 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
The criminals call themselves those terms. Some communists hide that they are communists until it become fashionable to be communist. If they call themselves those terms is it not wise to know what those terms entail so one can fight that type of criminal?
The criminals also call themselves capitalists, conservatives, Christians, and any term that appeals to the targeted victims so as to cover up the fact that crime is never appealing to the targeted victims. So...again...we go over this battle each time, and if my question remains my question then the answer appears to be that you will use whichever word the criminals use to cover up their crimes, and if that word is communist, then you will use that word, and if that word is capitalist, here is my question again, will you use that word too?
Why pick only some words as the words you will use as the word you use to help hide the criminals?
The battle between you and I on this subject returns to my focus each time you use both communist and socialist as your choice of words you choose when you help the criminals hide their crimes, because, as you say now, they, the criminals, use those words. The reason I have this battle return to my focus is the fact that the communists of the most common, collective, authority (false) wrote, in their Communist Manifesto, that they, the self proclaimed authorities on Communism, repudiated socialism.
We go over this each time, and that is OK by me, I will offer my viewpoint on labeling the criminals each time.
You use their false words. I question the use of their false words; each time I have my power to question false words working for me.
Murderers, rapists, robbers (with or without badge) do certain deeds. I suppose I would rather run into a robber than a rapist, and a rapist rather than a murderer. If faced with the 3 at once, I'd take care of the murderer first, then the rapist, then the robber, even though they all wear the label criminal.
I think it is important to be reasonable as your words above report, and report accurately in my view. How does that reason in your words above reason our our current battle over labels used to label criminals?
The robbers, rapists, and murderers who rob, rape, and murder the most in this country call themselves Capitalists, Conservatives, Christians, or Communists, Socialists, Republicans, Democrats, Central Bankers, Authorities, Federal Employees, or whichever label works best on the targeted victims, so, your words are speaking about criminals with criminal labels that are labels that are accurate labels whereby the accurate label describes what the criminal actually does to the victim.
That is a good point to point out, and that is the point I am trying to point out in my battle with you on this subject of false or accurate labels.
"Murderers, rapists, robbers (with or without badge) do certain deeds. I suppose I would rather run into a robber than a rapist, and a rapist rather than a murderer. If faced with the 3 at once, I'd take care of the murderer first, then the rapist, then the robber, even though they all wear the label criminal. "
If the murderer called him, or her, self a Conservative Capitalist Christian and the robber called him, or her, self a Communist Collectivist Atheist, how then do you handle the triage?
I cringe when I hear an otherwise valuable reporter such as Edward G Griffin use the word collectivist.
The concept of defense against very well organized groups of large armies of criminals was explained in a simple document called The Declaration of Independence.
The document didn't say that we are all alone, we are all on our own, and it is every man, or woman, for him, or her, self.
What happens when one person adds their power to another person so as to then have a collective sum total of power.
Edward G Griffin contradicts himself because he uses the labels picked out by the criminals.
That is why the criminals pick out the word Christian.
Why do people use the word Anarchy?
I cringe at the use of these words that become powerful misdirections like signs on the road that tell the reader to speed up and go faster to heaven as the hill then drops off to a cliff and a horrible, torturous, long suffering death.
Misuse the word Christian, Collectivist, Capitalist, Socialist, Government, and what is likely to happen when the victims finally realize their fate and the victims then, finally, begin to mount an effective defense?
They won't look for the words of Jesus Christ for help, because of the misuse of the label?
They won't look for cooperative, organized, combining, or collectivizing of their individual powers of defense because of the misuse of the label?
Which labels are never misused?
What is Liberty?
What is a Liberal?
In a communist country where everything is supposedly owned by everyone, if you get out of line, they simply reassign your benefits to someone more worthy and demote you.
The lie is the same lie. In this country we are supposed to own our own property. Who says so? If I own my own property then the term, in English, is allodial.
It is beneficial to know how the lie works upon the victims in another country, such as I had a friend in Brazil who began to question my thinking on how political economy works, so I am in a position to explain to him how his system works as crime made legal. He is in the upper class in Brazil, so he is "capitalist" so called. I can explain how that works, but will he listen to me? The answer is no. Those who have an interest in the system working the way the system works will not want to know that their version of the system is merely the same system with different labels.
The owners of everything are the most powerful group of criminals and they claim ownership of everything including people.
If you want to win in their game then you have to play by their rules, and if you play well, you go up the ladder, and if you do not play well, then you go down the ladder, and the ladder is a series of steps that are graduated in the one Legal Money System of measuring the ladder.
There is an education, very costly, for the upper class, and an even higher cost education for the class above that one.
I think that was well reported by John Taylor Gatto in the link you found, and the link you so generously offered to me.
There is a money system for the upper class, and it is expensive as well, what do you need to do to get the power to write checks for as much money as everyone else combined?
Why do I fall into the same trap?
I should say, to be accurate, that there is a very expensive education system, and a very expensive money system used for the lower class that are the legal criminals.
The almost costly education system and the almost costly money system is for people in liberty where we exist, as best we can, in the upper class, the elite of human beings.
In a communist country where everything is supposedly owned by everyone, if you get out of line, they simply reassign your benefits to someone more worthy and demote you. Perhaps a teacher uses a Bible to teach literature. Perhaps the students complain. Perhaps the teacher is no longer murdered but is made to suffer economically.
As soon as I read that I think about the Churchgoers in Waco, and I remember a published copy of a legal document that ordered all Mormons to be killed. I think it was a Utah State Dictate.
Again, if the system is in your home, then it is not as easy to see how it may be a criminal system, so you have an advantage when looking at the same system working in another country. They use different labels. It is the same system.
The differences include the fact that this country was a refugee camp for runaway slaves from all those older organized crime areas, so the number of Liberty minded people per capita here may have been higher from 1700 on up to 1900 and then the abuse of Television managed to bring everyone World Wide on the same page, more or less, all as blindly obedient as the next target.
And because the "people" own all things commonly,
I cut that off. Why does that type of wording, that type of thinking ever become your words, and your thoughts, since it is patently absurd to give any credit to such thinking.
The reading I've done of Russian thinking is such that no one actually believed the lies told by the organized crime bosses that ran things in Russia. Everyone knew that the place was run by the worst criminals Russia could produce. So who "believes" the "official" lies of everyone owning everything equally like oxygen for example?
Sure, at first glance, you can see problems in other places, whereby the people in those other places are doing bad things, but when do you start believing any of the lies used by the criminals upon the victims?
And because the "people" own all things commonly, then that teacher cannot in their own initiative jump-start their livelihood because the market is not free.
Many Russians and Chinese, at this point, may be well ahead of you and I in understanding how best to teach our children as to what is very wrong with the false authorities in our countries. We have yet to go through the worst of it, if We The People don't collect up our individual defensive power into a collective effort to defend against where this absolute despotism, this Legal Crime, is rapidly accelerating in the former Voluntary Union of States.
This is part of my theory concerning why the most powerful evil human beings on this planet are having such a hard time getting World War III off on schedule. Perhaps the POWER to force all those Chinese people and all those Russian people into armed conflict is no longer as POWERFUL as it was when World War II went off on schedule. Maybe the average Chinese and Russian father and mother is figuring out ways to teach their children better instead of worse.
I make sure that I tell my daughter that her Public School book on Political Economy is all lies, but she is very independent minded, so who knows?
You and I could loose everything for the things we have written in your book if we were in a communist country.
You may find an improved viewpoint as you look deeper into what goes on in other countries compared to what goes on in this country. The idea that America is free compared to other countries is based upon specific things that have happened in the past and now things are going the other way rapidly.
You use the word communist as if there was some accuracy to the meaning of the term. People are now fleeing this country to find sanctuary in other countries because there is threat of torture and murder for those who disclose inculpatory information that challenges the power of those who are in power.
Those who are in power are in power World Wide.
Communism means anything under the sun, and so does capitalism. When the meaning is forced upon one person by another person then the meaning is the same meaning as crime. When the meaning is strictly voluntary among everyone, and no one forces the meaning on anyone, then the meaning, by that strict boundary, is not criminal. Capitalism means anything under the sun, with the same obvious qualifications of how the meaning transfers from one person to another person.
If the meaning is strictly voluntary, without fraud, without threat of torture and murder, and without torture and murder being used to transfer the meaning, then the meaning is an offer in a free market of ideas.
So far in this terrible land of America, we can write whatever we want, but we are probably being put on some type of list.
That is not true in many ways. The freedom to speak is limited by many things by many people in many places, and the true authority as to what is morally right or morally wrong to say, shout, print, report, or document is subject to human judgement in all cases whereby humans are judging.
Shouting fire in a crowded theater where there is no fire is often judged to be morally wrong as many people may be injured by that "freedom of speech".
Who says this is a terrible land? I just went to Lake Isabelle. The land does not look terrible. The criminals running the money monopoly, World Wide, run the criminals running the false Federal government, and now those criminals are torturing and murdering people who threaten their power.
Two examples:
Bradly Manning
Adam Kokesh
There are many more examples.
Why are some of the disobedient slaves tortured and murdered faster compared to other disobedient slaves in this country where there is so much power to produce paradise on earth?
I think you explained how that works in your own words:
Murderers, rapists, robbers (with or without badge) do certain deeds. I suppose I would rather run into a robber than a rapist, and a rapist rather than a murderer. If faced with the 3 at once, I'd take care of the murderer first, then the rapist, then the robber, even though they all wear the label criminal.
The legal criminals can buy anything that can be purchased with fraudulent money, so they can buy almost anything. Sometimes they can't buy silence if an individual refuses to be silent. So which information is more powerful? If you have a method of economy in defense against harm, so does everyone else, everyone with a working human brain, and so your value judgements work for you the way that your value judgments work. You defend against the murderer first.
The Legal Criminals defend against which threat to their power first?
To me the obvious is made obvious in time as the Legal Criminals act.
The Legal Criminals, for example, went to Waco to defend their turf.
What was so threatening about a bunch of people in a church?
Why torture and murder all those people in that church?
Why not offer them huge sums of money to get back in line?
Why is Bradly Manning tortured severely and Adam Kokesh is by comparison merely suffering inconvenience?
I think you may want to rethink the whole book idea if you are operating under a delusion concerning what the Legal Criminals will do when someone threatens them.
If I send this book out, and it is on the market, then there is a possibility, however remote, that the book will gain currency.
What do you think happens when information threatens the power of those in power?
When the communists in our country have enough power, we may be expropriated.
Yes, I don't know what you have been drinking, or smoking, but your words suggest to me that you are not seeing clearly.
The so called "communists" already have the power to write themselves checks for as much money as everyone else combined and they are currently buying World War III.
What do you mean when you use the word "expropriated"?
Those so called "communists" already "expropriated" all those people in that church in Waco.
Because I happen to think that the government people that we speak against are those communist individuals who have taken control.
You are safer, I suppose, in your delusion, as to what they are, and who they are, in fact, without the false labels. I may not be as safe and secure since my viewpoint may be more accurate. Does that make any sense to you?
If I am not misdirected by the kangaroo labels then any effort on my part in defense is added to a more effective defense against the actual criminals; so the actual criminals are then able to view me as a higher threat, while you are still busy chasing your own tail?
That works fine for me.
But those criminals use utopian thinking people to gain power, like the Fabian Socialists who joined the Bolsheviks but become disillusioned and parted ways. I think it is a good idea to know what kind of criminals lurk behind those cloaks and know what kind of dagger they hold.
Works fine for me. Whatever you can do to make sense of things, to be powerful internally, in defense, makes sense to me. If you now equate the worst human beings ever to be merely better at handling the same dagger as the so called Fabian Socialists then that is your way of judgement.
I don't know what you think is, or is not, a Fabian Socialist.
I don't know what you think is, or is not, Utopian thinking.
Example:
Private ownership versus utopian collective ownership.
Who owns air?
So, by my imagination, I can take your words as an attack upon me, as I am quite possibly a utopian thinker, a person who thinks that air is collectively owned by everyone, and therefore I am a socialist, I have that dagger in my hand, and I may be misled by other utopian, collectivist, communist, socialist, thinkers who are better able to stab people with that dagger behind that cloak?
While all that is going on I am realizing that the air is what it is, and it does what it does, even if I don't understand how it works among the human beings here in earth.
I think accurately as to how air is owned collectively, as far as I know at this point in time.
The next step, to me, is to apply that understanding of how air is owned collectively to the concept of owning land.
Private ownership is such that a portion of air is consumed by a single human being and that is measurable in fact.
What happens if a criminal claims ownership of all the air?
Why call the criminal a socialist?
Why claim that the criminal is a utopian thinker?
If the criminal claims ownership of all the air while the criminal claims that everyone owns the air equally, then the criminal confesses a lie with those contradictory claims, so why call the criminal, who openly defines the meaning of crime anything other than a criminal?
Does the human being willfully create the falsehood of claiming private, exclusive, ownership of all the air at the same time that the same human being claims the opposite claim that everyone equally owns the air? Is that a willful lie or does that person merely read from the script handed to that person?
And I don't know why you never want to call out the communists for what kind of criminals they are.
And I don't know why that my wanting to call the criminals out for the crimes they perpetrate is somehow dependent upon attaching the false label used by the criminal to the criminal.
Marx and Engles can, or cannot, exemplify what is accurately knowable as The Communists?
What crimes did they perpetrate?
I want to call out those communists for what kind of criminals they are if at all possible.
Now your words are rendered no longer true.
And I don't know why you never want to call out the communists for what kind of criminals they are.
To me those words were false when I read them. Now to be very clear, those words are false from this moment on.
Someone who claims that something is owned by them, privately, exclusively, and at the same time that same someone claims that the same thing owned by them, privately, exclusively, is owned by everyone, equally, confesses a falsehood, in their own words.
Just making a claim, such as that private/public claim, which is false on its face, is just a claim, and not necessarily a crime.
Why do terms always have to be generalized?
If I am guilty of some error, then having the specific error shown, in no uncertain terms, would be nice, as it would help me in my want of not repeating such errors.
The specific lie that appears to work for all the Legal Criminals is not a generalization, it is a claim of exclusive ownership they claim, and they enforce, while they also claim that everything is owned by everyone equally.
They know it is a lie, as the concept of exclusive ownership is possibly an effective distortion of reality, as far as I know, there is only use, or present use, or control, or power to use, power to control, power to have in hand, power to be in a place, at a time, whereby someone else is not powerful enough to replace you in that place at that time.
They, the Legal Criminals, know that their whole Private/Public charade is a well maintained fraud whereby they stay in power over their targets and the lie works well at dividing the targets apart and fighting each other over this nebulous fiction of Private or Public OWNERSHIP.
If the targets are allowed to agree upon who uses this, or that, without resorting to deception, threats, and violence as a means of gaining power over each other, then the targets may grow very powerfully defensive against any criminal anywhere.
When no one wants more lies, who will be able to make a living offering better lies?
How much more specific can I get when offering what I consider to be a reasonable answer to the crime problem?
The communist hippies in the 60's were grown by communists with a plan, and that plan was to incorporate economic criminal socialism which is extortion until we the people became so week and we the people in government became so unproductive and counterproductive that we the people will raise the communist banner ourselves.
If I go in prophecy mode, which I don't like to do, since I am not good at it, my vision of the future does not include me, or anyone I know, raising a specific banner.
Right now the banner, so called, is called The American Flag, waved currently by those who rally around what I call Legal Crime.
Your words appear to suggest that a new flag will be waved by some people here in America.
I don't see it.
I am often wrong.
If the world does not shift on it's axis and everyone is beset with a whole new arrangement of new problems requiring new solutions, or if there is no meteor hitting the earth, having similar consequences, or if there is no major escalation of War consuming many more lives and much more productive power, then I can see a time when China gains control of the Legal Money Hegemony and I can see many people working to get on the good side of the new Money Changers, paying off the National Debt, paying payments to China, and at that point there may be more people waving Chinese flags.
So, in that way, I can see where your words may agree with my own sense of prophecy.
I would not call that communism since I know that it is merely Legal Crime whereby the most powerful human beings take over control of the one Legal Money.
If the flag waved by the flag wavers is red, white, and blue, or just red, or just blue, or red today, and blue tomorrow, then that is the flag waved by the flag wavers.
If I give up, then I can wave the white flag, and then my masters can order me to wave whatever flag they want me to wave, and I can do so without question, since I gave up.
So when we the people own everything, no one but the party elite will control the assets and we will not dare step out of line. Right now we pay is taxes, then we will pay with the ability to receive income.
Joining the party elite is an option not offered by you in that offering of words. I just sent a check to the IRS, doing so at the direction of my wife, who is earning an income, and so I help her by doing what she thinks will keep us alive, happy, and productive. I know that the payment is an extortion fee.
All those words of discredit you use against nebulous communists are words that account for ourselves, you and I, and those who exploit our lack of power, the same discredit is accountable to us, right now.
We are in a boat, to use a fabrication of fiction as an illustration, and the label you attach to the boat can be anything you want, so long as I know what actually constitutes this boat.
This boat is a planet.
There is enough power on this planet for everyone currently alive on this planet to live well.
I am, in that last sentence, guilty of utopian thoughts.
I could be sentenced to a tenner in the gulag for such a crime, and it won't make any difference to me if the criminals pointing the finger at me wave a red or blue flag.
So we need to end the fed, the irs and bring our troops home, and be sure that we are on the right side of the fight to do so.
Yes, the criminals who can be called communists created the FED and the IRS, and they own the troops privately, exclusively, to the extent that those troops are ordered to enforce that Legal Monopoly Money Power of fraud and extortion made legal, and the Troops obey, well enough, to effect that enforcement currently.
By tomorrow morning the revolution could be over, and a new day dawns without the shadow of "communism" (or whatever name you want to use) in force.
To me there can be hope, real hope, not self delusion.