 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
to make fun of me
There is no fun in this to me. The time period, as far as I know, for the creation of The FED and the IRS (1913) is well after the invention of the word "communist" as a cover for criminals, so it is as good a word as "capitalist" to be worn by any of those criminals at that time.
I have a copy of the book by The Creature from Jekyll Island and I can look in that book to see if any of those criminals claimed to be "communist" or "capitalist" or "socialist" or whatever, so as to be more accurate and less capable of sounding as if I am making fun of you.
Joe, so what I think I have heard in your reply is that Communism, Socialism and Collectivism are not dirty words any more than Christian is a dirty word.
At least you ask for clarification which is more than most people do when assumptions are made as to what my word choices intend to convey. If entomology is useful then the origins of words can mean something to whoever uses entomology.
You use the term "dirty word" and I am reminded again of the sign analogy.
There is a sign on a road before a blind hill and the sign can be very accurate as the sign says something like "Caution Danger Ahead" or the sign can be a "dirty word" in stark contrast to the accurate sign as the "dirty word" might be a sign that reads "Free Money Ahead, hurry it won't last."
In the illustration the idea is to point out how there is a possible motive associated with the construction of the sign, and in this case there is a bridge that is no longer spanning a sudden change of elevation which will be certain death for anyone in a hurry to get the free money.
So the motive for selecting the words "Caution Danger Ahead" is a motive that is not "dirty," and the motive of selecting the words "Free Money Ahead, hurry it won't last," is by that comparison more along the lines of "dirty," but only in the eyes of someone who cherishes life as being something of value.
Someone who cherishes the witnessing of people plummeting to a horrible and torturous and painful death at their hands, and as a result of something they willfully do, so as to cause that death, having much fun in the fruits of their labor, reaching for that goal, may not see the "dirt" as "dirt".
And then I reply, those using Christian to hide themselves as criminals are not Christians (followers of The Lord Jesus Christ).
So that works for you that way. When I say criminals abusing words that are chosen to hide their actual crimes are apt to use any word, not just Christian, suddenly your own judgement used well enough for the word Christian is no longer applicable to the alternate word?
They are not Christians.
OK, I agree, they are criminals.
Then you say they are communists, because they say they are communists.
Well, bear, they said they were Christians, so what happened to your reasoning when the word changed from one you like to one you don't like?
What is it, contained in the word, that you don't like?
Back to the illustration offered to you, more than once, going back to a traveler on the road, and the sign before the hill, where the hill hides a certain death down a hole to living hell, there is no meaning in the word Christian to anyone not familiar with any words ever spoken by a person (or God) named Jesus Christ, so the sign has to fit the intended readers of the sign.
If the sign says "Caution Danger Ahead," but the sign is not written in English, instead the sign is written in Chinese, then as far as the reader who can't read Chinese is concerned, the sign can't accomplish the intended goal, can it?
The sign that says "capitalist" in China is the same meaning as the sign that says "communist" in America when the idea is to cause a specific thought and action into the targeted reader of the sign.
If the sign says "Christian" in Afghanistan (I suppose), then the sign may have the same intended meaning as a sign the says "Muslim" in America.
In other words, if you ask a survivor of a drone attack upon his, or her, family in Afghanistan if "Christian" is a dirty word, is it possible that you will get the same answer as if you ask a survivor, such as a widow, of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan, if the word "Muslim" is a dirty word?
Can one follow the writings of Max and Engels without perpetrating crime?
Again there is a sign on the road and you are asking me if a reader of those words, following those words, will result in no crime perpetrated by that person following those words on that sign on that road. Here is where it may be important to return to the concept of the power of will. Does the person in question know that the words describe a method of perpetrating a crime?
If the answer is yes, yes, yes, the person desires to perpetrate a crime, finds words that describe how to perpetrate a crime, and the criminals follows the description, word for word, as to the perpetrating of that willful, premeditated, crime, and how can that ever be anything other than a crime, unless the words were false, and the actions resulted in no crime, or the person wanted to perpetrate a crime, but the person failed to actually reach the goal, despite having instructions that are effective methods of perpetrating crimes?
If the answer is no, no, no, the person does not desire any crimes perpetrated on anyone, but the person reading the criminal instruction manual is stupid, or powerless against effective fraud, then the person is not guilty of willful, premeditated, crime.
Which is more dangerous, the willful criminal or the person desiring to help other people, being misdirected, and as a result of following criminal instructions the misdirected person perpetrates crimes unwillingly?
If your question suggests that Marx or Engles, or both, are well meaning good people, who tried to construct a method that can be used to help people, but their utopian dreams are mistakes that they make in logic, and reason, then such a suggestion, if that is what you are suggesting, is beyond reason to me.
As far as I know Marx started out as a reasonable writer of philosophy, ran into trouble, and was paid very well by the Legal Criminals in power at that time, the Wall Street Gang, to lie, on purpose, so as to get World War I and II going on schedule, since there was a need to change the sign on the Legal Money Monopoly Power, to change it from The Bank of England to a new, fresh, false advertizement called The Federal Reserve, and/or, The World Bank, or, take your pick, The Dollar Hegemony.
So, to me, Marx and Engles were merely criminals, only criminals, paid to be criminals for a price, and the denomination at that time was either U.S. Dollars or English pounds, but convertible to any of the Fraud and Extortion monies then dumped on what would otherwise be a free money market.
Willful, premeditated, crimes perpetrated by those criminals as they wrote the false advertisement called The Communist Manifesto, which is probably an adaptation of the earlier crime perpetrated by The false Federalists with what was not called The Federalist Manifesto, but could have been, or could be now called that word choice, but was not called that word choice then, it was called The Federalist Papers, which were false promises of good things coming, willful deceptions, fraud, open fraud, perpetrated willfully by criminals, as those criminals define the meaning of crime by their actions, and by their false words.
Communist Manifesto = The Federalist Papers
Why would one be any better or worse than the other when both reach for, and gain, the same power?
Can one follow the writings of Max and Engels without perpetrating crime?
Can anyone follow the writing of Hamilton and Madison without perpetrating crime?
The answer is answered by those who are duped into a false belief that those words are not meant to be crimes, or by those who know that those words are meant to be crimes. The proof is proven when the heads of the victims start rolling.
Why call it anything other than crime?
Who benefits?
And I want to know, why does air even have to be owned?
Back to the sign on the road, before the hill, before the drop to a torturous death, and on the sign is one word only, and that word is "owned".
What is the intended meaning of the word on the sign, on the road, as people travel down the road?
If the word means the same thing as exclusive use then each breath proves how accurate the word is in fact.
If the word means that one person, or one group of special people, claim ownership of all the air, then I smell a rat.
Who claims ownership of all the land?
I sit on a portion of land right now. How is that not the same thing as me owning this portion of land right now, and how is that not the same as me breathing the air that I breath right now?
Does the word ownership mean that I have exclusive power to breath the air I breath, and be alive on earth where I am at any given moment?
I think that the idea offered is a place to start, not a demand or claim of absolute authority that cannot be questioned by anyone ever.
Joe, thank you for answering me. You words helped me.
Thank you. I gain by our discussions which are rare things, scarce things, valuable things, useful exchanges of viewpoints, moving hopefully toward more accurate perceptions, and gaining in that way the power required to improve the standard of living and reducing the cost of living; while avoiding any willful involuntary passing on of costs.
Book work is put aside for good reason when discussion is possible.
Now back to work.
I am changing the size of the text from 12 to 14 where your words are published in a font called Angsana. I can't read the size 12 font without much effort or glasses while I have no trouble reading the words published sized 10 New Times Roman (my words).
Size 14 Angsana is still smaller in actual size compared to size 10 New Times Roman.