 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Change MUST come from the "powerless" because those in power will always want to retain and expand their power.
Stimulus Bill,
You have touched upon a few contentious things and my first response has to do with a contention I have with the above viewpoint. I have pointed out to you, and anyone having the power to listen, that there is an easy way out of this march to hell on earth and all that is needed is for those who have the power to use their power, instead of those having their power stolen, and then used against those who have power.
I don't like the use of the word "change" since it is an amoral word used by people who are measurably immoral and they use the word to cover up their immorality by using a word that is often used by people who use the same word to convey moral things. Why not choose a word that does not leave so much room for falsehood to find it's way in?
I don't like seeing language used in ways that allow so much falsehood to creep into the effort to fight against it. Those who steal power from the honest productive people who make power are those among us who have reached a consensus and their consensus has to do with an agreement to form a cartel, or organized crime ring, where the criminals in that agreement polarize their power to steal, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by vicious, horrible, and terrifying destructive violence, to steal more, and more, and more.
Why would anyone ignore a viable way out? What is the point of ignoring a very powerful method of improving the path traveled by the honest productive people, so as to incrementally, or all at once, stop sending productive power to a small group of criminals who then use that power to destroy?
That is my most pressing interest in this thread, at this time, but there is more that I see as contention, and contention must be divorced from the false cover story used by the criminals. Contention is not argument for the sake of argument. Contention is a process of discovering higher quality and lower cost measures of reality, by comparison with lower quality and higher cost measures of reality, so as to improve, not change, the viewpoint viewed. When one viewpoint is diametrically opposite the other viewpoint, the viewer is placed in a position to do the impossible, which is to know that both opposite viewpoints are true, at the same time, like two cars trying to exist in the same place at the same time when both cars reach each other from opposite headings, going fast, in a head-on collision.
Seeking a consensus answer to that question is the purpose of this thread.
How can there be a consensus answer if answers are ignored? Either the solution isn't consensus, which may very well be worth knowing, or the actual problem is consensus, again please consider the fact that many people have reached a consensus to join in on the Legal Crime business, to use law for the purposes of targeting and exploiting innocent victims. Another possible problem with consensus may be that the path to consensus is not known, and therefore the first step must be to build the path to consensus - such as making a willful decision to find at least one thing to offer as a conclusive first step on that road.
Such as:
Stop sending power to the legal criminals.
We grow weaker, and they grow stronger.
Legal criminals have obviously progressed (changed) well past disorganized, powerless, chaotic, disorder, and have reached well past the step of forming consensus.
If you can't beat em' Join em' - many have.
Might makes right - many work to prove that this is a fact, just ask one.
Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you - and then send them the bill (see The Constitution Amendment 14 for the bill collecting bill).
All men are bad, it take one exceptional person... to prove it by example. - see The Prince by Nicoli Machiavelli
They deserve to be punished, I'm teaching them a valuable lesson.
Obey
[For the record, I have received 27 times as much radiation exposure since March 11th as the legal annual limit for X-ray technicians in this country. You probably have too, but you wouldn't know it unless you have your own monitoring equipment like I do.]
All I have is this:
http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=677&forum_id=6
No where to run, no where to hide?
Do you know the truth about Peak Oil?
I've looked into that and once I first heard of that I began a second run for Congress in my district, but the facts I uncovered led me to improve my course (change course) from a false belief in "Peal Oil" to a reasonable understanding of the forces involved in that charade.
I came up with this:
Power produced into a condition of abundance reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
I call that Joe's Law, and from that I can explain such things as inflation. From that discovery of that political/economic law I am more able to separate the falsehoods from the facts concerning these things with these labels on them whereby the obvious tactic is brain washing, or behavior modification, or response conditioning, or whatever word works best to convey accurate meaning - instead of reinforcing falsehood.
Crimes are crimes, and placing misleading labels on crimes cover up the crimes, and that is a contention I have with "Peak Oil".
I have a similar contention with "Global Warming".
Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less?
I no longer believe in falsehoods such as those words convey to me. I don't read from that script. I've shed the false language. The use of false language renders the users weaker. I rewrite words I read when the words I read are written in false language.
Example:
Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less?
I re-write that, for my own understanding, I translate that into a meaningful question:
How many people are led to believe in the legitimacy of criminals hiding behind a false front of voluntary government; when the actual nature of the connection is of a group of criminals to their targeted victims?
There are two types of possible answers:
A. True
B. False
A person who answers either question (your version or mine) will answer either truthfully or they will willfully lie.
There are two subsets of answers possible:
A. True
A1. Inaccurate
A2. Accurate
B. False
B1. Inaccurate
B2. Accurate
A person who does believe in the legitimacy of an organized crime group may say so, and their answer is true in that case, they believe in the lie.
A person who says that he, or she, does not believe in the legitimacy of an organized crime group, posing as a group of people providing security, while actually victimizing the victims measurably, willfully, on purpose, for profit, but, the person does believe in the legitimacy of an organize crime group - whereby the person is unaware of his own beliefs, and the proof is provided by actions, not words.
Your version of the question, to me, leads no where.
Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less?
What is this thing you call government? There are so many possible definitions, how is anyone supposed to know what you mean?
Is that the point? Is the point such that the idea is to make words so ambiguous as to be meaningless, on purpose, for fun, or profit? The word government is supposed to mean only one thing, the thing you say it is, and/or the thing the person reading the word thinks it is, at that moment?
How can there ever be consensus if language is ambiguous to a point of meaningless?
Isn't that what you're supposed to be getting for the taxes you pay?
I rewrite that in my own head, so as to understand that question, as I see it.
Your question:
Isn't that what you're supposed to be getting for the taxes you pay?
My version:
Do you hire people to make you suffer, so long as other people suffer even more, or, if that isn't your willful intent, and having an opposite goal in mind, do you pay the extortion fee so as to forestall your own inevitable demise at the hands of those criminals who extort fees from you, where you care nothing about those whose injuries you do finance with the payments of your extortion fees?
See? A person may actually desire other people's suffering, for a supposed satisfaction of vengeance planted in their conscious thought process, so they pay to see other people suffer, even if they know they will also have to suffer, eventually, or a little suffering at the moment. That scenario is quite different from, or opposite, a person who pays the extortion fee so as to avoid going to jail, and any thoughts of what happens to anyone else as a result of that transfer of that power to those criminals is willfully ignored, not to be acknowledged, beyond the realm of caring.
A
Voluntary association (you voluntarily pay for your own suffering, so long as other people suffer more than you do), the person hires extortionists to do what they do best.
B.
Involuntary association (as far as you know there is no choice but to pay the extortion fee), failing to pay on time will result in even greater injury, there are no other options - ever, pay, and get back to work.
That brings me back to my greatest contention.
If there is an obvious alternative, why go on pretending that there is no obvious alternative?
C.
Stop paying the extortion fees, since the extortion cabal grows stronger, and the victims grow weaker, do so on a schedule, step by step.
How?
How about Product 1 and Product 2, it isn't rocket science, and a 5 year old could understand the forces involved, and make a clear decision as to the workability of that solution.
How deep down the road to hell have we fallen, so far?
Much has been said about the prices others once paid for our liberty.
That sounds like a long way down, since most of those cases are people who have had their behavior so modified as to murder people to save them.
I am reminded of a phrase offered by someone else; whose name I don't remember, and I'm going to edit the phrase to fit the occasion.
Raping your victims back to virginity.
Much has been said about the prices others once paid for our liberty.
What did they do, exactly, as they paid those prices for "our" liberty? I'm curious.
Did they stop transferring their power to people who then make us suffer with that power transferred to them by those people who have paid those prices for "our" liberty?
How deep does it go?
Why not simply stop transferring the power you have made to those people who then use that power to make us suffer?
Answer:
Why not, because we need the power of voluntary connectivity, we can't just cut that link, that won't work, we have to keep our links connected while severing the link to the Legal Criminals.
We need purchasing power, a medium of exchange, of some minimal standard of value, some minimal capacity to purchase, without which we can no longer benefit from cooperative effort, which is an exponential increase in the output of our individual powers resulting from that cooperative effort. That is the half true part of the "Peak Oil" scam.
Division of labor
Specialization
Economies of scale
Competition (driving quality up and cost down, not to be confuse with crime, competition is not crime, crime is crime, competition is competition, why confuse the two?)
Honest productivity
Trust
Agreement
Consensus (to avoid sending power to people who use power to make us suffer)
Consensus (to work in concert for our mutual benefit, also known as equitable commerce)
Accurate powerful competitive exchange mediums (being accurate is being able to avoid exploitation by those who would be criminals among us)
Food
Water
Oxygen
Fuel
Law
Money
Language
Which of the above laundry list can be left out of the voluntary social network and then, absent that vital ingredient, voluntary social network still works expediently, efficiently, and productively, to supply all that the honest productive people demand, including security of person and property, liberty, productive employment, progress toward higher quality of life, for all, and lower cost of life, for all but those who prefer crime, as victims or otherwise?
Did I miss something?