 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2825250 :
In post: Liberty Day Challenge July 4th 2013 V2
In reply to comment: Be sure to toss the bathwater (see in situ)
Speaking of dragons and counterfeits
Submitted by Josf on Thu, 11/08/2012 - 14:10. Permalink
"Are you telling me that not wanting to be around a prejudiced person is being prejudiced?"
Pre-judging or prejudice is not bad, like any tool, the concept is based upon the recognition of human limitations and human error, and an incapacity to know better, particularly not knowing what the future will bring despite a wealth of information available concerning the present and the past.
I don't know how to judge the future but by judging the past, so I prejudge the future based upon the past, knowing that I can be wrong.
Is it safe to say that prejudice can be a tool to be used for good or bad?
This is along the lines of thinking dynamically and not thinking in terms of THINGS being static, for us to use our brains, as in a verb, as in use it, not as in posses it.
Use it or lose it.
Insurance is a verb, for example, whereby there is a method by which the past and current information is used to pre-judge possible things that may happen in the future.
So prejudice, so defined, as exemplified by insurance, is one thing, and then the idea is to use your brain to compared that one THING with a counterfeit version of it, whereby the user intends to resort to deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon the targeted innocent people being targeted and then cover up those crimes with the word prejudice.
The context here is my offering of words, which are intending to convey specific, and not ambiguous, meaning. My intent is to convey a competitive perspective INTACT and to avoid having the competitive perspective misread, misunderstood, and to arrive to you NOT distorted in any way.
_________________________________
“If someone does not want to be near a prejudiced person, an evil person, then someone aught to look in the mirror first.”
Are you telling me that not wanting to be around a prejudiced person is being prejudiced?
_________________________________
I am saying the same thing as "those in glass houses should not throw rocks", or "he who is without sin cast the first stone", and the reason I am saying that has to do with a person first checking their own mind, to see if their own mind is the source of their fears, as they may then be inspired to project that lie outward from within.
If someone is pre-judging someone to be evil, based upon lies, then they are the evil ones, and such things are the things done by people whereby the result is much suffering by many innocent people, where those sets of action, so described, are called such things as collective punishment or prejudice.
Why not call it crime?
In other words: if someone is afraid of someone else, thinking that someone else will do injury to me, myself, and I, and that fear is driving a desire to lash out, deceive, threaten, or violently attack other people who merely look like the people feared, then who is casting the first stone?
This is more of the stuff of dragons we have worked on earlier.
The first stone, it turns out, is a lie, the lie enters the victims brain, and then the victim begins to employ the lie, believing that the lie is true, and then that belief in that lie inspires evil, inspires the infected person to pass on the lie to their "friends", which is evil, and deceptive, not willfully deceptive since the infected individual is by definition infected, a "true believer", and so the lie spreads, and who benefits?
Imagine spending your whole life living a lie, and on the last day, you realize it. Poor me?
How many days are left?
The original inventor of the lies, or those who know better than to actually believe the lie, and use the lie, even if they have not invented the lie, benefit, or so they calculate, as their targeted victims are at each others throats, inspired by that lie, victims growing weaker during the conflict, or the victims of the lie are separated and apart from each other, no longer benefiting from mutual benefit, whereby the lie causes either separation or conflict, both being destructive in a relative sense. The targets grow weaker either way.
If the goal of separation for all those white supremacist skin head neo-nazi's is to have nothing to do with the people they prefer not to have anything to do with, then relatively speaking there would be a loss of at least one thing worth trading between one member of one group and another member of another group. I mean to say that at least one thing that could have been mutually beneficial, if at all possible, is no longer possible, because of the separation.
Romeo and Juliet, the story, the theme, the message, is this message - it seems to me.
At the base of it, the power base, the separatists, true to their word, without lie, without prejudice, merely calculate a desire to separate, giving up on any possible benefit, because the potential cost, according to them, is too great.
A calculated cost benefit analysis, no ill will.
You or I can argue the finer points of open arms and open minds, but not while we shut our own minds to what their viewpoint is in fact.
That is far and away not the same thing as a group of people who desire connections to the objects of their hatred, so as to cause injury to innocent people.
So which is the object of your concern?
1. Genuine prejudice (cost benefit analysis)
2. Counterfeit prejudice (collective punishment/crime by any other name)
Separatists who desire to not be connected to specific people, at all, no matter what cost they themselves may have to suffer, and these same people prefer to be only connected to people they want to be connected to, for the benefits they deem to be worth seeking by those specific disconnections and connections made in that way.
In other words they are pre-judging which connections they want to make compared to which connections they do not want to make, without prejudice in the counterfeit form.
The counterfeit form of prejudice is to hate someone, then target someone, then punish someone, merely for the pre-judgment LIE that the targeted victims are Black, or Jewish, or white, or Christian, and therefore they deserve to be tortured and murdered, or even worse, the lie inspires the torture and murder of the victims "for their own good".
Which is worse?
1.
Torturing and murdering for the fun and profit of the criminals who torture an murder for fun and profit.
2.
Torturing and murdering the children to save the children who are tortured and murdered.
Lets be honest about it?
The base of the evil is merely evil, it is a desire to destroy, the coverings invented to hide the evil are legion, pick from the hat, any excuse will do, but specific excuses do tend to fit the occasion better than less powerful ones.
Which lie works this time?
Which lie works best in this situation?
I want to injure that innocent person, but that innocent person is the same color as me, so the race card lie does not work so well, but when the innocent person targeted is not the same color, then the race card lie works perfectly.
How do I know all this, you may ask, as I ask myself, and what comes to mind is the hatred I feel when thinking about evil people who lie, where they know their lies are invented to cover up their crimes, and where their crimes including the torture and murder of children on a regular basis.
I have to work to diffuse my own hatred, which can run very deep into my soul, as my mind is apt to invent any excuse that will excuse an outbreak of violence, on my part, and the excuse intends to accomplish evil, to falsify my true, base, destructive human tendencies.
I can put myself into the shoes of the legal criminals because a part of their evil is to cause their victims to be them, to join their number.
Violence begets violence, or some such wording.
"Are you telling me that not wanting to be around a prejudiced person is being prejudiced?"
Very good question?
Which prejudice do you see when you see prejudice? Do you see the genuine tool, or do you see the lie that covers up "collective punishment"?
" I am telling you that there are prejudiced people that H A T E black people and those type of prejudiced people are poison. I am saying be careful, don’t swallow their poison couched in some truth. Be sure to throw out the bathwater, Joe, and don’t let their hatred rub off on you. I am telling you that I have heard of some of that teaching before, beware, incase you come across that teaching it is not Biblical to Hate black people but there are people who twist the Bible to make it say such things. Do not believe that twist. Beware. I am not being prejudiced by not listening to hateful people. I am not giving lies value or power by not entertaining or hearing them."
I've already told you about the "religious" people who no longer knock on my door, because I let them speak, and when they speak they tell me such things as the Jews have been promised, by God, a section of Real Estate, of some notable value, and by God those squatters already living in the Promised Land had better start packing or else.
I ask or else what, torture and murder of the innocent?
They say, with a hint of relish, yes, or else, God says so.
I say or else they will be tortured and slaughtered for failing to obey the order to vacate the premises without question?
They say, it is God's will.
Really?
Promised land?
Really?
God signed the eviction notice himself?
"Be sure to throw out the bathwater, Joe, and don’t let their hatred rub off on you."
Hatred is an infection. It cripples the victim - relatively speaking.
Criminals love it.
Does that sound true?
__________________________________________
“How about the meaning of the term collective punishment?”
You mean punishing the baby and the bathwater? You mean punishment by association?
___________________________________________
The bathwater, when I employ that analogy, means the lies that cover up the violence, and the violence, and the threats, all part of the bathwater, and the baby is all that can be done by people to survive and survive better without that bathwater.
Collective punishment is the employment of a counterfeit form of prejudice, whereby criminals, with or without badges, employ prejudice to cover up their crimes as if their crimes where somehow justifiable by this tool called prejudice.
The base of crime is for the criminal to target a victim, and by whichever means the act is covered up, the set of things done to cover up those crimes are LEGION, meaning of many forms, a tangled web, an exponentially expanding universe of greater lies, more and more and more counterfeit prejudice, or "collective punishment" is just one of many coverups, false fronts, excuses, false justifications, for the actual, willful, targeting, and then injuring of innocent people.
Why call it collective punishment, when it is merely crime?
Why call it collateral damage, when it is merely crime?
What call it legal, when it is merely crime?
Why call it inflation when it is merely crime?
When dealing with the specific crime, whereby the criminals call their crimes "collective punishment", or "collateral damage", or "enhanced interrogation techniques", or "quantitative easing", the victims can know which false front is covering up which crimes.
We can share, and compare, notes, as we suffer, as we say to each other, oh yea, that is where the IRS is getting away with that much crime, and by IRS I don't mean a building, and by IRS I don't mean a title, but the specific criminals perpetrating those specific crimes do wear those badges, and they do work out of those buildings.
So...
Triage
Shin head, white supremacist, separatists, hating, but staying disconnect from, black people can be on the list of things to avoid, when trying to avoid being infected with hatred.
They don't knock on my door.
What about Ben Bernanke?
By what measure of facts can I be wary of a Randy Weaver, so that I avoid being injured by his type of hatred, compared to the very real, present, and growing account of just exactly how destructive Ben Bernanke, and his group, his set of criminals, are, to how many innocent people world wide?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Triage
Sure, I get the message, beware of people who hate other people, it might rub of on me.
I don't know that?
Do not go to the following link. The following link is for those who can bear it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138289/posts
Do not go to this link either:
http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/
My hard work, my earnings, the stuff I need to survive, and survive well, to pass on to my children, the stuff I need, is stolen from me, and then that POWER I made is used to pay people who are hired to kill, and torture, and experiment on, babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, pregnant mothers, the unborn, productive adults, and even old people.
Is there room for me to become hateful after decades of constant exposure to this information that I am telling you to avoid.
The links are for those who can bear it.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/weaver/horiuch...
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/horiuchi.htm
Ben Bernanke is a stooge, a puppet, a hired gun.
Which are those people who are responsible, and accountable, for the most egregious of crimes ever to be perpetrated by any single human being - competitively speaking?
Me?
You are warning me?
"Be sure to throw out the bathwater, Joe, and don’t let their hatred rub off on you."
Thanks. That is positive reinforcement, and my answer to you about that warning is to say that you are right, and that I had better heed that good advice further into my tour of duty, while God still has a use for me on Earth.
"He still said people should meet their obligations…I said I would agree if they were private loans. But not loans with money stolen from the people and then loaned back to the people with interest leaving the people without enough power to payfor their own way thru life."
We are all specialists, so we know our own small area of concern, and it has to be, admittedly, a very small sphere of influence. I think Jeff is way out of his league when it comes to the concept of political economy, based upon your current reports.
You may be competitive, but please consider what I am about to offer to you on this subject.
Why is it that risk is borne only by the borrower when Jeff, or you, or I, consider this concept of "private loans"?
This goes back to another unsolved mystery, something you have avoided, and hopefully we end up solving this together whereby a person is said to be "private" one minute, and then something happens, and then the same person becomes "public", and then back to "private", then "public", so what happens?
Two questions, restated below, enumerated, and offered as a possible road toward greater understanding, as the answer may answer both questions.
1.
Why are risks charged inequitably to the borrower?
2.
What constitutes the difference between "public" and "private"?
I think also, along this unsolved mystery path, as if we are both searching for a new key, a key that is currently out of view, where in the darkness there is a faint image of the answer, and the answer appears to be forming in the form of two words as such:
Without prejudice.
I know my words can sound cryptic at times, but I think this way, and the words flow easily this way. This is my specialty, my miniscule sphere of influence in a vast universe, or more than a universe, created by the creator.
Jeff can bear only so much at a time?
My wife and I get along, very well, but there are limits to what she can take of my sphere of influences.
She, for example, was on board when I turned the T.V. off for those years, but that may have been because I didn't go marching to Washington with Linda Thomson leading the charge, and me with my M1 and enough ammo in case the law breakers resist violently. They did, in fact, torture and mass murder a church full of people.
My wife was not on board with the run for congress, not against it, but to her it was along the lines of a hobby, I guess, as she thinks my typing, is a hobby too. She has demons of her own, and I can help when I can help with those battles.
Back to the discussion:
"He still said people should meet their obligations…I said I would agree if they were private loans. But not loans with money stolen from the people and then loaned back to the people with interest leaving the people without enough power to payfor their own way thru life."
So...a home mortgage loan is different from a student loan because the inequitable calculation of risk is more difficult to calculate inequitably with the student loan compared to the mortgage loan?
Who suffers in cases of default on a mortgage? The bank (people calculated to profit from the bank) takes the house and all the money paid up to the point of default.
Note: The bank employees trade equitably, their time for a wage, so they are mere workers, they do not "profit" inequitably in that sense, and the "profits" of which I speak flow somewhere, and there is a term that you may want to understand called "unearned income" which has to do with the term "usury" which is not the same thing as "interest" in a genuine sense, but the word "interest" has a counterfeit sense which is "usury".
Anyway:
How does inequitable calculation work in the case of a Student loan?
Does the Bank (the people who profit from the Central Banking Fraud) repossess the education?
Those criminal people want, demand, and get inequity, so how do they get it in the case of the Student Loan, compared to the mortgage loan as a "standard of excellence" in the "loan" shark "business"?
More on this avenue, if you can bear it, is the method of comparative measure to help know better, as a Free Market (in the genuine sense and not in the counterfeit sense) example can illustrate the point better.
A1. Counterfeit (Fraud) Mortgage Loan (not driven by competition)
A2. Counterfeit (Fraud) Student Loan (not driven by competition)
B1. Competitive Mortgage Loan driven by competition
B2. Competitive Student Loan driven by competition
That goes through my mind at once, because I am trained that way, to compare competitively those things, and a person not trained is apt to confuse all 4 things on the list as ONE THING.
Like this:
____________________________
Jeff is coming from when he says when people enter into a contract they need to keep their end of the bargain. "The Christian thing to do."
____________________________
Contracts are based upon the concept of negotiated equity, or contracts are based upon the concept of enforced scarcity.
Negotiated equity:
B1. Competitive Mortgage Loan driven by competition
B2. Competitive Student Loan driven by competition
Enforced scarcity:
A1. Counterfeit (Fraud) Mortgage Loan (not driven by competition)
A2. Counterfeit (Fraud) Student Loan (not driven by competition)
I think that I can stop here, because I will need to enter into the viewpoint the concept of "public" versus "private" and "Without Prejudice" to complete the picture, and we do not have those concepts ironed out well enough at this point.
Suffice to say that a potentially valuable student could be connected to a potentially valuable education more regularly, more abundantly, if a mechanism was in use (competition) by which investors were fighting over each other to pay the student the most money to get the students inspired to learn by that reward for that effort.
In other words: In an upside down world good people are punished most, and bad people are rewarded most, so it may be a good idea to know better as to which mechanism is tabled for discussion?
____________________________
Jeff is coming from when he says when people enter into a contract they need to keep their end of the bargain. "The Christian thing to do."
____________________________
Fraud is not a bargain, it is fraud, and just because everyone is doing it, does not make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it Christian.
My daughter just taught me a better way to make fried potatoes and she informed me that she is going to get a bank account today.
I told here that her earnings evaporate while she eats since she has invested her earnings in Federal Reserve Fraud Notes.
She nods.
I try harder.
I tell her that it looks nice, green paper, zeros, numbers, but even if she "saves" at the bank at .05 percent interest, her earnings are now evaporating at 5.05 percent interest, she "saves" herself from less loss.
She nods.
She went to Christian school, where a teacher had it in for her, teaching, by example, how the devil works by way of deceit, threats, and thankfully no violence at the Christian school.
She then went to "public" school, imagine that, through "High" school, where a teacher had it in for her, teaching, by example, how the devil works by way of deceit, threats, and a real threat of real violence, not just a counterfeit threat.
I am now reminded of the grandson being "taught" how to lie better in the debates, over in the other thread. How many ways are there to skin a cat?
"I asked him WHO is not keeping obligations: College Students of the Criminals in Government?"
So long as the "government" is knowable as a set of people sharing the same thoughts and actions, a list of those people, and the word "government" is used instead of listing all those people, without prejudice, then I get what you are saying.
On the other hand, to reinforce the understanding, the "government" can only be held accountable by liars or victims of lies, since no such thing is even remotely possible.
Which is it in this case, this time?
1.
You are holding government accountable because you know the lie and you are using it now.
2.
You are holding government accountable because you are victim to the lie, even now.
3.
You are using the word government to mean a specific set of people sharing a specific viewpoint and sharing specific actions for all those people on that list of people constituting that government specifically, without prejudice, and those people lie, cheat, steal, tortured, and mass murder for fun and profit?
I don't know, so I ask, because it is past time to figure out which people are Friends of Liberty and which people belong in that set:
This set:
"I said the government has been collecting social security from the people and promised security in retirement."
I know, you are speaking to someone who can only take so much, and so "government" can be used instead of Legal Criminals, in that sentence, at least I think I know as much, Jeff is not receptive to such naked facts, without prejudice.
I've been wrong often.
Back to competition:
1.
I said the government has been collecting social security from the people and promised security in retirement.
2.
I said the Legal Criminals have been stealing power from the victims and lied about a something for nothing benefit.
I am reminded of the time at work when a representative of the company 401K plan was speaking to the workers, while the Human Resources Employer was monitoring the event.
At that time my wife was pulling herself out of a very severe depression, another long story, and she wanted to begin her career in Real Estate, selling the land I purchased before we met, and selling my 401K plan, to buy a license, and some investment property for flipping and or renting. Not my ideas, mind you, but as it turned out I'd be up the creek without a paddle if those things were not done that way, as my health suddenly evaporated and the liars at work worked to get rid of me. All they had to do was ask.
Anyway, there I was asking for my 401K money.
The representative said you can't have it, bla, bla, bla.
I said, in front of everyone, "If I can't have it, then it isn't my money.
He said it was your money.
I said let me have it.
He said you can't have it, bla, bla, bla.
I said that it was not my money, in that case.
He said, it was my money.
I said, perhaps you don't speak English, all I'm asking for is for you to give me my money.
He said you can't have it.
I got it, minus the bla, bla, bla, of course, but that was later, since the lie of it can't be exposed "publicly" despite my efforts to do so, to FORCE the liar to admit that the lair was lying, which he would not do, and the other liar, the Human Resources liar, another well paid liar, would not confess either, not in public, only in private, he had a lot of "you can't have it, bla, bla, bla" too.
Everyone else in the room understood too. It is all a big lie, and these guys are well paid liars, and I will get my money, or it isn't my money, so what is up with the cartoon?
Who benefits?
Since then, as I've heard, those 405K plans are, well, less than the expectations were current at that time, during the up cycle of The Business Psycho.
Boom baby boom.
"Poor Jeff got an earful yesterday, and I think by the time we were done he was very surprised. I told him the worse of it is that people are thinking these thoughts because it is a complicated mess."
I know, because I test them, that my family members understand enough to question authority, and they even teach me those lessons now, in many ways.
Truth (accurate perception of measurable facts) is even more infectious than lies, for good people.
"I would suppose it would be when one does not practice the Jewish religion."
To me we are circling around a dragon.
When does a person stop being public and become private?
When does a person stop being Jewish and start being Gentile?
When is someone in the exclusive club, a member of the special ones, and when is someone cast out, and then subjected to prejudice?
Generally speaking is one thing, and being specific is another thing too.
When does a person stop being generally known and when does a person start being specifically known?
"The original words Goy and Ethnos refer to "peoples" or "nations"."
Genealogy, religious training, and now legal training?
A Jewish person is genetically connected to a specific person who was alive thousands of years ago, and a Jewish person can be a person who is specifically trained and can do things specific to that training in a specific religion, or not, and a Jewish person can be a person trained in a specific legal structure, or set of rules, or government, and do things, or be in places, specific to that jurisdiction, or not?
The person is still the person, no matter where the person goes, at any given time, and no matter what the person thinks, or does, at the time, yet the person can be Jewish, or not Jewish, at any given time, like flipping a switch where the person stands.
Jewish one second.
Not the next.
And God promised some high value Real Estate, on Earth, for those who turn the switch on?
"And then again, we are told in the New Testament not to worry about endless genealogies, because it does not matter what one’s bloodline is. What matters is what one does with Christ."
Ahhh, a breath of fresh air. Although your words could be misunderstood, by me or anyone, I trust that you mean specific moral things matter, not the size of the nose or the color of the skin.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out, but for now the owner of federal reserve notes wants to save her earnings in a bank.
Talk about cartoons.
—
Joe