 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Why did the Egyptian police state not starve on the vine, forcing Mubarak's depraved cronies in the military, police, and bureaucracies to go home and make livings for themselves that did not involve robbing, killing or intimidating ordinary Egyptians?
The actual title to that news item is:
Monetary Revolt: The Silver Bullet To Kill a Despised Regime
That news item is published on a right leaning news outlet, or an economy leaning news outlet, a perspective that focuses the power of thought more on physical or economic powers and less on political or psychological powers.
The left could be seen as the power of mind, and the power of psychology, and the power of politics.
The right could be seen as the power of matter, and the power of physics, and the power of economy.
What power does the economic right side access when that power accesses news media?
News
Media
News = software, information content, ideas, perceptions, opinions, reasons, thinking, psychology, argumentation, cooperation, agreement, deals, offers, politics, and the stuff flowing through the connection from one human mind to other human minds in time and space.
Media = hardware, bits, bites, letters, sentences, text, sound waves, images, structure, paper, pens, wires, roads, satellites, avenues, networks, physical matter, physical laws, economic laws, facts, accurate measures, and the stuff that connects one human mind to other human minds in time and space.
It is always a good time to point out how matter always moves and matter never stops moving.
Life is current.
Why did the Egyptian police state not starve on the vine, forcing Mubarak's depraved cronies in the military, police, and bureaucracies to go home and make livings for themselves that did not involve robbing, killing or intimidating ordinary Egyptians?
Someone leaning left aught to be able to appreciate the question, it seems to me.
How much better might one appreciate the right answer?
How about the accurate answer for those who refuse to lean the least bit toward the right answer?
I comment while reading, so I'll read onward, looking from the edge of my seat, for the accurate answer.
The facile answers to these questions that have been seized upon by the media involve the Egyptians' supposed respect for the military, and the funding that has continued to flow into the country from the United States. Both of these answers are unsatisfying, and ultimately question begging.
Someone grieving over a tortured or murdered innocent loved one, or someone on the schedule for today's torture session, or today's murder victim list, to be executed in due time, may beg for a little less flow of dollars from where dollars come from to where dollars are going when dollars are purchasing employees willing to execute those things on those lists of things to do.
All things are relative, such as who begs for what, and why one person may beg more than another for virtually the same thing.
I get put off by many of the right leaning authors, inspiring me to take a defensive posture, it seems to me.
I'll read on, the answers may be worth the effort required to receive them.
The real reason for these men's ability to keep their jobs and effectively maintain the Mubarak-inspired police state is that the Egyptian people neglected the most important aspect of protest in the modern world; monetary protest.
I am almost falling off the edge of my seat now. This writer obviously understands the whole picture - the power struggle. I'll read on expecting to find words that reinforce my own understanding, briefly, that people sharing a common goal of avoidance are people that won't reach that goal without the power required to accomplish the goal.
People need water power, or they suffer and die of thirst.
People need food power, or they suffer and die of hunger.
There can be no secondary goal achievable without satisfying the primary goals first.
I'll read on.
In the modern world of fiat currencies printed by governments like Mubarak's, it is not enough to say "get out and stop oppressing us," even if millions of people are saying it. It is not enough to storm the presidential palace and string up the dictator like a hog, as the still-oppressed people of Romania know all too well. It is not enough to demand elections, and it is not enough to demand freedom. Instead, what is ultimately needed is to cut off the beast's funding and starve it to death. No dictatorship, junta or even republic in the world can survive if it cannot finance itself. The mantra of the revolution ought to have been "Down with Mubarak money!"
Someone familiar with my work may wonder why I am very disappointed with that news item, that quote of that news item, that message in text above, and I can explain.
The People don't have to protest. Once the people solve their own money problems the people thereby change course from dependence, from subjugation, from victimization, and onto whatever people do once they are no longer having their life's power sucked out of them, one drop of blood at a time, one cent at a time, one dollar at a time, one ounce of power at a time, and the consequence, not the goal, is that the parasites are left with fewer choices.
The problem I have with the news item is such that the author appears to set the goal as: "Down with Mubarak money!"
That places the cart before the horse.
Cart: "Down with fill in the blank money"
Horse: "Up with monetary competition"
Monetary competition forces money to be better and cheaper. The reason why The People are powerless against their oppressors is simple, understandable, and easy to fix.
The people do not have access to better money, cheaper money, money they can use to do the things that people do, when people have better money, cheaper money, things like prospering, things like increasing the standard of living, and things like decreasing the cost of living, by cooperative effort, by specialization, by agreement, by division of labor, by invention, by adaptation, by economies of scale (dividing fixed costs by more people paying fixed costs thereby making things cheaper to make), and all the things people will do, which, by the way, avoids the situation whereby people are powerless in the face of now powerless oppressors.
Plan A.
The people power < oppressors power = oppression of the people by oppressors
Plan B:
The people power > oppressors power = not A
How do the people accomplish "Down with fill in the blank money" when people do not have the power they need, when people do not have the power they gain when the people have the best money that money can buy, the stuff they need to prosper, and how can that happen when monetary competition is against the law.
Who makes the law that makes money competition against the law?
What is the value of that law, if it is made, if the people merely decide, as one, on one glorious day, to avoid that law, and allow monetary competition to force money quality up to the highest possible quality, and force the cost of money to the lowest possible cost?
My right wing friends, of which there are none currently, do not confess the truth about money.
They lie, and liars are not my friends.
I will read on to see if there is more value in this news currency authored by this right leaning economist authority type.
My hopes of finding accurate currency flowing through this medium outlet are now much less hopeful, after reading that very bad news, about how this author misdirects people with false information.
False by roughly opposite - not half. Not half true, it seems to me, opposite of the truth.
A. Protest and demand a new money, coerce other people into enforcing new money.
B. Voluntarily agree to allow monetary competition, start allowing it, and then the force of competition forces money to become available whereby the highest quality money at the lowest cost is produced by whomever wins that competition, as that competition continues, and as that force works to do what that force does, as all the consumers of money choose the better money, the better money at the lower cost.
A is opposite of B.
A is not half true. A is false, A is a bad plan, one not worth executing.
Plan B is opposite of A. Plan B voluntarily forces people to avoid crime, by setting examples of good behavior.
Good wins.
Bad loses.
Why would anyone ever suggest to anyone else to follow a plan whereby Bad wins and Good loses?
I don't know. Someone doing that would have to confess their true reasoning.
I am going to read on, despite having my hopes destroyed by the words so far written by this right leaning authority on political economy.
The protesters thus ought to have made dumping the Egyptian pound and adopting a non-governmental currency the central plank of their protest. They should have enjoined their fellow countrymen to sell their Mubarak money for gold or silver or anything else that's real, and the value of the pound would have plummeted instantly and massively, which would have spurred even more selling. The patriots who participated in this monetary revolt would have protected themselves from losses by getting out of the pound, while the traitors to freedom in the regime and those who supported the regime by holding onto Mubarak's pounds would have lost everything. Moreover, the police and military that are paid with Mubarak's crooked paper money would see an instant and massive de facto pay decrease. This would have forced Mubarak's central bank to print even more money to finance the military, police and all other bureaucracies, which would have turned the Egyptian pound into toilet paper. The coup de grace of the monetary racket would then be for the protestors to simply use the worthless paper the junta and Mubarak printed to pay their taxes. A hefty dose of their own crooked monetary medicine would be all that is needed to collapse the regime without even one shot being fired (by the protesters, anyway).
That to me is the half truth, which is better than the opposite of truth, and to explain I can offer some words.
The oppressed will protest oppression with each example of each person choosing a better currency, but there is very little power in a single choice by a single person avoiding oppression in that way.
A. Protest oppression
B. Choose to use a better money
The false or opposite of truth part is the part where the goal of a person is to protest. The whole truth is the truth by which a person decides to take the power he, or she, has and use that power to better his, or her, own situation.
The half truth is the part whereby the author leaves out the vital part whereby the single person has to find someone else to agree with the choice to take power and use power as a shared goal.
I can't, alone, decide to use better money; there is no power in it.
I have to find at least one other person to agree to use better money, and then there is power in that mutual agreement.
Both of the people agreeing to that choice to take power into their own hands make power and both have power by that choice. That choice isn't a choice by which one person gains power at the expense of someone else.
That choice, between two people, mutually gaining power, is minuscule, power-less, compared to all the other people who still choose to be oppressed by the blood soaked, fraudulent legal monopoly money, whereby power flows through that monetary pyramid scheme, from the people who create wealth to the people who produce and maintain that fraudulent monopoly money crime spree.
A. Many, many, many, many people linked into an ongoing crime spree where the power of the victims continues to flow toward and power up the legal criminals who run their legal monopoly money syndicates.
B. Two people finally changing their goals from "protesting" or trying to force someone else to bend to their will and instead: adopting the goal of mutual agreement, and all the good things that can begin from that new beginning.
A > B
A is very power full (the power of numbers), while B is two people.
Getting from A > B and getting to A < B requires more than 2 people choosing Plan B instead of Plan A.
Plan A: Force other people to bend to your will, by deception, by violence, or by any means necessary.
Plan B: Agree to allow competition in money markets and thereby force the best money at the lowest cost into the money market
The right leaning authority offers half of the truth, sometimes.
I will read on.
There is no doubt that the collapse of Mubarak's money printing and taxing racket would entail much short-term hardship for Egyptians.
That is the same guy who accused someone else of question begging. If any group of people on Earth decide to adopt plan B instead of plan A they immediately reap the benefits of that decision.
The problem remains to be the same problem and that problem is created and executed by the people who will do things that secure their money monopoly power, they will decide to enforce their money monopoly power, they will destroy competition.
That is a serious problem and a problem that must be considered by any group of people who voluntarily decide to allow competition in money markets.
Here is one very good example:
Worgl Austria Stamp Script Negative Interest Money
That example of monetary competition was forced out of business. That powerful example of monetary competition was outlawed by a higher, and very criminal, legal power.
The power of numbers did not work for the force of competition in that example. The power of numbers, numbers of people, worked for the legal crime people, the monopoly power, in that example.
Two more examples that illustrate the power struggle between the voluntary collection of people choosing money competition, on one side, and the collection of people choosing to make monetary competition illegal on the other side are two very good examples in American History.
A. Shays's Rebellion
B. The Whiskey Rebellion
George Washington, turn coat to the cause of liberty, assembled an army the size of the one he had when he had defeated the British, Washington then used that Watermelon Army to crush that example of monetary competition, as The People chose whiskey as a form of monetary currency, a choice inspired by the fraud monopoly money powers as it drove gold out of the colonies as the criminals began sucking the life blood from the people who created wealth in the colonies.
The choice of severing all connections to the legal criminals, once the legal criminals outlaw competition in money markets, becomes a cause for the legal criminals to act, and the act they choose is to torture, and to mass murder, or do anything necessary to enforce their monopoly once their monopoly is in force.
The power of numbers must be secured by The People before the people can become powerful enough to avoid the power of legal crime.
That is the whole, ugly, truth.
I'll read on, despite the familiar spin being put on this "news" item.
Freed from the shackles of a currency that constantly loses value against their food, they could finally start saving and investing for the benefit of themselves and their children. Indeed, they would stand alone in the world as a people that finally possessed a money that their government could not manipulate, depreciate and confiscate.
The familiar spin here is the false association between government and legal crime.
A government can be voluntary, or non-criminal, and this is a proven fact. Any agreement of any kind between any number of people constitutes a government. Why does that mutual agreement, in any case whatsoever, not constitute a human government?
If the argument is such that government is hereby defined, by me, to be, and only be, as I say it is, and I say, not to ever be thought of, or spoken of, in any way, by anyone, ever, or suffer punishment for that crime of saying, otherwise, that government is, and always will be, involuntary, or it isn't government - then that is an argument.
What would be the point of such an argument?
A. Voluntary government
B. Not A
If I say that two people agree to act according to a mutually beneficial set of actions, and they mutually agree not to act out a mutually understandable set of actions not to be acted out, then I'm describing something specific, and the label I used to describe what actually happens is just a label, the thing actually happening actually happens even if I stop calling it one thing and even if I start calling it Fried Chicken.
A. Fried Chicken
B. Not A
The thing is what is it, the thing isn't what I call it.
Why argue?
The spin spun by the right leaning author is a familiar plan followed by a familiar execution of the plan and the plan goes like this:
Bad thing A is called: Bad thing
The thing I don't like is called: The thing I don't like.
If I substitute the label of one thing for the label of the other thing I can spin the truth into something false and I can attach bad sentiments onto the thing I don't like.
Example A:
Sentence A:
I don't like The thing I don't like.
That is the truth.
Now the plan is to substitute one label for another label, so as to execute my plan.
Sentence A is spun as follows:
I don't like the Bad thing.
What is the reader going to think when the person writing is writing about "The thing I don't like" and the writer is using the false label instead of the true label?
Example B:
Sentence B:
Crime is bad
Spun sentence:
Government is bad
or
Spun sentence:
Socialism is bad
or
Spun sentence:
Money is bad
or
Spun sentence:
Capitalism is bad
or
Spun sentence:
The gun did it.
Bad bad bad gun.
People who murder and torture massive numbers of innocent victims have a vested interest in blaming their plans, and blaming their actions on anything other than their plans and their acts.
Does that make sense?
Was that once common sense?