| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ...   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Final Editing | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Fri Jul 26th, 2013 08:37 pm |
|
621st Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/26/13 Page 138 The concept of The Liberty Day Challenge, as a sampling of what can be done, things that can be done by a certain date, was invented from this notion of deciding to make power abundant, instead of settling for never having enough power to do anything worth doing. The concept is such that enough people may yet realize, in time, which things can be done, on a short list, and those things can be done by a certain day. Modified: The concept of The Liberty Day Challenge as a sampling of what can be done, things that can be done by a certain date, was invented from this notion of deciding to make power abundant instead of settling for never having enough power to do anything worth doing. The concept is such that enough people may yet realize, in time, which things can be done on a short list, and those things can be done by a certain day.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 26th, 2013 10:44 pm |
|
622nd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/26/13 Page 141 The Convention who made it intended to destroy our free government by, or they neaver would have spent 4 Months in making such an inexpliset thing." Added sic for quoted misspellings: "The Convention who made it intended to destroy our free government by, or they neaver [sic] would have spent 4 Months in making such an inexpliset [sic] thing."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 26th, 2013 11:59 pm |
|
623rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear,I changed the wording avert "but" What do you think? I see that the word but is either/or. It is either not-for-profit or it is for unlimited profit? Either/or? I think it is the point that is worth pointing out, so which is it? Is it not-for-profit in a strict sense that there is no transfer of power at all, ever, in any way, whereby the power is never allowed to flow inequitably in any way ever? I think in terms of scales. On one end of the scale is when, and where, everyone has their own personal Central Bank such as the actual proof offered by Josiah Warren in Equitable Commerce. On the other end of the scale is something like a Federal Reserve Fraud combined with an Internal Revenue Service Extortion Racket whereby everything that can be stolen from those who produce things worth stealing is stolen and the thieves use the loot to steal more. The sentence can certainly be improved to explain the fact that there is a scale and on one end of the scale is the concept of not-for-profit and on the other end of the scale is unlimited profit. I can try to make a competitive version. But according to statistical calculation, the Bank will always net a profit to cover costs up to the government limit - again we are in that sense not-for-profit, but not in the sense of unlimited profit. I see the following: But according to statistical calculation, the Bank will always net a profit to cover costs. That is a guarantee. Above and beyond the covering of costs there is a margin of profits that is likely, almost assured, so long as the Bank remains competitive and efficiently run. There is a point at which the franchise can reach a condition called usury, because of the government label, which works like a monopoly, so the idea is to cut off the profit margin at a reasonable limit. or But according to statistical calculation, the Bank will always net a profit to cover costs up to the government limit. We are in that sense not-for-profit, but (the franchise) is not allowed to consume all the competitors by an initial capacity to expend reserves such as the practice of dumping, which is exemplified by the High School Drug Dealer giving away the product, so as to then create a market, and corner that market, so as then to have no competition, and then jack up the price to that which the market will bear. That was the problem with the single Legal Money Supplier in the past. Now there are safeguards in place to alert the people as to the dangers of allowing the criminals to take over the power of government.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2013 12:23 am |
|
624th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/26/13 Page 144 I am going to try to address this mess from three angles of view, so as to pincer the lies so often parroted Added colon: I am going to try to address this mess from three angles of view, so as to pincer the lies so often parroted:
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2013 12:26 am |
|
625th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/26/13 Page 144 3. The People, in a democratic, voluntary government are the ultimate sovereigns both factually in a physical form and legally in a psychological form, which means that no one in a democratic, voluntary, government has a right to give any other Sovereign any rights - or take them away. Modified: 3. The People in a democratic, voluntary government are the ultimate sovereigns. Both factually in a physical form and legally in a psychological form, which means that no one in a democratic, voluntary, government has a right to give any other Sovereign any rights - or take them away.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2013 12:34 am |
|
626th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/26/13 Page 146 If you join all the other criminals, claiming as they do, that one person has the right to disarm, and render powerless, an innocent person. Modified: If you join all the other criminals claiming, as they do, that one person has the right to disarm, and render powerless, an innocent person.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2013 12:53 am |
|
627th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, I have your note for a competitive wording. I am going to call it a nite. But I want to make sure that you check the questions I had on page 27 and following. Once all of those are ironed out, I can do one of 2 things. I can send the book back to you, or read it thru again. Which would you prefer?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2013 06:25 am |
|
628th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, "Joe, I have your note for a competitive wording. I am going to call it a nite. But I want to make sure that you check the questions I had on page 27 and following. Once all of those are ironed out, I can do one of 2 things. I can send the book back to you, or read it thru again. Which would you prefer?" I prefer that you are satisfied with having done a fine job, certainly above and beyond the call of duty from my viewpoint. If it sounds good to you I prefer that you sent it back to me and allow me the chance to go through it with at least an open channel to tax you further on possible questions I may find in the newest finished version. Back to page 27: 7/24/13 Page 118 Joe, let me know what you think about this. In context (abundant examples): Fill in the blank. Modified as follows: In context (abundant examples): That looks good to me. Someone may get a pen and fill in the blank. Joe, in addition to punctuation, I took a little extra artistic liberty in the last line by moving the word "now" to the end as " - right now." If you do not like it, just let me know. The Dragon is in darkness - not in the light - so laughter, fun, profits, and good things are happening - all around - even while the Dragon works in our sleep - for now - and even while our earnings flow to specific people who are torturing and mass murdering innocent victims - right now. That is very good in my view. I will be away from the computer a few days, my nephew has something planned. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2013 11:59 am |
|
629th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, let me know when you will have time with the computer, and then I will send back. If I have down time in the next couple of days, I will read through quickly. I am sure there are still occasions where I missed things because sometimes when I go back and look at my editing I see something I missed and then I make an editing note on that same comment and add a new date and the new edit. Yesterday I noted that I left work load as 2 words when I worked as one. In my way of thinking, if words that are able are merged, it will be easier on the reader to get to the meaning of a long sentence faster. Also, I want to make sure you saw my note here: http://www.power-independence.com/forum/view_post.php?post_id=6483 It includes something that came to mind for you to think about as a possible addition to the book.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 27th, 2013 12:01 pm |
|
630th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/27/13 Page 121 Removed the word Discussion after point counterpoint since this was a post and not a discussion.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 29th, 2013 11:54 am |
|
631st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I returned from my nephew's event and I can say that life is moving along with or without my input. I can say that my viewpoint is often changing with few things that are constant. I do appreciate much of your help in having competitive viewpoints available for comparison. We went to Lake Isabelle for white water rafting, camping, and impromptu cooperative association. I was the old guy among the next generation, and I had things thought I'd like to share. Leadership becomes counterfeit at times when the older examples are no longer able to adapt, so the actual concept of leadership is that power to adapt in whatever form the expression of leadership becomes. I don't get out much, where my part of life is part of a group, so the stark contrast of fitting into a group compared to my routine solitude inspired to thoughts on leadership. It might be important to say that my immediate family is as if we are one, over the time span of reproducing our two kids we have a way of interacting that is routine, so that is what I mean by my solitude: relative to a larger group of less familiar people. I was rambling there, so excuse the diversion from book work please. As to the introduction of a Joe's Slaw recipe idea I have a quick look at the page count marked on this forum. Quantity: 25 Trim size: 5 1/2 X 8 1/2 Page count:174 Text: Prints black on 50# white paperstock Cover: 4-color process on 12pt. C1S with gloss UV Binding: Perfect I am all for adding new things, even starting a new book. A problem I have is in actually doing the work. Here is where the solution to doing the actual work was solved with our idea to move toward a book by merely assembling discussions. The work was already done. My thinking is to not add anything more until we both agree with the book being finished and I am almost ready to send the book to the printer. So if there is now a need for more pages to get to the number 174, then that recipe could fill that in. I had this other idea too, concerning the sales of printed copies. The idea was to have a page in the back somewhere as the sale of the book copy is recorded, and this idea is to test how commerce works. If I place a recording page of book sales on the back, with a name of the person selling, fill in the blank, a name of the person buying, and the sale price, and the sale date blank areas to fill in, then I was thinking I could sell each book for 100.00. It might be a hard sell. If the next person could sell the book for 90.00, then that person ends up with a 10.00 book. On and on. The idea may not gain currency. Yesterday I noted that I left work load as 2 words when I worked as one. In my way of thinking, if words that are able are merged, it will be easier on the reader to get to the meaning of a long sentence faster. The idea may be in your blood, since that is how German Language works, from what I have been told. I like the idea.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 29th, 2013 12:30 pm |
|
632nd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, Groups...social events...ugh. That is just the way I am. I manage, but I prefer solitude as well. I have thru my life tried to stretch in those area and change who I am, but in these years after having cancer and kids I have decided not to push myself to be what everyone else is, but just to be me, who I am. Still, I look at people having fun together and wonder why it doesn't work for me and still have that longing, but it is all ok now. I think I am an introvert even though I put on a good face. I live in an extrovert's world. I kinda think that the extrovert's world is what exist because as an introvert, I'd prefer a cave to a world. I think that is why I like my time with the Amish. Nothing is ever said that makes me feel on edge. When one is a pastor's wife, there is almost always something said. I don't think on purpose for the most part, but there is always a problem to fix or something put on my plate that really, I don't have control over. So, I have rambled. I remember rafting trips. But they were more like tire inner-tube floats down the Guadalupe River and rapids were far and few in between. Jon is sick now. Scott finally got well on Thurs and Jon began a fever on Saturday so I am being nurse again this week. Jeff has been in China for a week with some travel to Texas on both ends. He will be home this morning. I had hoped to go back thru the book, but the sick kids decided we should watch cupcake wars and since we don't have pay TV the reruns on my notebook became the center of attention. So, I am returning the book this morning. I remembered this time to update the table of contents. I didn't take a good look at the Index page, but other than that I have gone thru paragraph by paragraph as you have seen the modifications I have made on your forum. The only thing that I think I have left undone is at the top of page 133. The words are highlighted in yellow and still have to do with "not for unlimited profit." You had given me some suggested words, but I am going to leave it up to you as to which words to put in because my thick head is not wrapping around the concept so well. Not the concept of the bank. I think I understand that well enough, but the concept of the words associated and explaining the bank. (And I would also like to say, I don't personally care for the government cap on profit. I would prefer a free market where the government keeps its fat nose out of things (I realize I am speaking of the government as a thing doing action, I am using the single word government to cover whatever list of people exists at whatever time who would manage such things.) I think when government begins to set caps, they then need a band of enforcers to ensure the caps are met which then spirals out of control as criminals are instinctively drawn to that system and would begin to corrupt it. I think as Steven Pearl Andrews spoke that all things should be individual and as simple as possible, I think that was the jist of his words in Science of Society (if I even remember the correct name of his publication, but it is the one where he speaks of groups breaking down smaller and smaller and smaller and used Martin Luther as an example). But, I am getting off into a discussion that I wasn't trying to start. I am just saying that I want you to insert whatever words you want on page 133. I think everything else is done. However, I did not go back thru to check on combining words into single words and Jeff will be home today and I want to concentrate on on home things for awhile, so I am sending you the book. If you want, I can still read the book and send you words that I think need to be joined if I come across any. But as for now....Joe Quotes is in your court! I remember you mentioning the $100 book sale with each person then reducing the price by $10. I never answered because I think it is hard to pry $100 out of anyone and so is $90 and so is $80 and so is $70 etc, and putting the camel on the back of the buyer to resell the book to recoup their money at a charge of $10 for reading the book and reselling it. I am not a sales person and I don't like to ask anyone to do anything for me so I wouldn't do it that way. I am the type of person that would buy $10 books for $100 at $10 a piece and then give the books away...because that is easier on my psychi ( don't know how to spell that word right now). I will send an email now with the book attacked. Just let me know if you still want me to read and send you changes to make as described above and also let me know that you know you need to look at page 133. It is nice to get out into nature even if it includes a group  I still want to move on some acreage so that I can be in nature without the group I want the boys to run and explore without a meth house on the corner...even though it has now been abandoned and all the furniture is strewn around the front yard...it will be easy enough for the boys to find a meth house on their own, which I hope never happens to them....as if it happens to someone...it is more like someone makes it happen to themselves when choices are made.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 29th, 2013 01:30 pm |
|
633rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, Thanks for the hard work. I stopped reading at this point: (And I would also like to say, I don't personally care for the government cap on profit. I would prefer a free market where the government keeps its fat nose out of things (I realize I am speaking of the government as a thing doing action, I am using the single word government to cover whatever list of people exists at whatever time who would manage such things.) The actual force forcing a cap on the rate of profits is competition, which is the actual force in Free Markets, if we can share the same meanings of words, which is probably not the case. If you still think of government in terms of a group of people who act exactly like criminals, then I too have a problem with any crimes done by those criminals. If, on the other hand, there is a governing principle called competition, then the consumers will choose better instead of worse (more accurate, and more powerful money) and that includes lower cost (which is the true meaning of profit - from the smelly end of the profit stick), so I don't know if I can explain that better with the opportunity now before me in that part of the book. That was, in fact, the idea behind the Play Acting offer of having a Free Market Government Contract Employee Selling Product 1 and Product 2 loans to a hypothetical consumer: to ask and answer these types of questions. You decided not to play along in the Play Acting offered to you, which is fine, some ideas just don't gain currency. The Product 1 and Product 2 idea has to do with a return to a Democratic Federated Republic by some means made available, offers, offers made from some people to some other people, to take it, or leave it, with no other force forcing the offer than those forces that work in Free Markets, whereby there is a demand (an obvious demand here is defensive government, or "legal," money), as people demand defense (legal) and people demand a way to pay for it (money), and so which is the Legal Money now? Can the Legal Money be improved upon? A. No B. Yes How, if yes? Run a competition to see which Legal Money is the Free Market winner in competition with all the other Free Market offers? If that sounds like positive directions, then how can that ball start rolling down that hill? Product 1 and Product 2. If it does not gain currency, does that mean that the victims love being victims, and the victims always demand the highest quality criminals at the lowest cost to the victims? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Who cares If the answer is no, the victims are only made into victims by way of lies that the victims end up believing, then what would the victims demand if they were not victims to the One Legal Money Fraud and Extortion Racket currently having cornered the Market, and effectively driving out any competition anywhere in the Free Market of Defensive Government and the Money required to pay for it? Product 1 and Product 2 intends to get the ball built, and start it rolling down the hill, and as soon as a higher quality and lower cost option is produced, on the market, and available to anyone, then that proves the legitimacy of Free Markets. When anyone claims that Product 1 and Product 2 means, as if I mean it to mean, another example of Legal Crime, then I've failed to communicate, and I've failed to sell the offer to that person. That person, in the Play Acting Scenario, says no thanks, and walks off. That person still uses Legal Fraud and Extortion Money? Is that not a choice for Un-Free Markets in fact? I think when government begins to set caps, they then need a band of enforcers to ensure the caps are met which then spirals out of control as criminals are instinctively drawn to that system and would begin to corrupt it. I think as Steven Pearl Andrews spoke that all things should be individual and as simple as possible, I think that was the jist of his words in Science of Society (if I even remember the correct name of his publication, but it is the one where he speaks of groups breaking down smaller and smaller and smaller and used Martin Luther as an example). Again the word government is used. Which one? The one working now (criminal) or one such as the one that worked as a Free Market Government in between 1776 and 1788? If both are confused as if there is only one then who benefits from that confusion since there are 2 not 1 and one is Free Markets defended, while the other is Crime that is enforced by destroying all competition? As far as as simple as possible is concerned, again, the voluntary association works to keep things only as complicated as any defender (juror) can understand if the idea is to use government to defend so called property rights. Whose concern is it if 100 people write up a very complicated contract that governs their association so long as their association isn't another version of organized crime? If those 100 people over-complicate their voluntary agreement, who does it benefit? Why would they willfully make it too complicated for their own purposes? If they are willfully making it too complicated for the targeted victims, and it becomes too complicated for themselves, then how can there be any authority, anywhere, in any case of disagreement? The fear you have here, it seems to me, is a fear of criminals who take over the concept of government and that is clearly another case of crime made legal or Legal Crime. Why confuse Legal Crime with any alternative methods of defending against any crime? But, I am getting off into a discussion that I wasn't trying to start. I am just saying that I want you to insert whatever words you want on page 133. I think everything else is done. However, I did not go back thru to check on combining words into single words and Jeff will be home today and I want to concentrate on on home things for awhile, so I am sending you the book. I don't mean to suggest that you have to continue any discussion at all. I hope that all is well in your life, and I trust that you can find a way to make life better if a way exists. If you want, I can still read the book and send you words that I think need to be joined if I come across any. But as for now....Joe Quotes is in your court! I will work at getting this in print at this point. I may get 100 copies made, and fall back into the concept of having a prototype working as one. If there are demands for improvements, then that process can work that way. I really think that you have gone above and beyond any call of duty produced by me, in any way, so thanks again. This has been a valuable experience to me so far, and who knows what may happen with an actual book on an actual market. Just let me know if you still want me to read and send you changes to make as described above and also let me know that you know you need to look at page 133. OK thanks again.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 29th, 2013 08:57 pm |
|
634th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe,You decided not to play along in the Play Acting offered to you, which is fine, some ideas just don't gain currency. It is not that I decided not to or that I did not want to, but that I didn't know how to play. I needed instructions - some guidance. I know that may be unimaginable to you since you have family that is artistic. I suppose that if I had just been bear and asked questions, then we could have changed my name to Jean. Or I could have pretended that I was bear while answering to Jean. I have been listening to G. Edward Griffin again. In the 60's he spoke of the conspiracy of history. He sure was polished. Wonder where he came from? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz4PXuykXdE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Tk4zraz-Q Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASbmBsE7mU0 and Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVQQCbL6Xy0 Those were old videos. It makes me wonder where government is today and why. I also read this at the JBS site: http://www.jbs.org/terrorism/u-s-funded-anti-morsi-activists-terrorist-advocacy-with-foreign-aid One recipient of U.S. “democracy” aid, former Egyptian police Colonel and Supreme Court Justice Omar Afifi Soliman, posted the following advice to opponents of Morsi on this Facebook page, according to Mekay's report published on Al Jazeera-English: "Make a road bump with a broken palm tree to stop the buses going into Cairo, and drench the road around it with gas and diesel. When the bus slows down for the bump, set it all ablaze so it will burn down with all the passengers inside.… God bless," Soliman's Facebook post last month read. In late May he instructed, "Behead those who control power, water and gas utilities." All posts on Soliman's Facebook page from the past year have been removed since publication of Mekay's report. Mekay noted in his investigative exposé that Soliman has been on the federal payroll since 2009, and continues to receive taxpayer funding: I think the reason the US funded Mao was because Someone in the US government sent a communist to be with Chiang Kai-shek...of course I cannot remember the details, but maybe, just maybe the reason Wall street funded Hitler and the Bolsheviks was because Communist People had already infiltrated the US government. Maybe we cannot call the government our government because it is a communist government which is a collectivist government. He said that Communists use the word Socialist. I am back at square one. Why do we even need banks at all? Why don't individuals just borrow money from individuals? I don't mean to suggest that you have to continue any discussion at all. I hope that all is well in your life, and I trust that you can find a way to make life better if a way exists. I didn't mean to suggest I don't want to discuss. I was just trying to say I was trying to give you the book and not divert your time into dialoging. Your last reply is full of a bunch of questions that would be interesting to answer, but I am too busy talking instead of listening. I also think discussing the Griffin videos would be interesting but it would take many hours for you to listen to all the links I gave you.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 29th, 2013 10:35 pm |
|
635th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I wanted to blast through the book and send it to the printer, but your heavy lifting (work) inspires a competitive offering of similar work (not an easy path), and here is the first example: Page vii: I remember that moment and thinking: That picture of those two men seems odd. Does it make sense to change the thoughts from regular text to italics or some other "thinking" symbolization? As to the use of the term "communist" and "collectivist" and "socialist" to help the criminals hide that they are criminals is a battle that we keep repeating, so I can give up and I can merely ask you which label, today, do you want to help cover up the crimes done by the criminals?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 30th, 2013 11:38 am |
|
636th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Hi Joe, When I did editing at this end, I frequently referred to information at this site http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/566/01/ : These are the guidelines I used for italics from that site: Italics Underlining and Italics are often used interchangeably. Before word-processing programs were widely available, writers would underline certain words to indicate to publishers to italicize whatever was underlined. Although the general trend has been moving toward italicizing instead of underlining, you should remain consistent with your choice throughout your paper. To be safe, you could check with your teacher to find out which he/she prefers. Italicize the titles of magazines, books, newspapers, academic journals, films, television shows, long poems, plays of three or more acts, operas, musical albums, works of art, websites, and individual trains, planes, or ships. Time Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare The Metamorphosis of Narcissus by Salvador Dali Amazon.com Titanic Italicize foreign words. Semper fi, the motto of the U.S. Marine Corps, means "always faithful." Italicize a word or phrase to add emphasis. The truth is of utmost concern! Italicize a word when referring to that word. The word justice is often misunderstood and therefore misused. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Having said that, I think you should take artistic liberty, and if it looks good to you, then do it, as long as it is adjusted only to the point of creativity and not beyond that point where creativity begins to destroy the end product by overworking it. I don't think those are the exact words you used to explain that to me, your explanation was better, but hopefully you will know I am talking about what you told me. Most of all, have fun with it! As to the use of the term "communist" and "collectivist" and "socialist" to help the criminals hide that they are criminals is a battle that we keep repeating, so I can give up and I can merely ask you which label, today, do you want to help cover up the crimes done by the criminals? 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? 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. We frequently speak of extortion and robbery done by those with a badge and done to us. 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. 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. You and I could loose everything for the things we have written in your book if we were in a communist country. 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. When the communists in our country have enough power, we may be expropriated. Because I happen to think that the government people that we speak against are those communist individuals who have taken control. And I am not saying that those people originated in the USSR, either. That group of communists, as well as the Chinese group of communists may have been home grown on US soil. Who knows. Or maybe some other country. Who knows. 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. And I don't know why you never want to call out the communists for what kind of criminals they are. Why do terms always have to be generalized? 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. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 30th, 2013 02:17 pm |
|
637th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear,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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 30th, 2013 03:16 pm |
|
638th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, 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. Are you saying that the communist criminals did all those things? Or are you saying that to make fun of me as in: "who can be called"? 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 agree with that as well. Not that you are guilty of utopian thoughts, but that there is enough power on the planet for everyone chow currently lives on this planet, as well as all those to be born on this planet," to live well. I think the planet was created that why. However, I do not think it is possible as long as all people everywhere refuse to live righteously. In my view living righteously means to love God and to love one another and in doing so God and others are put ahead of ourselves and then there would be no crime because as soon as I put you ahead of me, you put me ahead of you without dagger in hand. 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. And then I reply, those using Christian to hide themselves as criminals are not Christians (followers of The Lord Jesus Christ). So are you saying to me that those who use the word Communist for themselves, are criminals are not communists? Can one follow the writings of Max and Engels without perpetrating crime? And I want to know, why does air even have to be owned? Joe, thank you for answering me. You words helped me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 30th, 2013 04:30 pm |
|
639th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear,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.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 30th, 2013 10:16 pm |
|
640th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe,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). I hate that I have sent the book back to you with "busy" work to be done. I think you can change all of that font size at one time though by highlighting a paragraph of the Angsana font and then at the right side of your screen (at the top) in the editing segment of the toolbar click on Select then on the drop down click on All Text with the Similar Formatting Then all the Angsana will be automatically highlighted in a few seconds and then just change the font size. ----------------------- Joe, why do the JBS people and the G. Edward Griffin videos not call out Hamilton and Madison and the Federalist papers? It seems I just want to find one enemy, but there are many as the criminals morph and worm their way in. Do you think the criminals used US and the Soviet fronts to play the good cop bad cop routine? Did you know that we (the United States, the criminals in power in The united States) left the Yugoslavian Nationalists high and dry after calling them out on the Voice of America (or some radio program, I can't remember if that is the right name) and telling them that we would help them and then once they got brave enough to help themselves we didn't help them. We sent them a planeload of powdered milk. I am saying we, but you know what I mean. I know you and I didn't do that. But then again, our tax dollars were used to do that. It seems to me that the criminals have used the United States to identify opposition to Communism and then the Communist Criminals crush that opposition while "the good cops" withdraw support. Did you know that Chiang Kai-shek was told to have a collision government with Mao and when he would not do so his ammunition supply was stopped. --------------------- 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 is just that everytime, I think I finally understand, I see something new. William Cooper was busy calling out the Masons as the culprits, not the only culprits, but he was highlighting them in his Mystery Babylon series. So, then I was seeing/understanding the "spiritual" war or the spiritual energy the the legal criminals use. Now the last couple of days I have been listening to Griffin and JBS videos and they are busy talking about Soviet Subversion. They seem to use Soviet and Communist interchangeably. Do you think they are the same thing? Griffin, I think also talked about the Lawyers Guild. Do you know about them? I just want to see everything at once plainly, but I think I remember you telling me that we will probably never know the name of the worse criminal (and that we probably would rather not look to close because of the disgusting evil deeds surrounding that/those person(s).) You have also told me that they knock each other off as they try to gain the most power. You seem to point mostly to the money side of the enemy. Did you know the olympics generate money into the US economy when the hosting country begins to ramp up for the event? It seems to me that maybe the foreign aid that we give out comes back in part as purchases from US companies. Do you know about that? I think I am pretty naive. I have toilet paper vision. But Joe, sometimes when you try to help me see the big picture it makes me wonder why you seem to knee jerk when I use certain labels for certain criminals. I don't know what you think is, or is not, a Fabian Socialist. I don't know either, I was just parroting what I heard in a video. 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? I think the appropriate view of air ownership is this: Psalms 24:1 1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein Maybe people should quit trying to own things? Jesus said this in Luke 3: 10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then? 11 He [Jesus] answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise. Joe, I have more than 2 coats, there are people who have none. I have plenty of meat, there are people who have none. I say that I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not follow those words because if I did, my closet would not be bulging with choices, even if my choices came from Walmart. There are people with no choices. Sure, I give to others, but I give lots to myself. I wonder, how that concept of only having what the day requires works with this: Romans 12:21 KJV Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. What if all who had plenty gave willingly to those who had none, could that action in any way end the fed, end the irs and bring the troops home? What if people were satisfied with food and clothes, and that only to the extent to meet the need? Perhaps the IRS would have nothing to tax. In that same passage in Luke 3, Jesus said this to too: 14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him [Jesus], saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. What if the soldiers had followed that direction? Jesus would not have been beaten and put on cross? I am a utopian dreamer. [too?]
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 04:16 pm | Page: ... 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ... |
| Power Independence > Book > Book Resources > Final Editing | Top |
