on this forum (thanks for that lesson), the pre-occupation with "savings" (instead of investing) is a part of the whole banking scam. The way that works, according to the data on the video, the banksters are "legally" able to loan out "savings" in bank accounts on a reverse ratio compared to the reserve requirements. It is fairly complicated, but not too complicated. The end result is an increase in the flow of wealth from producers to they banksters by that devise called: "interest". It is interesting if not moral. It is fact. Wealth (in the form of legal purchasing power or "dollars") transfers from producers of wealth to people collecting "interest". The fact that some "interest" (much less of a percent) goes to "savers" is cause for something. Should the "savers" rejoice since they get a piece of the action? If, for example, the rate of "price" inflation (due to the combination of monetary inflation and malinvestment) is 10% per year and the "savings" account interest rate is 3%, if that is a fact, not a guess, an actual fact, not a form of smoke and mirrors, if that is a mathematical accounting fact, then you can do some math, and see the light - or not. What do I care? 3 - 10 = -7 A negative 7 is better than a negative 10: WOOOHOOOO! I'M RICH! I am also out of time.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:53 pm |
|
24th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
On the subject of accurate currency are examples of "current" news, news currency, or just: News Example: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin6.1.1.html Is that accurate? Is that News? Is that Accurate Currency? I can quote from that link (whatever it is called): More NEWS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBGo35zDFZg&feature=channel Well...who listens to the Pope? Who believes what the Pope says: many, few, a majority, a minority, who cares about the Pope - anyway? Blasphemy, or really, really, come-on, who in modern times listens to the Pope? Didn't the crusades work, after all? How about some real news, some real honest and accurate currency - up to date? http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=7 4&jumival=3568 ? I can add my simple viewpoint. If the idea is to allow competition in Global Currency Markets, then let us call that choice A. A. Competitors offer consumers the highest quality currency at the lowest cost - worldwide Now, on the other hand, the opposite side of the fence, there may be, on the way, coming to a "Theater Near You", option B, which isn't really a choice, on purpose, for some reason. B. One Global Supplier of THE legal currency - World Wide Web of Legal Fraud and Violence (torture and mass murder - legalized) I may have added too much text so...how about brevity: A. Liberty B. Not A or What, or who, are the internment camps for - believers or non-believers in the internment camp conspiracy theory?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:53 pm |
|
25th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280&hl=en Well, I wonder if that video will arrive at a different angle of view as I digest it while my work load has caught up. I have time to view that documentary and comment about its value as "accurate currency". If those people living as "un-civilized" people happened to be living over large reserves of oil, would they be more or less "civilized" than they are now?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
26th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23267.htmSibel Edmons also speaks on that audio recording of a public address, public service, radio broadcast. If you do not know about Sibel Edmons you may be encouraged by her example so please look into that name. My next commentary (up for discussion to anyone who may wish to discuss the general topic, or this specific topic), my next commentary concerns the last part of that radio broadcast where the question was tabled concerning any scenario whereby the march toward absolute despotism may, somehow ratchet down. There were no positive perspectives on that question from those people in that broadcast. Why not? I see a very real scenario whereby the march toward absolute despotism ratchets down, and I see this because this is happening and it is happening in a measurable way. From the measurable perspective of a power relationship between despots and victims (criminals and victims) the pendulum is swinging in favor of the third group. That sentence above is English. If the reader has a problem reading English, the reader could blame me for that problem, and if that is done by the reader, then I ask for a measurable power transfer in this specific case. Does that transfer of blame constitute a measurable power shift, or is that transfer of blame merely identifying someone as a victim? Are you a victim? If so, why are you a victim? Why not join the group of people who are not victims? The following is a sentence: From the measurable perspective of a power relationship between despots and victims (criminals and victims) the pendulum is swinging in favor of the third group. That is a sentence and that sentence addresses the question asked by the host in the radio broadcasts linked at the top of this page.
Criminals are linked to victims by fraudulent monetary (legal) currency. People who are not linked by fraudulent (legal) monetary currency are not criminals or victims by that measure. Take the torture of some hapless victim in some legal dungeon somewhere as that victim screams and follow the money from the paid torturer on back to your pay check. You are an accessory to that crime, a criminal, confessed or not, you paid for each scream - if you are linked by that fraudulent currency. Is that an uncomfortable bit of news? Is it accurate? Do you wish to censor such transfers of power? Welcome to the machine.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
27th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://tree3.com/Video/rp8.14.09.wmv 100 trillion dollars, That number isn't just a number thrown out to see if it will gain currency, in other words that number is not just a politically motivated falsification of the facts designed to cause potential victims to be victims. That number represents actual reality, it measures reality, it measures a reality that is complex in detail, yet simple in principle. If the simple principle is not understood the complexity can be confusing to a point of victimization. The link at the top of the page reminds me of that Presidential "race" in 1992. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dR38yCC5js That link is a reminder and other things. The simple principle can be expanded into complexity or reduced to a razor sharp edge or refined into the smallest particle, or focused down to absolute clarity. I can't force anyone to do anything, but I can offer a competitive example of focus, or sharpness, or simple base principled perspective, and from that point the perspective can expand on avenues of greater understanding that lead to liberty or to whatever the viewer desires. That may be a problem, of course, the problem of choosing something other than liberty once the person gains the power of self-determination. The base principle is simple, or it isn't a base principle, so here is my competitive offering of the base principle:
100 trillion dollars, I can almost hear the gears turning in the brains of the people who read my texts, and my guess is that much of the thinking in response to the words above may be along the lines of "over-simplification". I have over simplified the human condition in reference to that number. Do you really think that? Is it better to be clear or clouded when viewing something as enormous as 100 trillion dollars? If 100 trillion dollars is at your finger tips, you, yes you, a human being, a person, a living breathing willful creature of life, if you have 100 trillion dollars at your finger tips, what are you, if not a criminal? How did you get that power? Is that power measuring something? What does that power measure? Are these questions irrelevant or merely unpopular? What does the measure of unpopularity offer in this effort to understand that number? Why would anyone not find that number to be worthy of note, worth the effort to understand it, and cause for careful and diligent concern? From that base principle I am going to offer one possible and competitive avenue from which to move willfully. The perceiver sits at the one point, viewing the one event, where an innocent person is victimized by a criminal, and the perceiver measures that event with some measuring device of some kind.
If the criminal is smart (and I am leaping ahead some) the criminal will be mindful of any possible observers who may be measuring the event whereby the criminal is extracting a measure of victimization from the intended victim during the crime. How much better for the criminal will it be to have the observer miscalculate the exact measure of the crime? What would happen, for example, if the criminal manages to dress up the crime, spin the crime, adjust the look of the crime, so as to make the crime appear as if the victim is the criminal and the criminal is the victim, and do so in such a way as to be effective, economical, precise, exact, measurable, factual, actual, and real? An observer views the crime in progress and the observer is led to believe that the victim is the criminal and the criminal is the victim, in some measurable way. 100 trillion dollars, one criminal, one victim, and one confused observer, I've leaped so far ahead as to confuse the observer, perhaps, and all I have done is to stealth-fully add the factor of falsehood. The point I intend to convey here is a matter of accurate currency, to find it, to use it, and to gain by it, at the expense of no innocent person anywhere, and unfortunately, if it must be so, at the expense of criminals. Criminals may have to find productive work, real jobs, be competitive, produce something someone else wants, something someone else hasn't been tricked into wanting, and produce a higher quality product at a lower cost, once the observers employ accurate currency so as to avoid being either criminals or victims. Why is that not simple? I don't understand the confusion anymore. I once ran for congress, I didn't understand the confusion then either, what is to be confused about? I can relate, I can sympathize, I can be empathetic, it isn't beyond my comprehension to know confusion, and for example, I am confused about why people are confused. What is so confusing about the 100 trillion dollar number? When criminals run things, what can the victims expect? 100 trillion dollar debt isn't so hard to understand. Victims owe the criminals a measurable amount of victimization. The number is just a number, add 100 trillion more zeros to that number, and it will be the same thing, it will have more zeros, but it will be the same thing, from the same source. Who has the power to add zeros to their own legal monetary account? What would you do with that power? Would you buy puppets in foreign countries? Would you teach poor criminals to be very good criminals in schools where torture and mass murder is taught, and then employed? And why is my viewpoint so often demonized, what is the power behind that effort - exactly?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:54 pm |
|
28th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2009/3626brits_hook_zhou.htmlThat link and that quote flows from the source to this node on the net. Is that link an example of accurate currency? I see evidence supporting that hypothesis; yes, that is accurate currency. I have yet to read the rest of the link, and I will comment as I read. I read the rest of the article. The recipe for reform, to me, appears to be another case of employing the cause of the problem as a means to fix the problem. Hamiltonian debt based financial systems; it seems to me, is as big of a problem as is the current regiment labeled as: The Dollar Hegemony. I may have missed something in the text. This: Whenever someone claims such a claim as the one above, where "only" one possible thing can be done to fix the problem, I see a problem. The fix, it seems to me, is to stop fixing that problem with the one and only cure, which is almost always some version of crime, some version of making plans to injure innocent people for profit, and then executing those plans. The fix whereby all competition is eliminated (only one fix is planned on and executed by the "fixers") is the fix that destroys the natural force of nature built into the natural system of self-fixing, which is by any other name, the same thing i.e. competition. Competition (instead of the one and only fix - fix - where competition is destroyed, on purpose, for profit), competition is many fixes, not just one, and each fix, each competitor, in nature, is working the fix, working to be more better, working to increase quality, working to reduce cost, because failure to do so, removes the power to do so, and that power is supplied by all the customers who demand higher quality and lower cost. Who desires lower quality and higher cost? If you don't know the answer to that question, then my offering for a competitive (and accurate) answer is: Monopolists (with their one and only one fix). That one and only one fix, it seems to me, is the same thing over and over again, as if doing the same thing over and over again, one more time, will result in a better (and lower cost) result this time, despite the fact that every other time, for as far back as human's have been recording these things (accurately, not "spun"), that fix, that same fix, has always ruined the thing it was intended to fix - that one and only fix, the fix that plans on and then executes the plan to eliminate competition. I can search for more data on that author of that article since that article does offer some very interesting text, on history, and other things. Like this: Note the link between "The Dollar" and "London-created petroleum spot market". Petro-dollars. Now look at the latest effort to eliminate competition in oil-currency: http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_417757.html I never said that Chavez was not a dictator, but compared to what, what is the standard of excellence in that department? Whose plans to injure innocent people for profit is the most profitable when the dust settles? Who benefits? Who pays? Who is going to pay for the southern front war of aggression this time? How about some old news on an old power employed toward competition? File this under "things to consider in defense of liberty" - while most everyone else is employing the one and only fix (the one that never works - as advertized)? http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods121.html Madison was the "federalist" turned "anti-federalist" once he saw the light. Once it was proven to Madison that the anti-federalists were accurate in their exposure of the crimes of "Nationalism" (spearheaded by Hamilton), once things like the "Alien and Sedition Acts" proved the point, with an exclamation point!, once the false flag of "Federalism" was sufficiently stripped from the bare naked criminals who donned that cloak, once that happened, Madison began campaigns to undo what he had helped do. No longer was the idea the same old, one and only fix, no, no, no, the idea returned to something more like competition; where separate and sovereign states could compete for market share and the consumers could pick and choose which state was higher in quality and lower in cost. But I'm just a troll, so don't mind me. The articles speak for themselves. Is it accurate currrency, or not? How is it measured - exactly?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
29th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski235.htmlKaren Kwaitkowski wrote those words. I think it is more of the stuff that I like to call accurate currency, the stuff that moves minds to begin thinking accurately. But that may just be me. My guess is that Karen thinks that her words are accurate enough to accomplish some specific task. The theme of this article, this example of accurate currency, asks a specific question, and the accurate answer is worthy of consideration. I think the false answer is the answer used by people who fall into the category of Machiavelli types, or Statists, or to be even more focused, more precise, and more accurate, the thinking that generates the false answer originates from un-natural criminal minds. I suppose that it can be suggested, with words, that criminal minds are natural experiments of mutated DNA; where the criminal brain, absent the stuff that generates sympathy, empathy, etc. is a naturally occurring genetic mutation. I think that would be a false representation of nature, since nature has a job to do, and that job is to further life, to preserve it, to make life prosper, to cause life to exist, to sustain life, and to keep life going and going and going. Why would nature produce a killer, a torturer, and a mass murderer? If nature produces a species killer, does that part of nature test the validity of the targeted species? I am going to continue reading the article and continue commenting from an accurate currency (based upon Joe's Law) perspective. There is power in accurate currency, and accurate currency can move people from false and destructive paths toward true and productive paths - from miserable slow death to prosperous and exciting life. Perhaps I have that backwards too? Someone invents the false stuff for some reason, what could be the reasoning? Back to Karen (Lieutenant Colonel) Kwiatkowski: The "news" offered before that statement concerned a few polls that could be checked for validity. I attended a junior college course called Statistics and Dynamics (or some such title) back in the 80s, and even then the sophistication of propaganda was remarkable. There is a great power in mass media as a means by which massive numbers of people can be stupefied, and those massive numbers of people can be conditioned to respond to "polls" in such a way as to generate false data. If someone reads the false data and comes to false conclusion as a result of the employment of false data, what does that fact inspire in the reader, the author, or the fellow members of a discussion forum? I can offer an example of what I am describing here, in reaction to the commentary offered by Karen Kwiatkowski - currently. Suppose a poll asks for opinions concerning who is or who is not esteemed to a high degree, up on a pedestal? Suppose the majority answer with a highest esteem for the police and the military workers. You call these guys up, and they do the dirty work - clean-up on isle 5. That data, if that data is inspected, judged, chewed on, and then employed, could be spun into a false esteem for police and military leadership - a false measure of esteem for the people who are in between the employers of the police and military and the actual peace officers and grunts in the police and the military. How can that data be made more accurate so as to re-assess the situation with a greater concern for measuring the esteem of the people with regard to liberty, with regard to prosperity, with regard to peace, with regard to harmony, with regard to the work that the police must do, and with regard to the work that the military must do, in defense against all criminals of any kind from any quarter? Here is an example: http://texasfred.net/archives/3814 Take the same people who generated the data in the polls reference by Karen Kwiatkowski and ask those people to place Oath Keepers above or below the mindless order followers in either the police or military employment theaters. Run the poll like this: Do you place Nazi type order followers who rape, torture, and mass murder innocent babies, because they are told to do so, above or below Oath Keepers who will not follow unlawful orders where they are told to commit such crimes by their criminal bosses?
What happens to the conclusions derived from the poll data? How does our liberty minded or anti-liberty minded public measure up after that poll? How does that poll measure up as "accurate currency"? How many will answer A? How many will answer A if the poll taker thinks that punishment will occur for failure to answer A? Beware of Greeks offering gifts? I'm going to send the link to this forum to Karen Kwiatkowski, since that is what I have done, in the past, when commenting on people who write things, and when those people leave their e-mail addresses after their writing is published to the public - for public consumption. And that is why I read Karen Kwaitkowski, she is ever so ready to test her thinking for validity. The scientific method still lives and breaths in human form. The U.S. military, by that example, that Lieutenant Colonel, is cause for high esteem. Who will be there when you really, really, need them?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:55 pm |
|
30th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, What would a "gloves off" libertarian presidential message to the tax paying people while this leader is in office fighting a congress (house and senate) filled with a super majority of legal criminals look like - exactly? "Hi fellow lovers of liberty, today I have horrible news to pass on to you." [Cut scene to obscene graphic video of live torture upon a "terrorist" aged 20 paid for by the tax payers - one full minute duration] "Did you see that?" [Prime time interruption during a Super Bowl commercial] "Your elected "representatives" [double peace sign] are spending your hard earned wealth on worse things." [Cut to scene to gang rape and murder of teenager while mother and father writhe in excruciating mental anguish - forced to watch] "You are paying to have that done, and it is live. I've managed to infiltrate these "off the books expenditures" expressly designed to clue you in; however I'm holding back, the worst is censored for your protection." [Cut scene to babies just about to be burned alive and the screen stops abruptly - returning to the president - live] "My agents are being paid with my own salary and from donations from the following donors. Have a nice day." [A list of donors in white plain text scrolls quickly on a black background - and the regular broadcast resumes.] Not real? http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/ Who prefers ignorance?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
31st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/52369,news,land-grabbing-the-new-colonialism,2Food is power, try not eating for 3 days and see if food is power, don't take my word on it. Who owns the land, and how did they get that power? If that is a strange question, or irrelevant to the reader, then I may ask: what is relevant?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
32nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Since discussion is no longer fashionable, or I'm just looking in all the wrong places, I see an opportunity to digest some one way data in the form of a series of video presentations. I may find cause to comment after viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6767qPd1iPg That is part I
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
33rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Since discussion is no longer fashionable, or I'm just looking in all the wrong places, I see an opportunity to digest some one way data in the form of a series of video presentations. I may find cause to comment after viewing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6767qPd1iPg That is part I Comment: I find it very difficult to listen to any false apologies for the crimes being committed by "The President" (no matter who sits in that seat), where the "reporters" say things like: "he inherited" the crime. The "cost of the war" is not a cost to the promoters of the war. Why is the focus of attention moved away from finding the specific people who profit from the crime ("war") so as to find the people who cause and perpetuate the crime, find the motive and therefore find the perpetrators, then expose those specific criminals? Why not do that? Why apologize for the crimes and why apologize for the criminals? Why confuse the purpose of the crime with things like "find the criminals who attacked us on 911"? Why lie? Why perpetuate lies? It seems to me, and I'm not alone, even if "the majority" think I'm alone, a lone lunatic, a conspiracy theorist, etc,; it seems to me that the paper trail followed from the crimes (war) in Afghanistan lead back to the same people who destroyed those buildings in New York (by controlled demolition, along with all the people inside those buildings). I could be wrong, but why not follow the paper trail, if not to expose the worst criminals currently torturing the most people and currently murdering the most people, why not do that just to prove me wrong? The paper trail leads to the criminals. Why not cut the flow of paper trailing from those who earn wealth to those who are now stealing it, now using it to torture, using it to mass murder, using it to apologize for torture and mass murder, using it to cover up and perpetuate that flow of wealth, and those crimes? If the flow is cut off, and if the crimes suddenly lessen, lessen more and more each day, grind to a stop, no more legal torture soon, no more legal mass murder soon, then doesn't that prove something worth proving? What is the profit in allowing the flow to continue? What generates that demand for that flow that continues to go from the honest productive people who produce wealth to those horrible terrorizing torturing mass murderers who set their own pay rates and give themselves license to rob, rape, steal, torture, and mass murder with impunity on into perpetuity? If there is a supply, there must be a demand - no? I went past the last link (the "apologetic" commentary) and went to the source link instead: http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:57 pm |
|
34th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
If there are two storage bins, it seems to me, one thing going in one storage bin can't be in the other storage bin at the same time. One thing goes in one or the other storage bin, not into both storage bins, at the same time. Suppose that there is a storage bin and in this storage bin are things that are accurate. Outside that bin are all things other than the things that are accurate. Next to that bin are two more bins. One bin is a place where all the inaccurate things are, and the third bin stores all the things that are false. False things are things made by people who make false things on purpose, in a pre-meditated manner, so as to cause someone else, a victim, to change behavior, to modify behavior, to response in a conditioned manner, response conditioning, to propagate specific behavior, to cause the targeted audience to move onto a false path.
Example: War is good for the economy! Where does that belong; if the idea is to place that declaration into an accurate bin among the choices listed?
Accurate Currency Where does that go?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:57 pm |
|
35th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/191213-Word-gets-around-Twilight-and-the-trick-of-the-ps ychopaths
Two links that go along with that link are: http://tinyurl.com/mmmgyx Fromm answers the question on "how to tell between psychopaths and healty people. If I understand it right the tell tale method is to ask them if they are psychopaths. If they can honestly admit to being a psychopath, they are not. How do you get an honest answer out of a pscyhopath? I may find the actual words written by Fromm on that question later. Here is the other link that goes with the first link: http://www.gametheory.net/mike/applets/PDilemma/Pdilemma.html That one is not the one I prefer to link. The idea is to see how infectious or destructive crime can be in human life. The cost is seen in game theory. If people cooperate (collude) then people produce the necessities and benefits of human life, if people prey on each other (cheat) then the necessities and benefits of human life are consumed by those cheaters. It is false to claim that cheaters score anything of benefit. Cheaters injure innocent victims because they steal from the production process. Note how that link (the game theory applet)show this fact. If the two players collude (cooperate) the end result is an increase of "profit" or score by 40 - each player gains 20 points. If one player cheats while the other player doesn't cheat (the psychopath factor) the cheater steals 30 points and the honest player receives no points. What does that tell you? Two people honestly cooperate and produce wealth with their advantage gained in cooperation. Those two people create 40 points and each gain 20 points. If one cheats and the other does not cheat, please see this, the cheater creates a 10 point cost, production goes down by 10 points, total production is only 30 points, and the cheater takes the whole "profit". If both cheat, in game theory, each producer receives 10 points for a total of 20 points produced. Does that sound like a modern corporation to you? If you don't stab your fellow workers in the back you will be stuck on the bottom of the pyramid working for subsistence wages, gaining no profits, while the bosses stab each other in the back to split the meager profits. I've been there, I've done that, and to be the best worker, to produce the most, the highest quality stuff, in the least amount of time, to bust all the established rates of production, to be the best employee possible, causes, and this is a fact, causes the middle management "managers" to fear for their positions, fear the upcoming "worker", and rain down upon that worker a steady flow of falsehoods, cheats, back-stabbings, lies, and every possible action that can destroy that competition if the slightest hint of accession is perceived by the threatened mid level manager. The higher tier managers know this, see this, promote this, and reward the mid level managers who are the most efficient at destroying competition, like a game, and if the mid level player is too good, the top level players eliminate them, by the same means: cheating. Don't take my word for it, consume your own life in "business" and see for yourself. If you happen upon a "company" whereby the idea is to cooperate, honestly, then watch out, watch out for those psychopaths - they will raid your happy cooperative, and they will destroy it. If the idea is to know the truth about game theory, and how it applies to modern human life, I can suggest a few more links (if someone asks) and I will comment some here: Cooperators gain the power to increase production through three obvious forms of honest "leverage", or "mechanical advantage", where this economic advantage can be seen with a simple illustration using three terms.
That is a fact. The one person is born into no history, no advantage of cooperation between past human beings, no cooperation of gaining past knowledge. Passing on knowledge, recording knowledge, is a form of human cooperation; which brings me to the first term. Past experimenters pass on their savings of knowledge power to future generations and that is a division of labor. Past experience is earned by past generations, they did the work, the new generation does not have to do that same work, the work load is divided by that division of labor. Another example of this powerful honest economic leverage point, this fulcrum, is reproduction. Women bear the children. How can a pregnant woman survive all alone (let alone get pregnant) during the months of child birth? Labor is divided. Why, the reader may ask, is this division of labor thing capable of increasing production? Perhaps you don't ask. The question is a good one, it begs to be answered. One person can specialize in one job and not be tasked with every job. One person can make 100 chairs and not have to make 1 chair, stop making chairs, start making hammers, stop making hammers, start making nails, stop making nails, start making glue, stop making glue, etc. Division of labor and specialization combine, in honest cooperation, to enable 2 people to increase production by a significant factor, significantly more that twice as much production compared to two people producing alone, without exchange of any kind, one person on one remote island and another person on another remote and disconnected island. The two people cooperating have the power to increase production significantly greater once they honestly cooperate and employ division of labor and specialization. That is two people, and that cooperation is shown in Game Theory as 20 point each earned of the 40 points of production. If one steals the act of stealing will destroy cooperation. The destruction of cooperation is paid for with past or current production, there won't be any future production, unless the victim is unaware of the cheat or if the victim is forced to continue producing while the cheater continues to steal from the production run. 40 points are earned by cooperation. 30 points are taken from past or current production, stolen by the cheater, and the cheater can "keep the slaves alive" or let them perish. Both will perish or the cheater must work and produce after the slave dies. 10 points each are earned if both player cheat, and that must be less than the production rate earned by two people completely separated form each other because each cheater expends production costs on defense. They have less time to produce because they are working at finding ways to defend against cheating and finding new ways to cheat. Who is producing when everyone is cheating? That is not shown in game theory, not without looking deep into game theory. When everyone is cheating the rate of production falls below sustainable levels; where production is less that consumption - and that will kill off people. Who does it kill; honest producers? What game theory should teach us, is for us to avoid any connection with cheaters, and the most obvious connection, in my view, is inaccurate currency. Who demands inaccurate currency? Why is the supply of inaccurate currency increasing? Cheaters love dishonest currency, even if they won't confess that love.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:57 pm |
|
36th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue08/coverstory.phpIn that story is the key to the success of liberty. I'll quote and then comment: In order to understand what I perceive, clearly, an individual must understand the power of Trial by Jury. What is it, what was it, and what can it be - in reality? Here is a good look at the history of it: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html Here is a relevant quote: http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-tbj/ch1.htm That copy is easier to quote: How accurate can it get, what is your capicaity in handling accuracy? How accurate can it get, what is your capacity in handling accuracy? Can you trust your neighbor to wield the power of nullification? Can you afford not to trust him or her? Can they afford to trust you? What happens when nullification is out-lawed and how would that law be enforced - exactly? How is crime enforced by law?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
37th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/how-money-finds-its-way-into-the-economy/
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #dddddd"That is bull...stuffing. Interest charged by someone who pays no interest is an easy to explain abuse of power, it is crime, it is legal crime. These are words, these are words that have no power, people have power. Some people, call them "The Fed", have the power to add zeros to their own personal accounts. If you believe the words published on that OHHHH SOOOO official looking link, and you prefer not to believe that sentence above, then please take a moment and look in the mirror and ask yourself this question: "When will I take back my power to perceive accurately from those who stole that power?" Here is the sentence again (that you may or may not believe to be true, while you may or may not believe the bullshit published in the link to be true): Some people, call them "The Fed", have the power to add zeros to their own personal accounts. Suppose that you went into the bathroom and you asked yourself the question concerning your power to see clearly and then suppose that you decided to use your brain to see what may be true in that sentence I offer to you. Suppose that these people, call them The Fed, add millions of zeros to their personal accounts, millions of zeros, because the keyboard stuck, or some other excuse. They now have a lot of zeros in their account no? Yes? When is one zero too many zeros? When is the number of zeros not enough zeros in their personal accounts? What do they want? What do they want to buy? They already have the power to add zeros to their personal accounts so they don't have to buy that power from someone. It is already their power, and it is not your power, not legally your power. What happens if you want to add zeros to your account? You have to pay them. They don't have to pay you. Why do you not have that deal? Why do they have that deal and not you? What makes them so special? I have the accurate answer. They are criminals. You are a victim. If you refuse to see things in that way, then you work for them - without pay. Good luck with that, it leads to torture and mass murder as those people buy what they need to keep that power. You may end up pushing less powerful people in front of you on the line to the torture chambers on that path. You may end up digging the mass graves. You may end up being tortured as you torture other people, being murdered as you murder other people and if you think I'm the one "on crack", then ask yourself what happens to your wealth when your zeros on your account are transfered to a government employee who is at this moment torturing someone for profit. You bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
38th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north750.htmlWhen "News" is bottled up, if you can borrow my brain, the reason for this action (bottling up), the thought that drives it, is fear, and the fear is that competition will find a way to break through, real news will pass through the barriers that block accurate currency from flowing between separate and sovereign beings. When accurate currency (real news) passes between separate and sovereign beings, like wildfire, becoming viral, the effect is a more powerful bunch of separate and sovereign people. The fear is a fear of competition. The act of "bottling up" is an act intending to destroy competition. Competition leads to quality increases while costs (prices) decrease. The subject matter here is: "The Fed", the people I call legal criminals or "Legal Criminals" (no caps is better if by "better" the idea is to focus defensive thoughts and actions toward the actual criminals who think out and act out crimes and "better" is to avoid focusing attention on "the group", since actual people are response-able and "groups" are not "responsible" or "accountable"), and "The Fed" (the people) are criminals, so my label is more accurate in that sense. A. Legal Criminals B. The Fed Who blocks the flow of accurate currency when you hear my accurate term (legal criminal) as that term flows through your central processor? Do you fear competition too? The fear of competition is a fear that is driven by a false sense of security concerning a supposed advantage or "leverage" held by the people stricken with fear, and I can explain this point of perceptive focus. The people who have the power to add zeros to their own accounts, and do so at will, and do so without being held accountable for any debt whatsoever, are people who think that they have an advantage over people who do not have this power. The idea, in the head of someone who has this power, is such that the loss of this power is fearful. What are they going to do when they no longer have the power to add zeros to their own personal bank accounts? Who will have that power once that power is no longer held by these people who fear the loss of that power? These are questions that focus attention at the problem, the specific problem, and the problem that has so far managed to metastasize into "legal" torture and mass murder, and the torture and murder victims are "paid for" by you and me - because of this problem, because this problem works the way it does. Power flows from the many to the few by this effort to hold secure this power to add zeros to the accounts of the few people who have this power. What is there to fear?
The power to add zeros to a few personal accounts (and by that power wealth transfers from the many to the few) is the power that finances all forms of "government" including "Corporations", "States", "Despotism", "Monarchy", "Kingdoms", "Federally Constituted Republics", or even "Families". If that power is given up, if the barriers are torn down, if there are no monopolies ever, nevermore, here in this land (internally), what happens in other lands (externally)? That is the source of fear that is injected into the minds of the victims, and I can explain that too, to anyone who wants to know the truth of it. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know exactly what is wrong with my thinking. An example of how I would explain that fear thing is by pointing to China.
It is not, it is a false fear, it is delusional, it is the essence of "The Problem". If "we" are competing with the "Chinese", to see who is the most powerful monopoly (few people adding to their person accounts at the expense of many people), then the focus of attention MUST BE focused on the purpose of that "entity" (the few people's version of that "entity"), and the focus MUST NOT BE confused with legal crime. A. Competition to be the best legal crime extortion racket B. Competition to be the best defenders of liberty Please see that illustration, and if you can't see it, please ask questions. One competition is real and the other competition is false. A. The victims are the many people in each "entity" as the leaders pretend to fight each other (they actually form a consortium or cabal or a mutual agreement to leave each other's turf alone, or to combine their power to consume the victims i.e. war) B. The competition is a race to see which "entity" prospers and gains power in defense of liberty One actually gains more power, more wealth, more prosperity, without limit, and the other throttles down that power to prosper, and it does so: on purpose, for profit ("it" is refereed here as a "methodology" a "path" a road to follow, the actual people herding the victims on this road are the actual response-able people, the "accountable" people). The "cabal" (leaders agreeing to victimize their own victims in their own turf or the leaders agreeing to "cull the herd" by executing mutually profitable wars among between their respective victims) is PATH A (the one we are on now). Liberty is the path that results in the most power produced soonest, or, in other words: the most benefit for the least cost. I may be alone with this viewpoint, and that may be another angle of view, where that fact illustrates the same problem, or that fact measures the power of the barriers set in place to "bottle up" the flow of powerfully accurate data (accurate currency). Read the link at the top of this post, if you will. Or not. The link reports on an effort to hold the legal criminals to account for their crimes - in an accurately measurable way (follow the money).
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:59 pm |
|
39th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://fora.tv/2009/07/22/The_Electric_Horizon_Shai_Agassi#Shai_Agassi-How_to_Effectively_ Reduce_the_Cost_of_Electric_Cars I.Q. Test - anyone? http://fora.tv/2009/07/22/The_Electric_Horizon_Shai_Agassi#Shai_Agassi_The_Marginal_Costs_ of_Electric_Driving Down a curve that cuts in half every 4 or 5 years
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Oct 4th, 2009 12:59 pm |
|
40th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I am currently reading the manuscript for Howard Blooms new book titled: The Genius of the Beast The book is due out in 69 days, or so. Here are Howard Blooms two previous books: http://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Principle-Scientific-Expedition-History/dp/0871136643 http://www.amazon.com/Global-Brain-Evolution-Mass-Century/dp/0471419192 And here is a pre-order page for the new book: http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Beast-Radical-Re-Vision-Capitalism/dp/1591027543
Howard (as I read that new book) is a cheerleader for capitalism. I am not, I know what capitalism is, so does Howard. Howard, so far, does not focus attention on the legal criminals, the people who create and maintain the legal money monopolies, and that is fine with me, since Howard does what Howard does best, he focuses on the science of our species, and compares our species with other species, in a very well researched and very well elucidated way. This post is not an ad for Howard's book; so much as it is a confession on my part concerning my lack of maintenance on this topic. I started the topic, so I feel obligated to continue it, so long as the hit count continues to add up. Howard, or someone working for Howard (I can't know for sure), took a look at my Joe's Law wording and the response was positive - it looks right. That means something big to me. I may be deluding myself - of course. I see much to be positive about in our world, despite the power still held by very evil legal criminals, and much of my perspective is attributable to people like Howard Bloom, people who take a scientific approach to perception - people who are not satisfied with popular dogma. A case in point, to illustrate what I mean by "not being satisfied with popular dogma" is the resent events leading up to my running for congress a second time. I didn't get any farther than a trip to Redlands (Registrar of Voters) to change my legal "party" from "Libertarian" to "none of the above" (the next best thing in legal terms is "Independent"). I didn't get far down the path of "running for congress" (the second time) because my initial inspiration to "access the political means" was driven by falsehood, by a false belief in a "popular dogma". I had become aware of this case of "popular dogma" as I began reading version of it from "official sources" and to the prognoses was very, very dark, foreboding, pessimistic, and filled with doom and gloom. Who among the readers has heard of "Peak Oil"? That is the popular dogma that sent my running for the political means, as a means of addressing "Peak oil" as that popular dogma began to infect my mind. I managed to pull my own head out of my ass before the process of "running for congress" included the necessary fight I'd have to win against my wife, to drop all the things we are doing to together, and to march off to access the political means, again. The "Peak oil" popular dogma is my illustrated example of how falsehood works on some people and how such things don't work on other people. Life can be much more positive, much more accurately perceived, if the person perceiving is able to avoid falsehood, to defend against it, to know better. On the Joe's Law front (Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production are the following two links: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0915/p06s01-woeu.html I can offer a relevant story on that above. A customer where I work went looking for a piece of land out on the middle of no where and he happened upon two people there in that same spot. Those three people were one owner of worthless land and two people looking for land where a wind generator could be placed. That happened last week. http://features.csmonitor.com/innovation/2009/09/15/volkswagens-e-up-an-electric-car-for-t he-people/ The local story on that is such that my wife needs a new car. We don't yet have Solar Panels so we will have to pay for our car fuel (electricity) at the going rate (2 cents per mile or about an equivalent of 1 dollar per gallon - very roughly) and I have yet to convince my wife to hold off on buying a petroleum fueled car (gas guzzler), and I have yet to convince my wife to invest in a pre-order for a Tesla motors sedan (available in 2011 or so). The second link above aids me in my campaign to hold off investing in a new gas guzzler purchase (a God damn waste in my opinion), and move toward an investment in a more independent power purchase (more in tune with Joe's law). Here is a quote from the second link (people's car): To be more accurate (and not to fall victim to the false ad above) the Tesla Sedan is selling for 49900 Here: http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php The sports cars are selling for higher price (apples and oranges?) Whatever
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 08:57 pm | Page: 1 2 3 |
| Power Independence > Networking > Expanding Connectivity > Copy | Top |