 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I have found my way, by competitive comparisons of different ways, at least 2 different ways compared competitively, to discuss with words as such:
1. Read an entire response written by someone in a discussion, and then reply after reading the entire response.
2. Read up to a point where I intentionally stop reading, as if holding out my hand in real time personal one on one, in the same room, conversation, interrupting your response, and taking the opportunity for me to response to a specific thing you say.
My way is the second way.
I stopped reading here:
Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators.
I can go back to find the first example I saw, this is the second example I see, where I think you contradict yourself.
Is destruction, as your example of one person intent on killing someone for personal gain at the expense of the targeted victim, bad?
I can take your sentence and put in place a person with a name, and I'm going to pick out a specific name of a specific person who is knowable as the person who snipes, with guns, people for his way of earning his life.
This person is named Lon, that is his first name.
Lon sniped a person named Vicki Weaver while that mother was holding her baby. Lon sniped her dead. Lon was also busy at Waco, doing what he does best, sniping, and the record of his success there is less well documented as the case with Vicki Weaver.
Your sentence:
Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators.
Lon is not good or bad, Lon is a destroyer or creator.
Now, I know, that my viewpoint is often confused by other people, and during discussion I have found that confusion is the source of much more confusion, so I can say that your sentence is confused by me, and now I have offered a way to help you, if the idea is to remove my confusion about your sentence that appears to be self-contradictory to me.
I can also offer how I arrive at my concept of good versus bad.
I know only one thing for sure, and the one thing I know for sure us proven to be absolutely true, each time I try to disprove it, so as far as I can know, this is the one absolute truth, and all other perceptions, of truth, or of anything, are subject to this one truth.
Perception exists.
That can then be perceived as life exists.
I can perceive that life exists.
Now, from this perception, it is my judgement, good or bad, that life is good, and it is self-evidently good, it is, life is, the reason for living. Life is good.
How do I know?
Perception exists.
Here is where I launch into any other direction on any other subject whatsoever, and from this perception I read your sentence and I come up with the idea, the perception, the personal judgment, that you contradict yourself, while I am fully away of my incapacity to actually know what it is that you are attempting to convey to me, intact, without my twisting it around into something that you do not actually intend.
Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators.
I can read that as individuals are either destroyers or creators.
Since life is good, those who destroy life are bad, when they are destroying life, and those who create life, nurture life, help life, perpetuate life, make life worth living, are doing good things, even if they set out to destroy life.
Take Lon, for example, suppose he is ordered to shoot babies at the nursery, and instead, he messes up and shoots the person who issued the orders to shoot the babies at the nursery?
You and I may see that scenario in a different way. I'm not saying I am right, or good, but I am saying that the measure I use for it being good, is in life existing better instead of life not existing at all.
I can go on and on, in great detail about my thinking on this, including the concept of hell, and including how my thinking is simplified with the two words as such:
Entropy
Ectropy
Ectropy is an actual word, and for some reason it is not recognized by the English based World Processor Spell Checkers.
I can not continue reading your very welcome words, which are so valuable to me, since my perceptions are so limited, and therefore weak and powerless without help.
A mixed message if ever i saw one. Which works, competition or cooperation?
If I could I would pass on to you my recent experiences with Sergey my Russian friend and bear my friend who is helping with discussions and book publishing, because this is exactly the stuff that repeats, and instructs, to help arrive at a better viewpoint.
When I say competition I mean the natural genetic life sustaining power that is employed willfully by individual living beings as they choose better instead of worse. I do not mean the counterfeit version of "competition" which is crime with a false name attached to it.
If there is two versions of meaning to any word, I don't mean both meanings at once. I mean the one meaning only.
Competition means, precisely, an individual choice by an individual human being to choose better instead of worse, and I don't mean to confuse competition with anything criminal, as a criminal may choose to injure innocent people, to gain at the expense of the targeted victim, and that criminal may then call the crime in progress a name such as competition.
From a different viewpoint:
Person A competes with him or herself finding past behavior to result in no clothes, no shelter, no food, no water, and facing harsh weather, barren, dry, and severe living conditions, and so, this day, Person A invents, produces, and maintains a more competitive, willful, path into the future.
At no point in the above scenario has a crime been committed by Person A upon anyone other than Person A, relatively speaking, since Person A, so far, is failing to do what is competitive for life to exist, and exist well.
Person A is then facing a specific situation when Person A finds Person B drinking water from a well.
What is the competitive thing to do at this point?
You be Person A.
You tell me.
I don't mean that competition is opposite of cooperation. I mean that cooperation is much more competitive compared to crime, and this goes back, traces back, in my thinking, to the one knowable fact, that perception exists, and then my competitive individual judgment, offered, to my future self, or to you, whereby I judge life to be good, relatively speaking, compared to what?
What is the competitive alternative to the concept of life being good?
You tell me.
As for that chip on your shoulder, I don't want to knock it off only cut it down to size, or do whatever it is they call it when they cut a diamond to make all those facets.
I can explain this in a way that may make more sense to you once you read my explanation. If I am playing chess alone, for a hundred years, I am competing with myself, and I may become a better chess player.
How do I know if I am a better chess player?
Each time I test myself, I do find myself wining, and therefore better.
Discussion, to me, is a competition to find the better viewpoint, so I bring to the table my years of playing chess alone.
No one competes with me.
You are not competing with me, not playing chess, not yet, you have not even begun to make the first move with Political Economy, and I have.
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
That is my first move.
You wrote this:
That is my weakness: economics. I am educating myself on this subject because I feel that some of your economic ideas are too (I want to say simple but that is not quite right) naive maybe from a mathematical standpoint.
So you are playing checkers on some other board, with some other competitor, perhaps yourself, and you look over at my Chess Game I have been playing alone for decades and you say that my game is "naive".
So can we begin to play chess?
I made my first move.
Would you prefer to make the first move. You can already see my move that I will make after your first move. My move is a game winning move, in the first move.
You think not.
So we can play, or we can not, and it will be competitive, because that is what I bring to the table.
Most of the rest of your reply is further explanation, clarification, and a kind of informal history or timeline of how your view was advanced especially concerning your keystone: The constitution which allowed the "legal criminals" to operate. therefore I shall not quote it, but I will now put forth my hypothesis. I remind you that this is what I sense to be true. My research is only just beginning. What follows was written very hastily, I would not be offended if you find it difficult to read.
I did not read ahead, in my way of simulating discussion, and at this point my way of simulating discussion, by reading, responding, reading further, not reading ahead, proves again to be a good way to simulate discussion - to me.
Good meaning good in context of competitive perception that is willfully employed toward making life better and thereby worth living.
I am at this point anxious to see if you, in my view, begin to play the chess game illustrated in my most resent words offered, competitively, to you.
If it is difficult to read, but there is a will power employed to understand, then what could stop, or prevent, eventual success in finding agreement in understanding exactly what you perceive, without confusion, without misunderstanding, without distortion?
When I read something disagreeable, I can quote and ask questions, and if there is only agreeable things to read, I can report that finding, from my admittedly very limited, and often wrong, perspective.
The first brain washing? Does anybody have a pristine brain?
If your chess move is along the lines of basing current realities on past human behavior, which is fine with me, then my very limited, but not totally absent, learning on this path includes a reading of two very good books by Erich Fromm titled as follows:
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness
The Sane Society
Before I continue reading, since I've been on a similar path to what I think you are on in this current part of your competitive perception, in this discussion, this chess game, if you will, I want to add a quick few sentences.
Evolution has been a subject of study, a genuine scientific study, and it has also been a source of many lies used by many very powerful people, so as to cover up many very destructive crimes.
1. The more competitive life forms, able to reproduce, do so. They reproduce in the face of much destruction.
2. The lie often told by criminals to excuse their crimes is that evolution means, in a phrase, the survival of the fittest, where those criminals are very busy destroying those who are fittest at reproducing more competitive examples of human beings.
The former above is my understanding of science applied to the existence of life, as life proves itself to be what it is, over time, while the later has names that stand in place of what is being done by those criminals and one name attached to those willful actions is Eugenics.
With that said, I can comfortably move on, to see more of your perspective on the present things in view; in this ongoing discussion. I am very anxious to dive back into my references from Eric Fromm if the occasion appears to be warranted.
(do you still have that game?)
Yes. Some pieces are missing. I last played it with Girly Wirly when she was half her current height.
( they were mean to the Torries though)
That is a communication, in English, where I can spend all day answering, but for now I see a need to let it go, and to move on. My friend bear likes to say "cut to the chase".
Now, what should they do? I believe they decided they needed a central government for fear that the colonies would revert to independent sovereign nations that would eventually be at odds or at war with one another. I believe they made the right choice and that without a central government the colonies would have quickly reverted to their european habits. The legal criminals, the anti-humanists did not creep in at this point.
Here too, days, I can spend days addressing how wrong that is in demonstrable fact.
I can spend days demonstrating how superficial, and naive, your words appear to me.
I can access the writings of many people proving the fact that there were very bad people working effectively to create a very bad, very criminal, "government", so called, and it was no such thing. It as crime, of the worst kind, made legal.
In fact.
Demonstrable fact.
You are certainly welcome to maintain your viewpoint, such as it may be, while the things I have discovered may not be things you have, and therefore, in my opinion, you aught to consider taking a look at a portion of these things that clearly refute your current expressed viewpoint - as far as I understand your current viewpoint.
In fact, to me, failure to understand the significance of what happened in 1788, is a serious deficiency if you are going to understand how to remedy the situation now.
I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.
If you do continue to play this chess game with me, agreeing to accept my moves on the board, then you will, in my opinion, return to that sentence and find it to be a very poor move.
Time, technology,religion,ideas all move forward.. sure shit happens here and there, some of it attrocious behavior but attributed to destructive humans, not a collective destructive government.
Here is another point of extreme stress between our viewpoints. I can explain in detail, suffice to say that no such "collective destructive government" exists, if it does, it could be measured. If you can show me the measure of it, then we can both do some measuring of it.
No such thing exists, and so your move on the chess board here does not even exist, as if I'm still waiting for you move, and you are threatening to move some day.
When will that day arrive?
No such thing exists. Perhaps your move exists in a tic, tac, toe, game?
Your earlier words of me being naive here are returning to my thinking. Your sentence, self evident words, communicate, to me, some very serious flaws in thinking.
attributed to destructive humans
Those specific humans can be known. I can offer up one name. Alexander Hamilton.
Who in any case is blaming anything done by any person on a "collective destructive government"?
If you think I am blaming anything done by any person on a "collective destructive government", then we fail to communicate miserably, which makes no sense, since I know we both are willfully working toward the goal of effective, accurate, communication.
If someone, somewhere, blames anything done by any human being on "collective destructive government" then that person aught to raise their hand.
This is where your legal criminal, the anti humanist creeps in. I put the start at 1934 or so the year the sec was created headed by a Kennedy.
I don't know how better to proceed from this point. I can say that a quick study of Alexander Hamilton, with a quick reference to the diametric opposites of purpose proven by two events, as Shays's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion, aught to help you see my viewpoint, and arrest your current misunderstanding of my viewpoint.
They are not my legal criminals, and I can get past that type of reference, but Legal Criminals did what they do in the example named Plato, in stark contrast to the "humanists", so called, of those days, such as Zeno and the Stoics.
If they are my Legal Criminals, as being those in my mind, not your mind, then I put the start of their activities much further back in time, and here is where I can refer to Eric Fromm and his studies, as needed.
1934 completely misses so much, including all the events in 1913, which include the creation of The Federal Reserve and The Internal Revenue Service, both are clearly fraudulent, criminal, institutions, crime made legal, and who made them?
My legal criminals?
If I am to help you, if that is an idea you may share with me, as I do want your help, then as far as I am concerned, you may do well by moving the date at which you find people working toward very bad things to be done, and are done, from your current date, to at least 1788. Plato on one side and Zeno on the opposite side is a good place to start too, but I think 1788, why the Legal Criminals had to get rid of The Articles of Confederation, and why they had to make Slavery legal, is very instructive, and very relevant to today, in so many ways, that I think you may do well in knowing better about those days.
This will not do:
I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.
That is a very poor move, in my opinion. I can't win this game, at all, unless you find agreement in my judgement. I can't find any agreement in your judgment, unless I can have my memory erased concerning the things I now know about early America.
I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.
Because that constitution was clever enough that it has kept the anti humanists in check for now. They want nothing more than to burn that parchment like a war protester burns the flag.
Here is where you can help me, please, since your discoveries of a "sec" headed by a Kennedy is unknown to me. I don't understand what you mean. I could use some more information on what is meant by anti-humanists, so an example of one may be helpful, or a Top 10 list, the best that money can buy type thing.
The best Anti-Humanists Money can buy list, please, would be very helpful.
I can, because I have done this before, list my Top 10 Most Wanted Legal Criminal List, to illustrate the point I am seeking.
1.
Ben Bernanke
2.
Barrack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro)
3.
Joseph Biden
4.
John Boehner
5.
Antonin Scalia
6.
Eric Holder
7.
Jacob Lew
8.
John Brennan
9.
Martin Dempsey
10.
Me
I am not on the list for failing to hold the other 9 to account.
Because that constitution was clever enough that it has kept the anti humanists in check for now. They want nothing more than to burn that parchment like a war protester burns the flag.
Here is where I have trouble again with the concept of a thing being held accountable for the actions of people. There were many legitimate things said, by many people, in opposition to the Constitution's cleverness, much of those criticisms aimed at people who obviously set out to do destructive things with their clever document.
I can elaborate quickly, precisely, and briefly, and I can go into much more valuable detail on that specific path.
I can exemplify what I mean with this:
The Con Con
On-Line Source
One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.
That is the battle between Voluntary Association and Involuntary Association, and I can explain in detail while utilizing the events known as Shays's Rebellion which occurred under The Articles of Confederation (Voluntary Association) and later the Whiskey Rebellion (Involuntary Association), why, and who was involved.
Voluntary Association can be described as Liberty, or non-criminal competition.
Involuntary Association can be described ad Crime, or Monopoly Crime, or Legal Crime.
One is productive toward good life, and the other is destructive on purpose, for the profit of a few, who are themselves, relatively speaking, injuring their own capacity for good life and prosperity.
Now with regards to "brain washing" even the legal criminals are not immune.
A person trained well in the art of deception destroys, relatively speaking, their own capacity to judge between accurate perception and their own inventions of deception?
Note the question mark.
They can be behaviorally modified also and it is corporations that do this.
Here I am inspired to go into greater detail as to what I mean when I disagree with sentences like this, whereby the apparent viewpoint, which may or may not be your viewpoint, is a thing being held to account for the actions of people.
A common viewpoint, and a false one, is that a person will blame the gun, the government, or the corporation, for this or that crime.
A common viewpoint, on the other hand, is to credit a thing for doing good things too.
The genuine thing that can happen, not the bad thing, the good thing that can happen, is a convenience, while the bad thing is destructive.
I mean:
1.
When someone says "the corporation" what they mean is a list of names of people who share a common bond of thoughts and actions as those people on that list "collectively" are accountable and responsible for what they do, as individual people, within that group. So it is a convenience to "blame the corporation" instead of listing all the names of all the people who contributed in their own special ways toward the events that constitute said "blame".
2.
When someone actually blames a thing, that is a false blame, and the actual people are not only unaccounted for, and not held responsible, but those same people can easily change the name of the "corporation" and continue perpetrating their crimes as a result of the false blame.
The gun did it.
This is a diversionary tactic common among criminals as a thief may point in a direction and yell "Thief", while attention is then directed toward the imaginary crime in progress, the actual thief perpetrates the crime. This is also known as a False Flag.
An example of a False Flag is understood by me from my reading of a book titled The Lost State of Franklin, whereby Tennessee, before it was Tennessee, was The State of Franklin. In this book there are sentences, but I don't remember them, and I gave the book away, so I can't quote from it, but the sentences described Massacres of White Settlers by White people dressed up and Indians.
If the Indians are peaceful, and they occupy choice land, then a way of gaining access to the choice land, expend all the costs of slaughtering the Indians, and making the Settlers pay those costs, boots, ammo, hired mercenaries, you know people who slaughter babies for a living, a tactic, a False Flag, is to hire the mercenaries to dress up as Indians, have them slaughter some Settlers, one or two families will do, and do a really good job of it, you know, babies on poles, stuff like that, eat the babies, rape them and eat them while you are raping the babies, stuff like that, you know, make a good show of it, and then blame the Indians.
Which Indians?
The peaceful ones settled on the prime land of course.
This stuff:
I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness. Time, technology,religion,ideas all move forward.. sure shit happens here and there, some of it attrocious behavior but attributed to destructive humans, not a collective destructive government.
Reading further:
It is not taxes to government that should be stopped but careful boycott and control of purchases of goods and services from corporations deemed anti-humanist.
What do you mean when you use the word "government"?
What do you mean when you use the word "corporation"?
If either are what criminals call what they do, then why help them hide what they do?
Am I confusing your words?
Liberty day should be on election day when we restore sovereign rights through legislation.
To me Liberty Day is every day where this happens in some way, by some accurate measure:
Whatever you do for the sake of truth will take you to the truth. Only be earnest and honest.
Using Federal Reserve Notes as money can be called a TAX, people do so, and in a way they are correct, so long as the word tax means fraud in progress, but why not call it a fraud in progress, since that is what it is in fact?
Federal Income Tax payments, same thing, can be called a Tax, go ahead a call it that, and you can be true to your word, so long as tax means Fraud in Progress, because that is what it is, a bunch of Frauds perpetrating the crime of Fraud perpetually, so one generation of Frauds replaces the next, and the victims keep doing this:
Common Sense
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.
Thomas Paine was fighting a corporation, or do I have my terms mixed up.
Am I the one who is confused?
If the Chess Clock was turned on, I think my turn took 3 hours.