 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
04-20-2011
Anyone,
A reference was made to Andrew Jackson, and I have some news on that President.
During the build up to the Civil War, Madison and Jefferson began moving power from the consolidated government (Nationalism, or despotism) back to a Democratic Federated Republican form, by authoring The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which were quasi-legal statements claiming, or almost claiming, a legal power, held by a State, to veto laws that are written and then enforced by the National government people.
Andrew Jackson decided to turn his coat, flip flop, go back on his word, break his campaign promises, and side with consolidation, or monopoly, power, and he then set in motion a military force that would be used to enforce a consolidated National government law, in this case a tax law, on the people in the States that intended to veto said law. That is the same president, Andrew Jackson, who did break up the national monopoly banking power, as promised, and I think he, Andrew Jackson, had it written on his tomb stone, I Killed the Bank.
A monopoly power, by definition, is a power that exists when competition does not exist, and competition is a force, a collective power, a summation of many individual powers, that forces quality up and cost down. So, logically, what happens when a monopoly power exists, what happens in the absence of competition, and you can guess: quality goes down, and cost goes up, or, in other words: The average standard of living decreases, the supply of power decreases, surplus wealth decreases, but who pays the bills?
The only ones who can.
The honest working productive people pay the bills, no one else can, by definition.
Nationalism, is monopoly power defining itself, as the few intend to, and then accomplish, the goal of gaining power over surplus wealth, then using that power to make sure that no one else has enough power to gain that power, and this is the same thing as crime. Crime is the same thing, whereby the criminal intends to, and then accomplishes, the goal of gaining power over a victim. A criminal does not ask another criminal if it is OK to steal from a victim, unless there are too many criminals, and not enough victims, which isn't good for criminals, because someone has to actually work, or there isn't any surplus wealth. So, criminals, must, as a rule, minimize the number of criminals feeding off the number of victims, so by that understanding, it is easy to see that the criminal club must be exclusive. There is one, and only one, absolute ruler, in the form of government called Nationalism, there cannot be two, two absolute rulers moves away from Nationalism, and two absolute rulers moves the form of government into the realm of Federated Republicanism. Moving absolute rule to more than two absolute rulers moves the government form even further away from Nationalism, through the Federated Republican form, and on into a Democratic form, and if all the people agree to all be absolute rulers, no one having more power over anyone else, what, with the knowledge you command, is that form of government?
The point here, is to point out, if you want to know, that moving closer to Nationalism (despotism, organized crime, by any other name it is the same thing), moves absolute power closer to one exclusive power, closer to a monopoly, and further away from competition, and therefore power moves further away from the force of competition, whereby quality goes up, and cost goes down, which is possible, it is possible for power to move to increase the force of competition if the supply of power increases to a level of abundance, everyone has the power to compete, not just one, whereby everyone has more then enough power needed, and then even more power than that, where everyone has more power than they need, which isn't what the criminals, or the supporters of Nationalism want, because they want exclusive power to steal from those who create power.
What do you think was meant by the phrase: The Pursuit of Happiness?
A. I'm happy so long as I get something for nothing from me, no cost to me, something I get, at the expense of someone else.
B. More than enough for everyone
C. Torture and mass murder, and the end of the human species, as soon as humanly possible
Does it depend upon who you ask?
Listening to Alex Jones is very important to me. Few people, more people now than ever, that I know about, speak about current events, whereby the worst of the worst legal criminals are being accounted for, so as to provide the potential victims with the knowledge needed if the goal is to avoid becoming a victim, and even, if the goal in mind is to help other people avoid becoming victims.
The Paul Revere effect - perhaps.
Or more words from Patrick Henry apply, the bit about knowing the worst of it, etc.
I now hear Alex Speaking about Magna Carta.
I have two things for you on that subject.
A.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html
Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences
B.
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm
The first link is an exhaustive study on Trial by Jury, from which the reader may learn something about the original concept of Trial by Jury. Please do consider reading and learning those concepts.
They include:
1. Each individual person is empowered with the legal power to veto any law.
2. Each individual person selected to be on a jury will be selected randomly, so as to remove any power that will Stack the Jury in favor of any interest associated with each case
3. The number 12 is merely a function of averages, 12 is enough people to speak for all of The People, whereby a large enough number is needed to represent all classes, and all interests, of the entire collective body of The People, and a small enough number is needed to ensure that trials will be expedient, and therefore capable of accomplishing the intended job and therefore not capable of working against the intended job.
4. The intended job is defined as a means by which The People subject to government defend themselves against oppression by The People who operate government.
5. Members of the Jury command absolute power over all judgment in each case, including the absolute power to judge the validity of the law, without exception, each juror is a legal sovereign power, each entrusted with the duty of nullifying oppressive laws according to each individual jurors own, exclusive, power of moral judgment, conversely, each is entrusted with the duty of accurately identifying the people who are guilty of perpetrating crimes, and the duty of prescribing a morally justifiable punishment, if any.
I can tell you that such talk, because I've done my homework, inspired the people running the Fully Informed Jury Association Forum, to exile me, remove me from that forum, without even allowing me a proper defense. In that one person's view, I was presumed to be guilty, and there wasn't even a burden of proof, the presumption went right to punishment. Does that sound familiar?
The second link addresses the meaning of the quote taken from the first link.
The murder of the king even was punishable by fine.
Do you understand how such a thing would have worked in historical context?
Did you read the essay by Jim Bell? Please note that Jim Bell, as far as I know, was arrested and is still doing time in prison. Can you imagine that?
Jim Bell's essay can be known as a science fiction novel based upon historical fact. Do you know what a put option is, and how that works?
A classic example of a put option is the example by which some people purchased legal financial paper whereby the buyer of the paper paid a price to get the paper and if American Airline stock plummets in value the person who bought the put option "makes a killing", or, in other words makes a profit, as the paper is thereby legally worth more money that it was worth when it was originally purchased.
The concept is also called "futures". It is gambling, or speculating, and prior knowledge of impending disaster is a powerful thing, so powerful, as to inspire the future thing to happen, in some cases. You may be confused by my words here, and you may be less confused if you read the links.
At some point the focus of attention by a whole lot of people, focusing attention at one thing, causes that one thing to happen, and it is a good idea, in my opinion, to be aware of how that works, and to be concerned about how that can work against many of us, cost us too much, and how that can work too well for a very few of us, as the very few profit, at our collective expense.
I think that Jim Bell went to prison for a thought crime, so you may want to check out what Jim Bell thought up.
Or not.