 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
and
How can The Big Lie be accurately measured?
Inspired by
http://lewrockwell.com/caruba/caruba31.1.html
“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."
Anyone,
The single political power becomes the single political power by following a simple recipe: lie. The lie has to work. When the lie works, as planned, all the political power flows from every competitor to the one political power. Once that happens there is one head, if it is a cooler head, it may be benevolent, nice, polite, equitable, reasonable, rational, logical, peaceful, moral, honest, and productive. If it is not a cooler head, cooler heads can't prevail, not without a fight.
The next big fight is WWIII, and if you believe in the lie, you will support, and you will empower, and you will prosecute, and you will suffer WWIII; which brings up the question as to how can the big lie be measured accurately?
“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."
Here is your chance to participate in accurately measuring just how big that big lie measures up to be, in our world - today.
The author of that sentence manages to parrot the big lie, and therefore that sentence measures the big lie. The sentence measures the effects of the big lie, even if the reader can get past the false parts of the sentence.
Politics is "all in the mind", or it is psychological, it is measured in perception, it does not exist as a thing, it is not a being, it is not a physical mass, having no mass: it cannot be forced to accelerate, or decelerate, and it must be understood, in the mind, that it, politics, is separate from things, such as The Country.
Individual States, therefore, cannot break away from the country, and thinking as much, is lending psychosocial support, or moral support, which can lead to tangible support, or material support, to the single political power person, or dictator, or the single political power group, or despots, so you can now stop doing that, if you have been inspired to do that up to this point.
Please stop feeding the legal criminals, they are thereby well fed, powerful, and then they lie better, and then they steal better, and they then order aggressive wars for profit, and then they torture, and then they mass murder, all on your dime. Please stop.
The sentence claims that "One-in-Five Americans believe" that some of the victims have enough power, themselves, to be able to avoid further victimization.
If you can't understand my rewording of the inspiration quote, so as to cut out most of the falsehood, then you are measuring the lie, you do that, I don't.
You may have been taught, like I have been taught, that there was one group called The Founding Fathers, and that one group created a Republic, and that Republic was enabled into being by the founding document called: The Constitution, but I'm here to allow you to know that you were taught a big lie.
There were two major Founding Father groups, and to figure that out, you may have to teach yourself a thing or two, and avoid dependence upon liars for your information, to do so you also have to avoid depending upon parrots of liars as the liars do manage to get "believers" believing in the lies that the liars manufacture and propagate over time.
Resource A:
http://www.amazon.com/Other-Founders-Anti-Federalism-Dissenting-Tradition/dp/0807847860
You can read that, judge for yourself, and perhaps, you can be more powerful, and less likely to be victimized by the one group crowd, the nationalists, the despots, the elite, the whatever label you are allowed to call them these days.
In history they were called The Federalists, and they were not Federalists, they were Nationalists, they were legal criminals. They wanted, and they seized, dictatorial political power, and their opponents where Federalists, Democrats, Republicans, and people, of the type, who preferred a competition to see who could run government better, so as to know the measure of better government, rather than having government rammed down the throats of the victims, as if government were a synonym for crime.
They said as much.
Resource B:
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
The Country can be understood as a synonym for Society; which can be realized to be, and defined as, the honest productive people of America - or any place in the Universe where honest productive people create more than they consume, creating measures of surplus wealth, prosperity, as they pursue whatever version of happiness they pursue, so long as no innocent victims are made, by deceit, or by threats of violence, or by examples of violence, to pay the bills, for said "happiness".
Torture and mass murder, or aggressive wars for profit, exemplify someone's pursuit of happiness that is defined as joy, or fun, or profit, gained at the expense of the innocent victims, as the victims scream, and die miserable deaths en masse, while the perpetrators smile with glee.
Pursuit of happiness, sure, with some reservations: not at the expense of the innocent.
Liberty
How does one get there from here?
Back to the inspirational sentence:
“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."
What prevents one in five people from forming a group who then presume to have the power to be the country, not break away from it, and these 1 in 5 group merely compete with the other 4 of 5, to see which group manages to govern themselves better, and do so without resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence upon the innocent people?
Does The Country stop the 1 in 5 from offering a more perfect union up for consideration? The answer is no, since The Country is the many, not the few, as The Country is the set of people, not any one person, The Country is the viewpoint by which one person will appraise all the people at once, as if all the people were treated as one person, as if all the people were treated equally, without exception.
If there is an exceptional one, then there would be The Country, constituted as all those who are not excepted, and then there would be the one that was excepted.
Is the excepted one excepted for a reason, and who excepted the excepted one, from The Country; how did that one break away from The Country?
Who is being blamed for what? Do you see a familiar theme?
“One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.."
Criminals are apt to blame the victims, or anything but themselves, since blaming themselves amounts to a confession. Torture is a prime example. A criminal will torture a victim so as to get the victim to confess to some nebulous wrongdoing while the criminal does one of the worst wrongdoings. The torturing criminal may get a confession, and then move onto the next torture victim, along a serial path, or even a parallel path, if there are many serial torturing criminals doing the same things, at the same time.
So the criminals, who have exempted themselves from the laws they enforce, with their interpretations of their Constitution, blame their victims for the crime of breaking away from the country, as the victims seek to avoid victimization, and do so peacefully, and do so without deceit, and do so without threats of aggressive violence.
That leaves one option.
Defensive violence.
I do not support unarmed marches in protest of criminal governments - I believe that the facts prove that doing so is counter productive when the thing intended to be produced is liberty.
If those people, in those states, those 1 in 5, will avoid victimization, they will do so because they gain the power to do so, and then they avoid victimization. Calling what they do, by some less than accurate wording, such as "breaking away from the country", or "succeeding from the union", or tax evasion, or nullification, is falling down into the mire of falsehood, a trap that has been set, since at least 1788.
Why call crime: good? Why call good, crime?
Whose interest does it serve to call crime: good, or to call good, crime - The National Interest, or just those who except themselves from the laws they enforce upon every one else - the modern day Nationalists, the one world government groups, all competing for your power, as you create it, and as they continue to relentlessly steal it?
Calling crime: good, serves the criminals, empowers them, as inaccurate wording, or The Big Lie, weakens the power of the victims, on purpose, for the criminals exclusive profit, at the victims expense.
Neat and complete, when the victims are led to believe that they are investing in their own security, as they finance their own victimization - in other words.
Why did the Nationalists, working toward gaining their power to control the many, those few Nationalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, call themselves Federalists? Answer and know why - if you dare. Why call themselves Federalists when their actions were actions perpetrated by Nationalists; seeking a one, single, monopoly, exclusive, exceptional, consolidated, dictatorial, criminal, government; and why did those Nationalists, hiding behind the false front of Federalism, call their opponents Anti-Federalists, when the opponents to Nationalism were Federalists, republicans, democrats, and those whose actions defined themselves as the people who champion the spirit of liberty?
Why would anyone claim that victims who have had enough of victimization, and who then endeavor to avoid further victimization, peacefully, and without resort to deceit, and without resort to threats of aggressive violence, and without resort to aggressive violence, why would anyone call those actions, driven by those thoughts, by such a label as "breaking away from the country"?
To what purpose is that wording authorized into publication?
What is the measure of the big lie? 1 in 5 people know better; while 4 of 5 people think that supporting a dictatorial criminal power is in their own best interest? A dictatorial power, by definition, is one power, not two.
How many dictators are there in a dictatorship?
Who is holding the stuff that is supposed to be in the bag?
Who is holding the empty bag?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Who borrowed what from who, and who owes who what?