 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Why do we continually look to corrupt entities to provide us things we don't need?
HCKaos,
I can offer:
The first thing that must be done by someone, or some group, to over-power their target victims is deception.
Knowing that, from my viewpoint, your sentence can be taken apart and inspected for clues that may (or may not) uncover deception precisely.
You choose the word "we".
Why do you choose the word "we"?
Why do ____________ continually look to corrupt entities to provide __________ things ____________ don't need?
Why do you choose the word "us" and the word "we" when you are asking that question above?
I ran for congress, I've been working on these questions for decades, and I can offer to you a measure of accurate discrimination.
Who is "we"?
Do you understand the vital necessity of knowing, and accurately knowing, the difference between us and them, or, in other words friends for foes, or in other words criminals and potential victims?
I have spent a whole lot of time and energy (power) on these questions and I can offer, also, that it is better to call a spade a spade, rather than to choose to mince words, and rather than to choose to use euphemisms, or half truths, or choose to use less-than-precise word choices, when the goal is to accurately discriminate between criminals and the potential victims of those criminals - legal or otherwise.
I don't think that "we" (if I among that set of people) continually look to corrupt anything, other than looking to expose corrupt anything.
The British aren't coming, they are here - so to speak.
After decades of working on gaining the power of accurate discrimination between those who are criminals and those who are potential victims I have something to offer to you.
In between criminals and their victims are many relatively greater criminals and relatively greater victims, along a bell curve, if you employ illustrations of reality so as to better understand reality; a bell curve illustrates reality.
On the far end of criminal behavior, documented criminal behavior, actual criminal behavior, provable (beyond a shadow of doubt) criminal behavior, is the worst one.
That worst one may have many rivals, fellow criminals perpetrating as much, or more, misery upon more, and more, and more innocent victims, and even victims not so innocent.
There you have a fly in the ointment.
I see a need to summarize at this point, so as to accurately identify that speed bump, that fly in the ointment.
A. An innocent potential victim (more or less innocent) decides to use the power he, or she, has in the work of accurately discriminating between the worst bad guys, and gals, and the not as bad ones.
B. The illustration of a bell curve becomes apparent, as the goal materializes into view, where the worst of the worst are on one end of the bell curve, recording deeds of massive torture and massive murder, and those are few people in number as the measure of their evil measures up by them, as they perpetrate more and more crime.
That is the summary.
The fly in the ointment involves the accurate measure of something called innocence.
That speed bump, that fly in the ointment, must be confused, it must be a power that is weakened, because that power, once it is weakened, measures something worth knowing.
One might ask: Why is the power of innocence weakened? Who weakens it? Why does anyone, ever, choose to weaken the power of innocence?
Do you fully comprehend, and understand, know, and value the power of innocence?
If not, then, you are adding to the measure of weakness.
Innocence is that which is when crime isn't.
Therefore; the measure of a lack of innocence is the measure of crime, like the measure of the lack of heat is the measure of cold, and the measure of the lack of light is the measure of darkness, and the measure of the lack of knowledge is the measure of ignorance, and the measure of lack of truth is the measure of falsehood, and the measure of the lack of peace is the measure of violence, and even, the measure of lack of ectropy is the measure of entropy, or the measure of lack of trust is the measure of disbelief (or uncertainty), and the lack of the measure of faith is the measure of belief (or certainty).
So the speed bump, and the fly in the ointment, when illustrating the bell curve, the same bell curve that intends to help the viewer reach the goal of accurate discrimination between criminal and potential victim, is the measure of innocence.
It is easy to place the worst of the worst criminals on the top ten list, and then find the worst of the worst from that top ten list, and do so based upon the number of horrid screams voiced by the number of dead and dying victims.
What, though, with the speed bump in mind, happens when the number of victims are themselves criminals?
Now the person who set out to reach the goal of knowing who is on their side and who is not on their side is befuddled, confused, and thrown off track, wandering, aimless, and power-less.
It may help to know that doing the wrong thing can be better than not doing the right thing.
A more innocent person may be someone who uses power with the honest intention of preventing injury to innocent people, preserving innocence, but failing to do so, compared to the person failing to even try.
Example:
Two people in separate places from each other encounter a crime in progress.
Both person A and B see, right in front of them, an attack by one person upon another person, in progress.
Person A does something to intervene, but ends up increasing injury, for failing to employ power effectively.
Person B does absolutely nothing, ignoring the crime in progress, making a conscious decision to avoid any involvement whatsoever.
That is the basic principle, and there are historical examples, not limited to the shining example, the one historical example reported over and over again, whereby the people of Germany, the average German citizen, allowed the Nazi criminals (legal criminals) to torture and mass murder with their aggressive wars for profit, and worse crimes imaginable.
So, although it may appear easy at first, to reach for the goal of more accurately knowing the difference between the bad guys and the good guys, so as to move closer, in support of, the good guys, and move further away from, and oppose, the bad guys, it isn't easy because the bad guys make it difficult.
The bad guys have a secret weapon. The secret weapon is deception. The good guys had better understand that, sooner, rather than too late, or all hell will break loose, again, and again, and again, like a merry go round, like a business cycle, like a boom and bust cycle, and like a chaotic self-defeating effort to use the same solution, that never works, to fix the same problem, over and over again, always resulting in the same sorry situation, every time, and thinking, this time, the same tired old solution, will work this time.
Being caught into that mess, believing there are no other choices, renders the power to get out of it, power-less.
That mess is not random, that mess is not inevitable, and as innocent as someone may want to believe they are, them-selves, their innocence must be measured accurately, by some means, failing to do so, for example, condemns them, confesses their guilt, by that exact measure.
Look in the mirror, or in the words of an authority figure, he who is without guilt, cast the first stone.
That, all that giant wall of text above, intends to quantify the reason why the bell curve measures up as a bell curve.
On the far side toward absolute crime, the worst of the worst, is one person, or two people, and those two people may be actively targeting each other, and on the far opposite side is something, as yet to be known precisely, due to confusions that are caused, on purpose, by those two worst people on the far bad side, and in the middle are all the mixtures of all the half guilty and half innocent criminals who are also potential victims.
Do you have that in view?
Now look at how a pyramid works. A pyramid is man-made. On the bottom are the many. On the top is one. In order to get from the bottom to the top an individual must exploit, kill or be killed, all those who are around him, or her, because ascension upward within this type of system, a criminal system, requires the abuse of power, power employed in the work of gaining at the expense of less powerful victims. The pyramid type of social structure can be used by the interested observer to know how crime works. Criminals form alliances, but only so as to momentarily gain enough power over the targeted victims, and within those alliances each criminal will exploit each other criminal, to the extent of the power they command, at any given moment. The end result is well illustrated with a pyramid. The worst of the worst are on top, power from every other person flows to the top, and the least powerful, fellow criminals or absolutely only innocent victims, are the greatest number at the bottom.
The largest number on the bottom, the fewest number on the top, which is crime, as illustrated by a pyramid.
Crime is = kill or be killed.
That pyramid is a function of economy. Power can't be stolen if there isn't any power. Everyone can't spend every moment in each day stealing power from everyone else, there would be no one spending one second in the work of producing power, as everyone would be using up all the power in the work of deception and violence.
If you think this is wrong, look at any criminal enterprise, and know the tools that hare used, one tool is falsehood, the other is violence. The most effective crime is the crime that inspires the targeted victims, to work to death, voluntarily, in the work of sending every ounce of power to the criminals, and how those criminals divide those spoils, those profits, can be imagined, or even recorded accurately on ledgers. Lies and violence, and the most effective lie, avoids any wasted expense of violence, or covers-up the worst of the worst who think that violence is wealth.
Now, and this effort may be more than that which is in demand, the viewer can superimpose the illustrated criminal pyramid measure over the illustrated bell curve measure, so as to get a better idea as to who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, without error.
It can be concluded that among the top 10 percent, at the top of the power pyramid, by any measure, political or economic, or both, that those people, for the most part, got there by way of deceit and/or violence.
It can also be concluded that the best of the best are people somewhere in the deep recesses of the pyramid since, and this must be understood, in my opinion, since the only people who can over-power the criminals, are the people who can produce power. The very bottom of the pyramid, those who are unable, or unwilling to kill or be killed, those who are unwilling to use their power, ever, to climb up one more step, at the expense of anyone, may truly be, the far opposite end of the scale, furthest away from absolute crime. That viewpoint would totally refute the bell curve illustration, and that would only explain the pyramid structure, as if only the pyramid structure could exist. Everyone on the bottom is good, everyone on the top is bad, but wait, and again, a person with power is the only person able to oppose crime, and failure to use that power, at all, may be worse, almost as bad as crime, compared to someone who tries but fails to oppose crime.
The bell curve may yet be valid, with a closer look at all the many people who make up that bottom level of the pyramid. What do those people do, at that bottom level of the pyramid, how are those people known; what to they do to get on that level, and what do they do while they are on that level? Once those people are accurately measured, for what they do, then it can be known, by what they do, it can be known that a few of them are exceptional at what they do compared to what the rest of them, on that bottom of the pyramid, do.
Who is the best of the best, and why are they the best of the best, and note that this is a question, that the worst of the worst can't allow to be asked, let alone answered. Failing to out-law the asking of that question, and therefore the possibility of having that question answered accurately, threatens crime as a means of living (if you can call that way of life to be living)?
I am going to end this with the following offering, and then I have to get back to doing other things.
If the scale, by which everyone (on the pyramid scale, or on the bell curve scale, or on the scale that superimposes the bell curve scale over the pyramid scale), if the scale by which everyone is measured is a measure of net power produced after net power is consumed then the viewer may yet be able to see the bell curve - better - and the pyramid illustration may yet fade out of view, altogether.
If on the worst end of the bell curve a person was measured as the person who consumed the most power and produced the least power, then, look at this please, how would that person be any different than any measure of the worst criminal?
If on the opposite end of the bell curve a person was measured as the person who produced the most power and consumed the least power, then, how can you not see, that there would only be one person, and then there would be one person accurately measured less powerful in that way, and then more and more people would be accurately known to consume more and produce less, where the average person, in the middle of the bell curve, produced as much as they consumed.
I can't help it if my thinking, and publishing, isn't what you asked for, since I am free to think for myself, and it has not be an easy path to get to this point.
I can hope that this helps, and I can discuss the relative value, the relative power, of my viewpoint compared to any other, in time, here, in this place, and I can promise two things:
1. I will not willingly resort to falsehood in this effort.
2. I will comment when I think something is false, to challenge what I think is false, with the idea, the goal, of reaching the power of knowledge, the power of accurate discrimination between that which is true, and that which is not.
I can add:
Please, if you think what I write is even the least bit accurate, then be more accurate in identifying exactly what isn't accurate, and if possible, avoid ambiguous criticism, of which I've had my fill, and therefore I ask, please be specific about any exposures of error on my part. I can't learn from ambiguity, how could I?