 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Joe, I haven’t understood what means from the first time you quoted it to me. I still don’t understand what it means. Is Fromm saying Marx was right or wrong? I can bearly understand it. Could one say that labor is the pretending? And the capital is the product of pretending? Will not your pretending to be an author which is the labor end up with a tangible substance called a book which will be the capital product of your labor and if you were to sell that book and that book became a best-seller the manifestation of your labor will continue to bear fruit?
I think that the working question was the point being made by Fromm.
What is to control who?
Is a person going to control another person, and therefore one person is subject to the will of another person, which often is the case, and often the case involves deception, threats of violence, and violence as the power employed so as one person can control another person.
Is it not false to say that money controls a person to cause a person to do things?
To me this is a fundamental question that is asked by any person entering into the business of controlling people.
Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)?
To identify one of the things, like money, that is "said" to control people, is one of many things, and a category of things can be called "capital," and a criminal, and especially a legal criminal, is apt to call a victim a thing too.
Who (what thing, be it human or inhuman) will rule over which thing (another human or inhuman thing)?
Is a lie a thing?
Is a corporation a thing?
Is a person a thing?
If you are being ruled, deceptively, threateningly, and violently, at your cost, and to the benefit of another thing, is it likely that the thing ruling you by those methods is human, inhuman, or a rock, or a chair, or a pile of gold, or a barrel of oil, or a ocean full of lies?
Speaking of the book, did you get the e-mail I sent?
In response to the possibility of income flowing to us for that book I was thinking that it may be a good idea to sell it in exchange for non-fraud money, or if possible to take that income and redeem it in Lawful Money instead of Fraud money, if the better option is not affordable.
Money is a thing too, and there are at least two types, one being willfully deceptive money, and the other merely accurate.
Which thing rules whom?
I don't know why there is a word "whom" while there is a perfectly good word with less symbols that works just as well as far as I know: who.
Who
Whom
Who
What is the difference, besides more work?
Who is trying to willfully stupefy who? Is capitalism that which stupefies the victims? Is capitalism the manifestation of criminal labor?
Find a person and find out the accurate answer. If you know that the person trading something they have for something you have and you know that person can get the same exact thing for half price next door, do you tell them, or do you not tell them that they can get the same thing next door for half the price you demand?
If you tell them: then they are no longer stupid about how scarce the supply is of what you are demanding to be your price (or your cost of the trade) for that thing you have, even if that thing you have is a slave who is unable to see a better choice than being your slave; not you as in bear, but you and in a hypothetical person who may not be as human as the standard God issue, which is you.
I think it is safe to say that you don't have a dungeon full of slaves kept for your exclusive fun and profit.
Practice makes perfect?
So long as the practice isn't fraudulent?
The word AM is not static to me at all. It is a word of continual being.
If I think that you were thinking in static time, described as I have tried, and you are not doing so, then my knowing of my error is much better for me than perpetuation by me of such error.
The word pretend, as I think about it, is not as competitive a word when the idea is to figure out why words have so many meanings, and a term, in my opinion, is a more competitive term when the goal is to communicate why words end up with duplicitous meanings: Extraordinary Rendition.
So what is static? Trying once and then giving up?
I think in terms of power, so the concept of static thinking to me is a device invented by the Legal Criminals (or criminals who have not made their crimes legal) whereby the effort is realized at to point at which a target no longer has the power to control their own thoughts and actions.
I realize that there is a huge step between any single example of static thinking and being a subject of Legal Crime, as if a whole lot of missing evidence is left out of the dot connecting I am trying to offer to you.
The reason for the existence of static time thinking, to me, has to be understood in order to realize what does exist (presuming of course that my viewpoint is accurate and therefore worth knowing better).
How does an individual human being, or a like-minded group of individual human beings working together to arrive at the same goal, how to, how to, how to make the targets work harder so that the person or people doing the targeting don't have to work so hard, and there is an abundance of stuff produced that is worth the effort to steal?
The targets have to be rendered powerless to stop the process of having their power produced by them, the targets, transferring to those who are doing the targeting.
One obvious power is to know that victims are victims.
If a targeted victim is rendered incapable of even knowing that the targeted victim is targeted, and the victim is rendered incapable of knowing that the targeted victim is a victim, then that obstacle in place of the criminal and success measured by the criminal is no longer an obstacle.
Static thinking, to me, can be seen in that illustration offered by John Taylor Gatto with the Flea Circus. The fleas are thinking only in terms of Abject Belief in following orders, without question. Their dynamic thinking is turned off, or their independent thinking is turned off, or their POWER to command their will is turned off, but that is merely fleas.
A rat in a maze may be in paradise compared to having to fight other rats for the last remaining scarce supply of whatever rats may eat when no "higher power" is "helping" them by "giving" them something better to do, according to the higher power.
Rats have plenty to eat in the maze, and all they have to do is complete the maze, which is one thing, and only one thing, over and over and over and over again, no inventiveness, no creation of new things, no wandering off the beaten path, no adaptation, no power to do anything other than follow those orders without question.
Human beings, on the other hand, when not being directed by a director (not that I am saying that God is false, but I am using the word director to mean another human being is directing human beings), are apt to think in dynamic terms naturally, there may be likely to find a routine worth repeating, sure, but as soon as a better routine is obviously better, they shed worse for better, and it is measurably natural that human beings are designed to look for better and be unsatisfied with worse.
So that is dynamic thinking. Seeking better from worse.
Static thinking is Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question.
Dynamic thinking, seeking better from worse, is Power Independence, or the POWER to seek better from worse, and obviously, as any case may be, realized, as better is produced out of worse.
Static thinking is destructive from the measure of the individual, no longer being independent, having no power to defend against victimization, and subject to whatever the external power demands.
Who controls whom?
If a person is dynamic in their thoughts then they are exercising their power of will to do whatever they, individually, decide to do, independent of external control over that power of will.
If a person is static in their thinking, then that power of will is turned off, and they would be like a ship without a rudder, excepting the obvious fact that the power of will was shut of by an external power, and that external power shut of that individual power of will for a reason, an obviously measure reason.
Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes?
Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes with your Federal Reserve Notes?
Now, there is an example right there, where I find myself thinking in Static Terms once again. To illustrate the point, I will change the wording of the questions offered from me to you, and this will be a competitive, dynamic, rewriting of those two questions.
Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes?
Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes with their money?
Does that make any sense to you?
I wonder what perception and observation have in common? That was a side question.
But you are exemplifying the point, and here is where a Mike or a Sergey also exemplify the point, since they are not watching television when they are failing to follow orders without question.
The four words used by the Fighter Pilot from America is one word more than the words translated into English from the Fighter Pilot from Germany.
See, decide, act, was the routine told by the person Erich Hartmann who has so far stood as the most successful Fighter Pilot in human history.
The concepts work out dynamically and the words merely take a picture of what can be understood in a dynamic sense.
So I guess what you are saying to me is that I need to use Boyd’s continuum to protect myself and that may be by removing that vulnerability from me?
I real, and current, terms the example offered may suffice as an answer here:
From this:
Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes?
Do you pay your Federal Income Taxes with your Federal Reserve Notes?
TO THIS:
Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes?
Do you pay their Federal Income Taxes with their money?
Which freezes you onto the hamster wheel?
Which begins to shed light in the direction of greater power for you to employ as you see fit?
How much longer will you pay the extortion fee with the fraudulent money?
Why is Mike, Sergey, and Joe fighting over the disputable fact that perception exists, when we all know that there are only two things that are certain?
Death and Taxes?
I question both.
I think vulnerability sets the stage for the Golden Rule.
To me there are many ways of describing the same process, such as the saying that goes "innocent until proven guilty".
I like the words written by Lysander Spooner, which may ring as true:
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man’s legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: “To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due.” This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due.
To do otherwise ends up rendering the dishonest person incapable of knowing better from worse?
My neck is on the line.
That is an observation of fact, and to think otherwise, as if trading your dynamic mind into a static one may buy you a few more days of abject misery, is a fraudulent deal invented by criminals, so why fall victim to such nonsense?
They have given themselves badges so the deal must be worth something?
When they come for the Christians, I imagine we will be crushed unless The Lord has a different plan for us.
There is hope and there are things that can be done to move toward better and away from worse - it seems to me.