 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
A lying, thieving, torturing, and mass murdering representative represents other lying, thieving, torturing, and mas murdering employers, who hire that lying, thieving, torturing, and mass murdering representative.
That is a simple understanding, but it is only simple if the person understanding that simple understanding is not suffering from false belief, whereby simple understanding is rendered powerless, and the error of false belief leads to an exponential increase in confusion as each false step leads the infected person along a rapidly increasing mire of complexity as the web of lies grows, understandably, simply, as a exponential growth rate function.
One lie fails to explain reality, leading to two lies failing to explain two of the best false explanations resulting from failure to arrive at a true explanation for reality, leading to four best false explanations for the two earlier failed best competitors working toward explaining reality, leading to eight, sixteen, more, and more, error, and leaving the viewpoint incapable of unraveling the complexity that starts with the first lie.
That is the progress of error resulting from a person seeking explanations for reality, willfully working at explaining reality, but set on the wrong path by one lie, and failing to accurately identify the first error.
That fails to explain the cause of the lie, as a willful effort by someone, to set someone else along a false path. The creator of the lie, however, can also illustrate the exponential increase in complexity, resulting from lies, willfully produced as a means of injuring someone else, or lies that subject someone to false belief in the lie, either way, the progression of the lie is exponential; leading to something called falsehood. The creator of the lie, the person subjecting other people to the lie, sets in motion an exponential demand for more lies to cover up each challenge to the first lie, and this can be seen, again, as a failure to explain reality.
A. Reality
B. False reality
C. Hypothesis 1 (fails to explain reality)
D. Hypothesis 2 (fails to explain reality)
False reality is created, and since it is false reality it fails to explain reality, leading to many challenges to false reality, and competition among the many challengers, leading to the last two most plausible explanations, leading to one of two methods of resolving discrepancies as such:
A. Reality
B. False reality
C. Hypothesis 1
D. Hypothesis 2
C. Employ false reality in the work of explaining discrepancies
D. Challenge false reality (the first lie) instead of proceeding to explain reality based upon false reality
The originator of the lie willfully chooses C. A lie must be created to misdirect efforts to support Hypothesis 1, the best of the best explanations for failure to explain why the false reality does not explain reality, and another lie must be created to misdirect efforts to support Hypothesis 2, the second best explanation for failure to explain why the false reality does not explain reality.
The victim who is subject to the lie, not knowing that the lie is a willful lie, may, at some point, question the first lie, and if so, an awaking occurs, if the subject of the lie has been subjected to a long period of false belief in the lie, failing to explain reality, and following a false path, an ignorant path, moving from each new false explanation to the next false explanation, and failing to accurately identify the cause, until such time as, in the moment of awakening, the subject who is subjected to the lie, finds the original false reality, challenges the original false reality, and overcomes it, by replacing the original false reality with a demand for an accurate explanation of reality, one that works, at least until a challenge to the validity of a working explanation arises.
If you have read any of my writing you can see, as I do, how my viewpoint works, and I can explain further, that this is a binary viewpoint, and logical, reasonable, such a math, such as simple math, one plus one equals two.
If there are two best possible explanations for reality, any specific real thing that is as yet unexplained, one is of higher quality, at a lower cost, compared to the other, and this is the nature of competition, the force of competition, is based upon binary logic, one explanation becomes the obvious winner, and the other explanation becomes the obvious loser, until such time as a better competitor that explains reality more effectively is known.
A false step leads to two more false steps which leads to four more false steps. Failure to challenge the first false step is an exponential increase is difficulty if the objective is to explain reality.
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
It may be a good idea to step back and adopt a new base from which to proceed from, whereby the people desiring a more accurate explanation for reality challenge the notion that the people hired to run the government are good people who are making mistakes as these good people try to do good things.
A person who practices to deceive does so on purpose. Do you practice to deceive on purpose? If someone does practice to deceive on purpose they may be trying to deceive themselves on purpose, some people do this, this is a documented fact, but the base from which you may want to adopt, is a base from which you entertain the notion that the people who are hired to run the government are hired to deceive specific people, not themselves, and they are not hired to deceive the people who hire them.
A. People who willfully deceive themselves (a self-preservation mechanism, to avoid knowing things that are too destructive to the person who cannot handle that specific reality)
B. People who willfully deceive other people, while these people who willfully deceive other people are not deceived, not subject to the deception, themselves.
C. People who hire people to deceive other people because the people hired to deceive other people are very effective at that practice, both employee and employer are not subject to the deceptions
I wrote all that above as a lead in to a few things that my efforts have won a long battle to back track each supposed truth, challenge each one, so as to arrive at a higher quality explanation, having no better challenger to the higher quality explanation, and to offer the higher quality explanation up for any challenger anywhere, on specific things.
All that above is introductory. What comes next is specific to current reality.
I. The Constitution is not a document designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite.
II. Capitalism is not a method of commerce designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite.
III. Law is not based upon punishment, it is based upon the opposite.
IV. Science is not based upon truth, it is based upon the opposite.
V. Religion is not based upon belief, it is based upon the opposite.
You may reach this point in reading and conclude that I do not represent you, and my viewpoint is false, and that is why I don't represent you, because you won't settle for false viewpoints, you prefer to know the truth instead.
How can you know the truth if you do not challenge your perceptions of the truth?
I can begin to challenge what I have earned as a more accurate viewpoint concerning specific things listed above. I've done my homework, you can ignore what I have to offer, as a competitive challenge to popular falsehoods, at your own cost. You can remain in a state of ignorance willfully, as you see fit, and I certainly do not represent you if that is your choice.
I. The Constitution is not a document designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite.
The process by which The Articles of Confederation were replaced by The Constitution is well documented by the people who went through that process, and the facts concerning why that process was willfully set upon is clearly explained by those who perpetrated that campaign of willful deceit by those criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Morris, upon their targeted victims, all the people who then became subject to those lies, from that point onward.
If you are one of the people who are subject to the lies that moved the process by which The Articles of Confederation were replaced by The Constitution, then that is what you are, a subject to those lies, and if you fail to admit it, you deceive yourself. This is your notice, do with this as you please, at your own peril. you will be powerless from this point on, because you fail to know the facts.
I can offer support for this challenge to that lie, and the next two things I offer represent a tip of the iceberg of support that challenges that lie, the lie that subjects the victim of the lie to a false perception that The Constitution is designed to perpetuate a state of liberty, it is not, it is designed to do the exact opposite.
Evidence item 1:
http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/index.htm
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
That is a document that is designed to perpetuate a state of liberty, and to do so by inspiring anyone who has command of the power of reason to continue challenging anyone who may employ the concept of government falsely so as to use government as a tool to help the employer of the tool to commit crimes.
Evidence item 2:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The first insurrection that set defenders of liberty against a new criminal government occurred in Massachusetts under The Articles of Confederation, when such challenges were still considered legal, and the criminals running money monopoly tax funded aggressive wars for profit up into Canada, the criminals running the legal crime ring in the Massachusetts government, encountered difficulty enforcing their tax payments, from their victims, in gold, since their worthless money products drove gold out of the criminal state, and their victims invented whiskey as currency to replace the scarce gold money supply, and the "rebels" had enough of that, so they rebelled, lost the rebellion, and fled to a better state, a state that wasn't as criminal, they fled to Vermont, the rebels lost the rebellion against the criminal Massachusetts government and they fled to a better example of a more perfect union in Vermont, and by that precedent, the Swiss model Democratic Federated Republic worked as it was intended to work, whereby competition in government markets forced the quality of government higher, at a lower cost to the consumer.
That precedent bode badly for the legal criminals, who could not tolerate competition in money markets, and therefore they could not tolerate competition in government markets, so they set about to make examples of those who take it upon themselves to challenge omnipotent government dictators and their dictatorships.
Back to this:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
That is the stuff that leads to this:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;
That is, again, the tip of the iceberg that unravels the lie that makes the victims believe that The Constitution was designed to perpetuate a sate of liberty, it was not, it was designed to help perpetuate a dictatorship; legal crime.
II. Capitalism is not a method of commerce designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite.
This subject is difficult to unravel because the supporters of capitalism hide their secrets, they do not confess their true motives, they absolutely refuse to be led back to the source of their lies, so all efforts to uncover the truth require a measure of subjective assumption, but not much. I am not speaking of State Capitalists, I am speaking about free market capitalists, and the focus of attention that could lead anyone to the simple, base, truth of the design and purpose of capitalism, according to its supporters, is the focus of attention that focuses on two specific things concerning capitalism.
A. The method of pricing
B. The highest quality money, forced into production by free market forces, where the best money is produced and priced at the lowest cost.
To put it mildly: all discussions between myself and anyone promoting capitalism has been, is, and will be interesting, and to get to the principles behind capitalism the process must get past all the lies first, and this has been a proven fact, a well documented fact, a repeatable fact, and I can only hope, beyond hope, that the same path won't be the path of choice again, where the supporters of capitalism choose the path of falsehood, so as to keep their secrets secret, and to cover up their true motives, and eliminate all competition to their dogma, where ever, and when ever it arises.
A very good start, if I get to start the Challenge to capitalists who support capitalism is to offer a few examples of higher quality money, at a lower cost, and then challenge a supporter of capitalism to explain which money would be the better money that would be produced as a result of free market forces.
These following forms of money have challenged other forms of money and they have proven themselves to be higher quality and lower priced money products:
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904
http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf
http://www.libertydollar.org/
I've done my homework here too, so if you are prepared for a fair challenge, then let us get to it, we can all profit from such a challenge, at the expense of no one; excepting those people who make a living out of earning at the expense of their victims, who will no longer have the power to do so, once their victims are clued in.
III. Law is not based upon punishment, it is based upon the opposite.
Law is an agreement between individual people who choose to avoid the resort to crime as a means of earning a living. Punishment is what criminals do, it is their MO, and to be convinced that punishment is the basis of law, is to do what? I've done my homework here too, be ready for a challenge to your beliefs, and we can borrow from many sources, including religion, but when the rubber meets the road, you know, you really do known, that criminals don't obey laws, that is what they do, so making a law that applies to a criminal is missing the point.
Criminals use law to control power, limit the supply of power to a manageable level, and use that stolen power to eliminate all competition where ever, and when ever competition arises, and the criminal function of punishment is for these goals exactly, to take power from those who create power, the only power source, to use that stolen power to govern the production of power to a manageable level of scarcity, and to eliminate all competition where ever and when ever competition arises. Punishment to a criminal is that which is done to the victims, and that which is not done to the criminals, because criminals do not obey laws, that is what they do, they construct and enforce laws that apply only to their targeted victims, which invariably happen to be the people who produce surplus wealth, and they are themselves exempt from those very same laws. To believe otherwise is a poor investment of brain power.
These viewpoints I offer assume an agreement to employ language as a tool that intends to convey accurate meaning; and therefore it is important to resolve any contentions concerning worlds that may not be understood as having a common, agreeable, meaning; such as the word punishment.
Example:
If a voluntary association of people agree to cooperate with each other and avoid, pledge to avoid, promise to avoid, agree to avoid, resorting to crime as a means of earning a living, then the concept of punishment can be seen as an agreement to choose an agreeable path whenever one of the volunteers does resort to crime, by some momentary loss of control, and once the volunteer regains control of his, or her, good moral sense, then, at that point, the volunteer volunteers to abide by the agreeable laws, once again, after having suffered a momentary weakness, after having resorted to a temporary use of crime as a means of earning a living, the agreeable law followed includes willful actions that are designed to restore any damage that may have resulted from the momentary error in judgment whereby the volunteer did, in a moment of weakness, resort to crime as a means of earning a living, at the expense of the targeted victim or victims. A person can call that effort to restore any damage caused by a former law abiding, volunteer, in a voluntary association, as a punishment, a means of helping people to avoid those errors, and a person can then say, by that use of those words, that punishment deters crime; but why contort language to such a state of ineffectiveness? If the former law abiding person turns to crime and then returns to abiding by law, the person volunteers to restore the damage done, how can that be punishment? We can all agree that punishment, in that sense, is a means by which volunteers, reasonably, decide to restore any damages caused by a volunteer, if a volunteer does decide to be a criminal, momentarily, and then the volunteer decides to return to an agreeable association, and then agrees to suffer punishment. Why distort language so willfully?
Punishment is a criminal invention, punishment is a synonym for crime, and punishment is what a criminal volunteers to do to an intended victim, the criminal intends to profit at the expense of the targeted victim, punish the victim, transfer power from the victim, to the criminal. That is crime. If you want to know how a system of governance becomes up-side-down, going from a design that intends to perpetuate a state of liberty and going into a tool used by criminals so that criminals gain control over the scarce supply of power, and then use that control over power to make sure the power remains scarce, so that they alone set the price on power, and they then jack up the price to whatever the monopoly market will bear, and they use that power to eliminate all competition where ever and when ever competition arises, well, you have a clue now. They distort language, and they make people believe in lies, and they make people think that crime is good, that punishment is good, that law is based upon the concept of punishment, and that law is not based upon the concept of reasonable agreement among volunteers who agree to avoid resorting to crime as a means of earning (stealing) a living.
That depends upon what is is.
People, not things, distort language, and it is a function of deception, and deception is a function of violence.
An effective method of dealing with criminals is to gain more power than they have, and then use that power to avoid criminals, sever all contact with criminals, because contact with a criminal, by definition, is an expense to the victim, and a profit for the criminal. If you want to call avoidance of all contact with criminals punishment, then you do so from the criminal perspective; to the criminal it is a punishment to have his, or her, connections to his, or her, victims severed, to the victims, it seems to me, it is an effective, reasonable, and effective use of scarce power in defense against crime.
Criminals volunteer to be criminals, it is a willful act to plan on injuring innocent victims, and it is also a willful act to execute, or hire someone, or trick someone, to execute the premeditated, aggressive, injury to an innocent victim, so if a criminal knows that such a willful act will, by design, transfer power from the targeted, and thereby injured, victim, then the criminal volunteers to be a criminal, as a willful choice. If a criminal is accurately identified by the victims, before or after the crime is executed, then the victims, and the potential victims, can choose to expend power toward the effective work of severing connections between the criminal and the victim, if that is done, then criminals know, beforehand, that crime won't pay, in the long term, and crime won't pay as much in the short term; when defense against crime moves toward effective plans and effective actions that are designed to avoid crime. When the victims use their power to profit at the expense of the criminals; they become that which they, supposedly, abhor, they are no longer innocent, they are slightly less criminal in principle - like screwing to regain virginity.
Resorting to punishment, without twisting language into something that cannot communicate effectively, is the same thing as resorting to crime, as a means of making a living.
The universally agreeable concept of law is not the same thing as the creation and employment of a defensive military force, but that is another subject.
I can speak much more on this subject but for now I want to move back to my laundry list.
IV. Science is not based upon truth, it is based upon the opposite.
Science, as far as I know, can arrive at only one sure thing, and this sure thing, this one indisputable scientific fact, is proven even during any effort to disprove it, and, unfortunately, this one indisputable scientific fact renders the power humans have to discover any more indisputable facts impossible. Since this viewpoint I offer is so absolutely certain I'll leave it to those who are willing to challenge it, without too much effort on my part to support it in the face of potential challenges.
V. Religion is not based upon belief, it is based upon the opposite.
What I have to say here is akin to the last challenge, as my viewpoint is self evidently true. My viewpoint does not rely upon subjective interpretation. I deny subjective interpretation of religion. I do so as follows, and these are mere words, the meaning that intends to be transferred from me to the reader may not transfer well due to the limitations of human language.
God is truth.
Truth is God.
They are one and the same thing. If you want to communicate something you know to someone else, from my viewpoint, you can interchange the word God with the word Truth, and the message will be the same message in either case.
Example:
I have decided to employ what life I have left in search of the truth.
Again, the message here may not transfer well from me to you. I can work with this method of understanding religion. It works for me. I'm not going to say that God told me to see religion this way, because I don't know the truth. The best I can do is to employ what life I have left in search of the truth. I can guess. God doesn't have me on speed dial, not yet. I will keep looking, and I won't settle for less.
I have declared war on falsehood awhile ago, and it works for me, so far, I represent only me.
Those who hire liars, to lie, get what they pay for, and that may be closer to the truth than those who hire liars want to get.