| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Prison Planet | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10th, 2011 01:00 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
First publication +++++++++++++++++++++++++ I am trying to get into the Prison Planet Forum (have been for years) so as to discuss political economy, to discuss the socialism versus capitalism mind game, discuss the actual history of the constitution, and discuss the methods by which capitalism (economy) and socialism (politics) combine to help people move toward higher standards of living at lower costs, rather than allowing, or enabling, or financing, the legal criminals who gain power in the work of destroying competition for power. A Swiss model Republic, as far as I understand the design, is not a Nation State, since the Swiss model Republic intends to empower the individual people within the Republic with the power to vote with their feet and move from one separate and sovereign State to another when one State becomes too oppressive, too costly, and therefore the separate and sovereign State governors must work toward higher quality government at the lowest cost to the consumer, or failing to satisfy consumers, the tax payer market, the free market of tax payers, walk, and power flows to the higher quality, and lower cost State governments. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I have tried to get registered on Prison Planet a few times, over the years, and failing to do so until today is a significant event for me. My usual effort was sending registration information to the Prison Plant Forum registration web page, and the failing to receive a response via e-mail. This first publication of my comments went to the comment section of a new item, a Blog format, not a Forum format, and that Blog format comment above required a separate effort to register, one that is required in addition to the Prison Planet Forum registration. The Prison Planet Blog format registration worked, I did manage to get words published on that web page, and now the effort to gain access to the Forum, and access to, possibly, reasonable people, willing to discuss political economy, is in someone's hands, some one, will open the door, or keep the door closed, and locked.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 5th, 2011 11:34 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
05-05-2011 Listening "The American Public will hold you accountable." "Regime change" "A second America Revolution" Dr. Steve Pachenic When a person, such as myself, works against the power of falsehood there comes a moment of truth, a breaking point at which the power of falsehood lowers and is overpowered by a willful refusal to settle for less than reasonable understanding. Once past that point reality dawns, and a person begins to understand personal vulnerability. In other words: the false sense of security that is a huge power within the power of falsehood, once it no longer has any power over a person's mind, leaves a vacuum that is filled with thoughts that are no longer clouded behind a nebulous sense of security, and without that blanket of fictional safety, thoughts of vulnerability are realized. Do you worry, at all, about personal injury, including the personal injury of loss associated with injury to people close to your heart; at the hands of someone with, or someone without a badge? Who has the power to overpower your worry? If you get to a point where you no longer worry, and your mind begins to calculate the measure of your vulnerability, or the vulnerability of those close to you, you will at some point realize that honest productive people are your only source of defensive power against any injury that threatens you, or those close to you. Dishonest people lie for a reason, and the reason is not likely explainable as a desire to transfer power to you from them, lying to be charitable, hardly likely, and a serious mistake, the wrong direction, if you care to think about it for more than a sound bite. If you get past the point where you worry about being on a list, tracked by some nebulous evil power, and you begin to measure threats by applying genuine concern, for your own life, and for the lives of those close to you, you may begin to realize the truth about the fear, the worry, where it comes from, and how it can be overpowered; and why, since it is in fact a measure of injury to you, and to your loved ones. Why be struck with fear? Why not move from paralyzing fear and move to reasonable concern? Unreasonable fear just so happens to remove your capacity to defend against injury effectively. In context: Paul Craig Roberts asked a question concerning the report by Dr. Steve Pachenic whereby Dr. Pachenic blew the whistle on the False Flag, inside job, whereby Dick Cheney, Bush Jr, and Donald Rumsfeld planned on and then followed through with the plan to destroy the 3 Buildings in New York on the 11th day of September 2001, blame the capital crime on innocent victims, and then conduct a war of aggression based upon that lie. Paul Craig Roberts wondered why Dr. Steve Pachenic would risk his life by blowing that whistle, knowing, that such a tale of the truth, of that magnitude, would inspire the legal criminals to seek action designed to censor the message, to kill the messenger, literally, or worse, after all, those legal criminals are also guilty of massive torture, added to massive murder, and added to willful acts that threaten the survivability of the human species - including those close to you, and including your own butt. Dr. Steve Pachenic was then asked to respond to that concern by Paul Craig Roberts. Are you understanding the gravity of these current events? Paul Craig Roberts is not Joe Kelley the laborer turned self taught political economist, no, Paul Crag Roberts was in with the insiders, close to the beast that is what I call Legal Crime, and he was expressing a concern for the safety of Dr. Steve Pachenic, who is also not Joe Kelley the worn out laborer adapting to a less powerful personal living situation, no, Dr. Steve Pachenic is a professional with a long history of experience in the work of covert Regime Change. Joe Kelley is concerned about writing things that may increase the chances of having his sorry butt injured, by people with badges, or without, and Joe Kelley is also concerned about writing things that may increase the chances of having people close to him injured also, but, I never threatened a sitting president with a warning as Dr. Steve Pachenic just did on a public access radio broadcast. What reaction did Paul Craig Roberts experience, what were his thoughts, after hearing the words from Dr. Steve Pachenic? Not only did Dr. Steve Pachenic not care to be silenced by possible injury to himself, or those close to him, concerning the fact that the crime in New York was a False Flag operation conducted by Bush Jr. and the other Legal Criminals, not only did that not silence Dr. Steve Pachenic, the report by Dr. Steve Pachenic went from a history lesson, to a personal warning aimed at The President of the United States of America, a.k.a. U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). I heard Dr. Steve Pachenic, a member of a network of people who are professionals at covert regime change, if I have the information understood correctly, warn The President to cease and desist, stop committing these serious crimes, or suffer the consequences; which were not specified in great detail, but where clearly enumerated, sufficiently enumerated as to be understood by any person of sound mind and body. Got that? A member of the U.S. military covert operations, regime change, community, serves the current President, a public warning, to stop committing crimes, or else. I can back up from that edge, that razors edge, that measure of the "Thin Blue Line", and offer a personal example of my history in this context. When I passed that moment of truth, defeating the power of falsehood, sufficient to stop being subjected to fear, and I began applying reasonable concern toward fact finding, and applying those facts into action, such as running for congress, I reached a point where very few people took me serious, as if, then, I was one in a million, or one in 100 million people, on this path, and then, as if out of nowhere, I started reading words on a newsgroup (early internet message board) that was also one in 100 million words, a viewpoint that I understood, and a viewpoint that was few and far between most of the viewpoints I encountered, then, on this path. Then I read the name of the author, and then I read the title of the author writing on that newsgroup, awhile back, back when very few people were the least bit aware of the crimes being committed by the Legal Criminals. Dr. Ron Paul Member of the House of Representatives If Dr. Ron Paul, as a Member of the House of Representatives can write, and speak, against the wrongs committed by the people abusing the force of law, power, and survive, then I may also be capable of writing, and speaking, against the wrongs committed by the people abusing the force of law, and I may too survive a little longer.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 6th, 2011 01:46 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente67.1.htmlOn Wednesday, April 27th, just four days before Bin Laden was killed, a new Public Enemy No.1 held his organization’s first ever press conference. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the world that the United States would continue its low interest rate polices and, in effect, continue to flood the world with cheap money. If there is such a thing as a competition working then there will be a force working whereby the competitors are forced to offer higher quality at lower cost, failing to do so, moves power to the competitor that does not fail to do so, as each individual chooses higher quality at lower cost. A. Higher quality at lower cost B. Lower quality at higher cost Which is chosen when competition works? If lower quality at higher cost is chosen, ask anyone, why? Hi Hi How are you? I am fine. Why did you choose lower quality at higher cost? What? Why did you choose lower quality at higher cost? What are you talking about, are you nuts? No, I'm just asking, to find out, so as to know, so as to avoid making false assumptions, so, why did you choose lower quality at a higher cost, when you picked the money you prefer to use? You are nuts. I rest my case? What is the quality of money? What is the cost of money? Why do people fail to understand money? Example: On Wednesday, April 27th, just four days before Bin Laden was killed, a new Public Enemy No.1 held his organization’s first ever press conference. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the world that the United States would continue its low interest rate polices and, in effect, continue to flood the world with cheap money. Is it me? I'm going to check to see the latest news according to a Google Search concerning the competition between Islamic Finance money and the competition. I am going to do that so as to measure, if it is possible, to measure the gains being made by a money producer, on the Global Market, whereby this money producer network, is constituted as a money that does not pay interest, and does not pay interest because the people connected in this network express the idea that interest is immoral, wrong, or even criminal. These people, connected by this idea, that interest is criminal, may be right or wrong, left or right, and that doesn't matter for this measure, for this measure what matters is the force of competition. Which money product is the higher quality product, at the lower cost? A. Islamic Finance (which does not charge interest) B. The Competition Finding out why the cost of this money is low is another thing on the list of things to do, while knowing that the cost of this money is rock bottom, or competitively at the lowest possible cost, is a measurable fact, not an assumption, and not necessary to know why it is rock bottom, if the idea is to see who is winning the competition, who is gaining the most market share, who is offering higher quality stuff, at a lower cost. Cost is low. How about quality? The quality factor is also knowable, measurable, as a secondary consideration, in the realm of "why" a competitor is winning the competition. The measure of winning, the measure of who is gaining the most market share, is what it is, and another thing, such as why a competitor is gaining market share, is another thing. A. Who is gaining the most market share B. Why is that competitor gaining the most market share I can type in a Google Search the following words: Islamic Finance Market Share Gains I will do that now. I get about 2 million results for that search, and I can browse through the first few pages so as to find something that may measure the money market competition as Islamic Finance, without interest, offers a competitive money to the Global users of money. Here goes. http://dinarstandard.com/challenges/islamic-finance-years-away-from-its-ideals/ That is old news, but I picked that source because the introductory summary reported on the Google Search page appears to address the context of my writing here, and I can confirm that the current measure of how well, or how poorly, non-interest bearing Islamic Finance money is performing against the competition, is not going to be reported in a report that is dated in 2006. A relevant quote from the link above: Despite the much touted $250 billion or so in assets under management at Islamic financial institutions the industry as a whole is undergoing a considerable amount of soul searching. That link offers a measure, converted to dollars, which is itself a measure, since it isn't converted to Euros, or Yen, or Yuan. I can't find any recent news. 2007 http://www.alhudacibe.com/newsletter/1march-07/emerging_market_12.html Saudi Arabia's Al Rajhi Bank, the world's largest Islamic banking group, yesterday unveiled an aggressive plan to expand its operations in Malaysia to 50 branches by 2010. Al Rajhi has set up 12 branches since it opened for business in Malaysia with a soft launch in October last year. The bank was formally inaugurated yesterday. How about cutting off the word Gains from the Google Search? http://www.islamicfinance.de/?q=node/1460 Islamic finance in Algeria has 15 % market share Enough of that? Here is the thing: I am only connected to the network that is the Global Financial Network via Google, and via my use of the dollar currency. I am not privy to the most accurate numbers that report gains and loses of each competitor, and my concern here is such that Islamic Finance fails to be reported, as if it does not exist, in Main Stream News. Why? http://www.islamicfinanceasia.com/article.asp?nm_id=18651
For your consideration: My view is such that The Dollar Hegemony Legal Crime competitors have accurately identified the potential demise of their monopoly power as Islamic Finance continues to gain market share by offering higher quality money at a lower cost. This has nothing to do with the fact that the producers and consumers of the competitive money practice a religion other than Christianity, and this has nothing to do with the fact that the producers and consumers of the competitive money are genetically constructed as a different race other than Anglo Saxon. On one side of the power struggle are those who are networked into the connection of dollars, which are produced by the people who run The Federal Reserve legal extortion racket, and on the other side are all the people who are working toward disconnecting from that dollar network. The Dollar Hegemony is on one side, and on the other side are all the people who are working toward avoiding the cost of being connected to The Dollar Hegemony. One of the major networks that are making gains in the work of disconnecting from the costs of being connected to The Dollar Hegemony is Islamic Finance. Headlines: The Dollar Hegemony accurately identifies a major power gaining ground in the struggle to avoid victimization by The Dollar Hegemony, and that powerful major power is called Islamic Finance. The reason why that is not a message that is broadcast by anyone other than me, in that way, is unknown by me, and for it to be known, someone else would have to confess why they do not report the news in that way. If someone does figure out a way to defend against victimization by the people who run The Dollar Hegemony, then such a way to defend against victimization by the people who run The Dollar Hegemony may spread to other people, and then such power spreads exponentially. One person tells two people. Two people tell two more people. The way to avoid victimization by the people who run The Dollar Hegemony becomes a competitive force, a force that becomes powerful enough to take down The Dollar Hegemony, rendering The Dollar Hegemony powerless. What happens to people who can see this coming, and what does a person who is heavily connected to The Dollar Hegemony do, once such a person does see this coming? Does such a person spread the news, or does such a person move his measure of surplus wealth out of dollar denominations first, before spreading the news? Those who move their measures of surplus wealth out of dollar denominations last, are those who are left holding the bag, and the bag is empty, or worse, the bag is full of fecal matter, and the smell is difficult to remove, the smell of fecal matter lasts a long time, and it can't be scrubbed off with detergent. Gold is not a currency, Silver is not a currency, a currency is liquid, the more liquid the better, liquidity is a quality of currency, more so than liquidity is a quality of Gold or Silver money, business thrives on high quality and low cost currency, the best does the job, the worst costs too much. These are just words. Here are the numbers that count: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Islamic Finance may not be a contender to that throne, the throne that is measured with those numbers linked at that web site. You may not have a choice to get your surplus wealth out of dollar denominations before the fecal matter truly hits the fan, and move your surplus wealth into Islamic Finance, even if you wanted to, which is a long shot, a stretch of my imagination, but what are your choices, assuming that you can even recognize a need to choose something before you have no choice? Gold? Silver? Solar Panels? Electric Cars? Food? Bullets? A good book or two? You may be in a similar state of your own Union as many are, whereby your surplus wealth is non-existent, where your surplus wealth is negative, where your surplus wealth is a surplus of debt that everyone, and their mom, says you owe to someone you don't even know, more debt than the debt that you think is accurately, and legally, recorded on a mortgage, and a car loan, in the fine print, much more than that paltry sum of debt, you owe even more than that, you owe past, and current, and future tax debt, local, county, State, "Federal" (Fascist), and Global debt too. Which measure of debt is the greatest, according to everyone else, and their mom? Local or Global? Check your tax returns? What is the denomination? Dollars? You have surplus wealth and you may not even recognize this fact, but you may want to know that other people know the measure of your surplus wealth, your power, very well, even if you fail to recognize the measurable facts. If you pay taxes, you are the source of surplus wealth, by that precise measure. How much do you produce (what is your total income - denominated in dollars), what are your total expenses (how much does it cost you to keep on living - denominated in dollars), and if you subtract all your costs from your income you will arrive at a number that is either positive or negative. You are either producing more than you consume or you are not producing more than you consume, and if you are not producing more than you consume you are dying, you are failing to sustain your life, and therefore you cannot be paying taxes, your life, if it continues, will be sustained by some other person's productivity by some transfer of some kind, charity, subsidy, fraud, threat of violence, and actual violence. Tax collectors know who produces more than they consume, that is a documented fact, it is recorded as transfers of dollars, within The Dollar Hegemony (legal extortion racket), and if you don't know, if you don't know if you produce more than you consume, you are ignorant, and that doesn't change the fact that tax collectors do know this fact. If you do know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that you do produce more than you consume, then you can know exactly how much of your surplus wealth flows to people who you would prefer not to be getting your surplus wealth, as those people who get your surplus wealth may very well be the same people who use that power they get from you in the work of making sure that you keep sending that power to them, even if you no longer want that power flowing to them, because you know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that your power flowing to them is then used to make you suffer. Like this: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm Here: Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Each measure of your power, your surplus wealth, your ability to produce more than you consume, denominated in dollars, flows to people who then use that power to make you suffer that much more, each dollar, another dollar, yet another dollar, weakens you, and makes them more powerful, and you take it, and you take it, and you take it, and they want you to bend over and spread your cheeks, and they want you to thank them, or squeal like a pig, and you thank them, on cue, and you squeal like a pig, on cue, and when they ask you for your daughter, you thank them for taking your daughter, and when they ask you for your son, you thank them for taking your son, and when they ask you for your wife, you have her already for them, bathed, and scented, and you thank them, or you remind your wife to squeal like a pig when they demand that she squeal like a pig, and they they want you to dig your own grave, and you thank them for that work, you love to work for them, then they demand that you get in your grave and start filling it in, you thank them for that work, and then just before you suffocate, you realize a need to defend against them. Good luck at that time. When you get tired of squealing like a pig, you may see the wisdom behind Islamic Finance, for those who choose it, not for you, you are Anglo Saxon, more or less, and you are Christian, more or less, and they are not, more or less, but they are figuring out how to disconnect from The Dollar Hegemony, and what are you doing? Shooting messengers? How is that working for you? Where can you find a better money, and will you know one if you see it?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 12th, 2011 02:51 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, On the Alex Jones broadcast (entertainment?), Dr. Steve Pieczenik is reporting his unique viewpoint on the current "Geopolitical" situation. He said something along the lines of: The National Debt is the greatest threat to America. I am not quoting, but that is the basic message. Why isn't anyone solving that greatest threat to America? Why, when the solution is so obvious, and the solution is so simple, are all these intelligent people failing to offer the solution? Honest productive people are connected to the legal criminals by way of The Dollar Hegemony. Why is it difficult to know, without the least bit of doubt, that the solution is to disconnect the honest productive people from The Dollar Hegemony? I can offer a competitive answer to the question asked (the answer is competition - competition is the answer). The people who fail to offer the obvious solution to The Dollar Hegemony problem, are either ignorant, or they are supporting it. If they are ignorant they make a serious mistake by which they falsely associate all that is good about America, the honest productive people, the innocent new generations, the demand for liberty, etc., associate all that is good, with The Dollar Hegemony, as if all that is good with America, and The Dollar Hegemony, are one and the same thing. The Dollar Hegemony, The FED, The World Bank, the legal criminals, The Elite, The New World Order, "the government", the U.S. Constitution, are one thing. All that is good within the legal fiction of America, from sea to shinning sea, is anther thing. 1. Parasites 2. Host The ignorant of the division above, which is clearly a division, can't remain ignorant about that clear division, once they have been informed of it, and if the response to the information that reports the clear division between the parasites, and the host, is a refusal to admit the truth, or a demand to remain ignorant about the truth, then there are few possible reasons for such an egregious, or even criminal, error. 1. They are stupid for willfully choosing to remain ignorant in the face of overwhelming, self-evident, knowledge. 2. They are fellow parasites covering up the lie Anyone with a brain, and a working conscience, and willful intent, can arrive at the obvious problem, and then move quickly toward the obvious solution. The obvious problem is reported to you, anyone, in many ways, such as the report by Dr. Steve Pieczenik on the Alex Jones broadcast, or show, or the follow way: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ The "Globalists" use The Dollar as a medium by which they connect to the source of their power, and the source of their power is the only source of power, which is the honest productive people of the world, who, exclusively, produce surplus wealth, or power, and through that connecting medium, power flows from the source of power, from the honest productive people of the world, to the "Globalists" who produce, and maintain, The Dollar Hegemony. If the victims grow too strong, learning too much, about The Dollar Hegemony, learning that The Dollar Hegemony is a criminal parasite, will the host move to disconnect that connection to the parasites? Will the honest productive people, once they know how to accomplish the task, disconnect from the parasites, the legal criminals? "Stop treating us like dummies", says Dr. Steve Pieczenik So, answer the questions, asked? If the victims move to disconnect from the parasites, what can the parasites do to keep that connection intact? 1. Convince the victims that there is no other possible connecting medium, that the only connecting medium that can exist, is The Dollar. 2. Threaten the victims with a bogus enemy, an enemy that threatens to destroy the dollar, which is, according to them, the only connecting medium, The Dollar is sacred, it is the only possible connecting medium, and it is threatened, so the legal criminals convince the victims that it is in their own best "interest" to defend The Dollar against any, and all competitors. Do you see how such a thing could disarm the victims and such a thing misdirects the power of the victims in such a way as to cause the victims to perpetuate their victimization as every effort to defend against victimization actually causes more injury. Every measure of power spent in defense is a flow of power from those who produce power to those who steal it. "What do we do about the private central banks...", says Alex Jones. This is simple, it does not have to be complex, the solution is as easy as American pie, easier, have you ever baked apple pie? How easy is it for the Bank to cut your credit? Why can't you see that it is just as easy to cut the credit card that connects the legal criminals to the honest productive Americans? Just do it. Cut the medium by which the power produced by honest American producers of surplus wealth flows to the legal criminals, which is The Dollar, but before doing that, have something in place, to replace it. If you are so fond of the word "Dollar", then use that word, call your official money "The Dollar", but know what it is, know where it comes from, know who it benefits, know in whose interest it is produced, know in whose interest it is maintained, and know whose power goes to whom, from who creates it to those who spend it, who makes the power, and who spends the power, know these things, and if you can't afford to know, then hire someone who is honest, if you want less of your power flowing to people who then use your power to harm you. if you hire someone to lie for you, they will do what you ask them to do, and when you ask them to tell the truth, who are you going to blame, when they lie? Hire someone who knows who produces power, credits those who produces power, and someone who will not steal from those who produce power, and therefore those who produce power can make more power, until power flows like sunlight. Once power flows like sunlight the price of power will be lower than it is today and the result of that will be what is known as "deflation" (your money will be worth more) because power reduces the cost of production (including the cost of producing more, and more, and more power). The legal criminals know that they must keep their victims stupid, and broke, and powerless, and to do that they have to make sure that power remains scarce. Why is this difficult to understand, at all? There is great power in falsehood. It is past time to declare a new war on falsehood. How is that for a campaign slogan? Use your own brain, please.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 13th, 2011 08:54 am |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
anthonyc, My comment about economy was not specifically directed at the use of Nuclear Fusion as a power to demolish the buildings in New York in 2001. My comment about economy had to do with the possible explanation for so many Nuclear Power Plants being constructed, not to make electricity, but to make weapons grade Nuclear fuel, so as to use Nuclear Devices to help construct DEEP UNDERGROUND MILITARY BASES, the economy of using a Nuclear Bomb for excavation may be incredibly thrifty. I'm not sure if you missed my point about the economy, and I want to make sure that I try to disconnect my viewpoint from any misunderstanding. I listened to the reports by Dimitri Khalezov. I understand what he reported. It makes sense to me, and that is why I think it would be a good idea to get a copy of the legal document that was filed in New York, and in Chicago, in the city government offices, whereby those legal documents document the plans to demolish the buildings with Nuclear Demolition devices - as Dimitri Khalezov reported. A. There are things that can be found and published that prove the validity of the case - so long as the things found are not fake. B. The use of Nuclear Demolition devices in construction (of Deep Underground Military Bases) may explain the high demand for Nuclear Power Plants, so as to make the fuel for the Nuclear Demolition devices, so as to make it easier, and less costly, to construct things underground. Those are my thoughts generally. I'm not claiming to know that Nuclear Power Plants were forced into lawful production (given license) despite the dangers of The China Syndrome, because the real purpose of those Nuclear Power Plants isn't to make electricity, the true purpose is to make Weapons Grade Nuclear Material, I'm just reporting what I learned when the Nuclear Power Plants were first being constructed, awhile ago, that was the story then, and I have yet to see anything that refutes that story. What is, and what I know, may not be the same thing, and I know that to be true, because I am only human. Look, if you are about to go into business, and you want to make money selling electricity, you have many options and look at just two: A. Nuclear Power, fission (not fusion), whereby the cost of a mistake is exemplified, right now, in Japan. You make a mistake, many people die miserable deaths. B. Solar Power, Wind Power, Coal Power, Natural Gas Power, Algae Fuel based power, Tide Power, or even Nuclear Power Plants using fusion not fission. Less liability. If someone chooses A, might there be an ulterior motive, other than profits from selling electricity, considering the high risks, and on the subject of risks, are Nuclear Power Plant licensee's, the people who run the Nuclear Power Plants, held liable for damages, and made, in advance, to purchase insurance in case of catastrophic errors? The ulterior motive for making Nuclear Power Plants (fission), may be the motive of making weapons grade Nuclear Material, as I first learned way back when Nuclear Power Plants began popping up all over the world, and so far I have yet to see anything refuting that understanding; whereby the main product made at a Nuclear Power Plant (fission) is Weapons Grade Nuclear Material, and a by-product is electricity as water must be used to cool the process of making Weapons Grade Nuclear Material, and Electricity carries away all the excess heat. I think what people need to begin to get in their heads is that the legal criminals do not need money. They can print as much money as they need, when they need it, and they can take money away from you, even when you need it desperately, and so they do not need money, they do not need the power to purchase, hell, they can purchase torture, and they can purchase mass murder, which means they can find, and hire, torturers, and they can find, and hire, mass murderers, so they don't need no stinking money, they need power. A torturer, and a mass murderer, is man made, not god given, it seems to me, and they cost a lot to make, and maintain, they cost a lot of power to make, not money, power. Example: How much will a TSA agent (employee) charge the employer for sitting at a desk pushing papers? How much will a TSA agent (employee) charge the employer for groping children if the TSA agent is a moral, decent, honest, productive person? A. There is no amount of money that can inspire a moral, decent, honest, productive person to grope innocent children, it is as wrong as you can get, just short of torturing innocent children (it is measurably psychological torture). B. Some people will stand in a long line, and pay a large amount of money, to get a chance to grope an innocent child, so long as they won't be punished for doing so. So, with that explained above, how difficult is it, how costly is it, to alter society, over many hundreds of years, to literally change the nature of human existence, to a point whereby morality of the majority changes from intolerance of the destruction of innocence, to not only tolerating the destruction of innocence, but actually working longer hours, and sacrificing every luxury, to pay for, enable, support, finance, accept, demand, make sure, cause, perpetrate, aid, abet, condone, desire, want, and enforce the willful destruction of innocence, such as, groping little children, then torture, then mass murder, and then, joining the club headlong, threatening the extinction of the species. What we are seeing, we the people, are witness to, is the demarcation, the division, and the discrimination between to opposite poles, in our time. Those who will not tolerate evil are being polarized on one side, and those who step over that line, are being moved onto the opposite side, and this is a power struggle of numbers. Read Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, please, there is a tipping point, when one polar opposite overpowers the other, and all hell breaks loose. It is not caused by accident, it is a willful process by which the few, of the worst, work to move power to them, from the only source of power, which are the honest productive people, and once enough power flows to them, the worst, they have enough power to make power scarce, and once they have that power, the flow of power to them, from the honest productive people accelerates, because they then have the power to fix the price of power, as the producers of power no longer have the power they alone create, and then the legal criminals have the power to create, and maintain, their business cycle, whereby all the power flows to them, fast, as each Boom is followed by each Bust, and all titles to everything valuable, all forms of surplus wealth imaginable, flow from those who create power, to the legal criminals. The legal criminals get honest productive people to compromise on morality, one little bit, then one little bit more, moving an otherwise moral person to their side, where they destroy care, where they destroy meaning, where they destroy sympathy, and destroy empathy, and they reinforce greed, and they reinforce avarice, and they reinforce, and support, and reward, crime, and they recruit the worst, and they hire the worst, and they train the worst, and they grow more, and more, powerful, in the absence of a force to deter them. If you do this thing for me, you don't have to pay as much taxes to me. Just this little thing, for me, and you can be less beholden to me - [size=6pt]for now. So...if you were a member of the growing club of immoral legal criminals, people on the collecting side of the enforced, criminal, debt based monopoly monetary system of extortion, and you were moving up to the top of the pyramid, stabbing everyone in sight in the back, climbing the ladder, you might get to a point at which you want a ticket into one of those Deep Underground Military Bases, a ticket for you exclusively, so that you now have effectively purchased an insurance policy, in case the levels of toxins on the surface do reach an intolerable level. So...there you are, one of the elite of the elite, and the number of tickets to the Deep Underground Military Base are few, because there are few Deep Underground Military Bases, so, as one of the elite, you may have the power to build one, with the power you have, while you have it, and so how do you do it, efficiently? You may already have a ticket into one of the Deep Underground Military Bases, just in case, but how do you recruit new members, when there are so few tickets? Chipping rock off of rock, and then excavating the rock chips, cost a lot of time and energy (power). Setting off a Nuclear Fission Demolition Device, apparently, turns a whole lot of rock into a neat little pile. The pile can then be moved by the disposable workers, and the new room inside the rock can be scrubbed clean by more disposable workers, and before long you have a new home under ground, just in case, for yourself, or your closest fellow legal criminals. Just in case those on the top of the pyramid lose their heads, not you, just those guys at the top, since you, a member of the elite too, are only half bad, or half good, according to the script. You wouldn't ever push the button, to cause the deaths of millions, but you sure could use a few short cuts, on your way to wherever you are going, so there is one, one good short cut, one that works, in the thing known as a Nuclear Power Plant, where a few things are made. A. Nuclear Demolition fuel (for Deep Underground Military Bases, or, for demolishing skyscrapers) B. Electricity (to carry away all the power of heat built up during the process of making Nuclear Demolition fuel) That is what I was thinking when I commented on the news reported by Dimitri Khalezov; I was not confusing what was reported by Dimitri Khalezov with an economic decision, by those who did it, to use Nuclear Demolition to bring down the 3 buildings in New York in 2001, if that is what you thought I was confusing.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 13th, 2011 10:50 am |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
chopperscfl, You wrote: To Josf, if you think it's a stupid question, don't then waste time and space with an elongated answer of what has already been said simply to try to take a cheap shot at the end. Spare us that. A. If I think something, I think something, and that is the truth. B. If you only want to hear the things you prefer to hear, please consider saying so when you publish your questions. Don't waste your own time reading things you don't want to read. C. I have been writing on forums for decades, and I keep writing on forums because, to me, it isn't a waste of my time, and it isn't a waste of my space, and if you, or anyone, have a problem with me taking up space, take it up with the moderators, they can certainly ask me to stop publishing on this forum, and I will stop taking up space here. D. Cheap, to me, is wanting something for nothing, as if no one ever has to pay for someone getting something for nothing. You ask a question about torture, and if you have not thought about it, then it is accurate to say that you are ignorant about it, which is a factual measure of reality. If you don't like being called ignorant, even if you are ignorant, if you think it is a cheap shot, then, to me, you are ignorant about that too. There is no shame in being ignorant, or innocent, but failing to know things that must be known, so as to remain innocent, is stupid, or criminal, in my opinion. I write things that fall under the category of "if the shoe fits" you wear the shoe. If you are learning, then you were ignorant before you learned something. That shoe fits. If you now know the truth about torture, but you refuse to acknowledge the facts, and in response you strike out at someone offering you the facts, then what are you, what shoe are you wearing at that point in time? You tell me. Or Attack me for offering you what I think, and attack me for offering you possible angles of view that are accurate angles of view in response to your questions, even if you prefer not to know a more accurate angle of view, and even if you take it personally. Why would you take what I wrote personally, unless you are wearing the shoe of being stupid? What exactly do you think is a cheap shot concerning the actual words I wrote, and not the meaning you injected into the words I wrote? Do you think you can come in here and ask a question about torture, in this world, where torture is paid for by honest productive people, in the form of involuntary taxation, and get away clean, and innocent, as if you have no hand in it? Do you think you can get something for nothing? People may want to look in the mirror, if people are paying these taxes, in dollars, to the legal, torturing, and mass murdering cabal, because that flow of power constitutes psychological as well as material support, an accurate physical account, a paper (digital) trail, connecting you, the tax payer, to the next pound of flesh removed from the next victim, innocent victim, or victim who is just as guilty as the persons torturing him, or her, including all the little innocent children slaughtered on our dimes since who knows when, what did they do to deserve U.S.A. made, and delivered, torture? You expect what, when you ask your questions? My question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives? I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism? Is it the slippery slope? Again, I'm new here and although I have my own opinions on this subject which I have not stated yet, I'd like to learn the opinions (not saying they aren't fact just because I call them opinions) on this specific subject. Thanks. Why is it a problem for someone, anyone, you, me, your neighbor, or the "CIA", to bla, bla, bla, bla, torture, for any reason under the sun. If you now know more than you knew when you asked that ignorant question, and if you continue to think in terms of that ignorant question, despite the evidence that proves that the question itself is ignorant (or willfully deceptive), then you are choosing ignorance, which is stupid, or you are willfully being deceptive, or some other, measurable, condition that isn't painfully obvious to me. Here is an ignorant question (or willfully deceptive):
I give you the benefit of doubt, and I assume that you are not willfully deceptive. The question ignores crucial facts, as if the crucial, vital, facts don't exist. If information is needed so as to save many lives, as the ignorant question proposes, then the obvious vital fact, is to answer the following question: What is the most effective way in which to get information from someone? Your question:
Where does such an ignorant question come from? It comes from you. Have you been watching a lot of T.V.? That is not a cheap shot, even if you feel bad about the question, it is a question, it isn't meant to be insulting. The question is an example of vital information that I wish to get from you, so as to save many lives. I want to know why honest productive people become accessories to torture and mass murder, so I'm asking a vital question, and the answer must be true, or the answer will be false, and if the answer is false, and I "go with it", as if the answer was true, then what happens? Example: You want information from someone, so as to save many lives. You feel the need to torture, so as to extract that information, just like the movies, or the television shows, and therefore you do extract this vital information from this terrorist scum, this sub-human beast, this 2 year old, or 5 year old, this woman, or whatever, and now you think you have all you need to accomplish your worthy goal of saving many lives, but, as this example intends to illustrate, your information isn't true, your information is false, so, how does that work for you, as you try to save many lives with false information? So I'm asking. How do you come up with such a question? Do you watch a lot of television, and is that how you come up with your question? This question:
You asked that question. Not me. You asked that question on a public forum. What do you expect to get out of asking that question? You want to feel good, maybe? I don't know. I'm asking. You go on: I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism? You are not saying that it isn't okay or that you don't agree with saving lives by torturing people to extract information, you now want to finger other people with the capital crime of allowing the guilty to go free? I'm asking. The majority of people in here may not believe that the people being tortured have NOTHING to do with guilt, of any kind whatsoever. What does the majority rule, in here? What is meant by the term "Due Process"? What is meant within the words "Presumed innocent until proven guilty"? Is your question ignorant, or stupid? You tell me. This question: I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism? A cheap shot, I'm reaching here, according to you, is what - exactly? Someone calling a spade a spade, is a cheap shot to you? A cheap shot to me is someone who fabricates a lie and then uses the lie to injure someone else, someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing, so that the cheapness of the event is measured as a gain by the person perpetrating the cheap shot at the expense of the targeted victim of the cheap shot. Did I construct a false version of anyone, in anything I have written so far, and if so, quote those words, and if I am guilty of this "cheap shot" then I can know of my guilt too. As far as I know, in a state of ignorance for me, I'm telling you how it is, and I am not guilty of any cheap shots, whatsoever. If you want kid gloves used to handle your questions, then you may want to announce that fact before you go public with your questions. You go on: I'm not saying it's okay or that I agree with it, I'm just asking. Is it because the majority of people here do not believe that the people in these prisons have ANYTHING to do with terrorism? Is it the slippery slope? Again, I'm new here and although I have my own opinions on this subject which I have not stated yet, I'd like to learn the opinions (not saying they aren't fact just because I call them opinions) on this specific subject. I can tell you a story, and you can skim past what I have to offer to you, or you can speed read past, trying to get something for nothing, or you can peruse the words I type, so as to extract the meaning intended, so as to answer your questions asked. The slippery slope phenomenon was first introduced to me 30 odd years ago, and I've been working night and day, day and night, since then, on this very problem. A person who does expend their time and energy, and their space, in this work, is a person that can be spotted, recognized, known, measured, and understood, like Alex Jones, or Noam Chomsky, or Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, the list is not as long as it could be, there are many people, the majority, who have better things to do with their time. Things are learned on this path of information gathering, and information deciphering, and you may understand that on this path of information gathering, and information deciphering, concerning that slippery slope, the investigator can recognize, and know, and realize, what things can be done to go up the slope, and what other things can be done to go down the slope. When torture is employed, for whatever stated (claimed) reason, the willful act, the premeditate act, constitutes a clue, a good clue, as to which way that person is going on that slope. It may be a good idea to pay closer attention to the claimed reasons being claimed by the willful employer of torture, just in case the torturer is also a liar. You can do what you will with what you have now, and I can too. If this exchange between you and I appears to you as moving closer to torture, more uncomfortable, this is distasteful, then, that is your viewpoint, but to me, this type of exchange is the stuff that is missing, the stuff that moves the torturers back under their rocks, back down to their self-made hell holes.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 14th, 2011 10:50 am |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente68.1.htmlBailouts were not gifts, but debt traps – loans at interest rates lower than the private sector but still unmanageably high. Anyone, The concept of credit can be measured. The concept of debt can be measured. How does the concept of credit measure up in competition with the concept of debt? Put on your thinking caps and work on it, if you please, this a challenge, and you can be capable of meeting the challenge, you don't have to depend upon the authorities to solve your problems for you, getting something for nothing is possible, in theory, but in practice, measurably, someone will get the smelly end of the stick. The concept of debt, in competition with the concept of credit, is a fight for your power, and a fight that will make or break you, and everyone else tangled up in that battle, so solve the problem. No one else will. No one else can. The problem will remain your problem until such time as you solve it. The view from someone else, aiming at you, is that your problem is their solution. They get something for nothing, and you work harder, and harder, to make sure that they keep getting something for nothing, since you fail to know the facts, and since you fail to do something about it. I'm speaking about real things. I'm speaking to anyone who has ever paid for a home mortgage, even one dime, 10 pennies, you earn, and then you send those 10 pennies to someone else, and someone else grows that much more powerful, and you grow that much weaker - but only 10 pennies, so who cares? Suppose, for illustration, the objective viewpoint focuses awareness to a time in history just after G.I. Joe was financed and sent to torture and murder the enemy of the day, who was also financed by the same cabal of legal criminals, and the time is 1945, and all the Government Issue Joe's return home, in boxes, or in bandages, or on drugs. Suppose, at that time, every debt collector decided to credit honest productive people instead, on the subject of home mortgages, not yet on the subject of business mortgages, and not yet on the subject of productive enterprise loans, or productive entrepreneurial mortgages, for now, focus attention only on home mortgages, whereby the former debt collectors decided to abandon their pyramid scheme, and instead, the honest productive people filled the void left void by the exodus of the legal criminals, and the void was filled with the beginning of the age of credit, a regime change of moral significance. What happens in this illustration after that regime change, after the legal criminals crawl back down under their rocks, through their self-made Hell holes, and return to their devil god from which their minds spawned? What happens, after World War II, if instead of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports being written, published, and shared by the legal criminals, instead, the void left by the absence of legal crime was filled with a honest productive and credit worthy, voluntary, connection among fellow producers of surplus wealth - instead of legal crime? How can an age of credit compare, competitively, in stark contrast with an age of debt? It may be interesting to note, that following the money helps, and without interest flowing from those who create wealth, to those who steal it, the numbers add up much differently in one case, starkly contrasted against the other. Example A (Income Tax): Since World War II, according to the exposures of Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, a flow of surplus wealth, from those who create it, to those who steal it, is documented, and that flow has made the people on the short end of the stick weaker, and that flow has made the people on the long end of the stick stronger, and that is as easy to see as a simple math problem, if you want to look. Example B (Monopoly Banking Interest): Forget about the simple math problem, that you would have to do, you would have to learn, you would have to ask, and then you would have to solve, in your own mind, math problems concerning Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, as surplus wealth went from those who create it to those who steal it since World War II, and instead, consider working on something less complicated. Each new honest productive person entering the social network of America since World War II is thrust into a situation whereby the honest productive person must sink or swim, and swimming requires a toll charge, and the toll charge is a mortgage interest payment, which is the focus of Example B (Monopoly Banking Interest), presented before you right now, but have little fear, this is easy. Since World War II, honest productive people have been buying houses, and business properties, but this objective viewpoint, this accurate viewpoint, can focus attention on the home purchases, for now, and when an honest productive person, since World War II, bought a home, they paid for two, and they got one, roughly speaking. The math part of this problem is already solved. The honest productive members of American society, race X, race Y, race Z, young, not so young, old, male, female, something in between, it does not matter who paid more, it does not matter who paid less, not right now, right now the focus of attention concerns the average and the average since World War II is roughly one home owned, but two homes purchased. Who gets each extra home? The math goes beyond comprehensibility, there are two many zeros, since World War II, as all the honest productive Americans, any one of them, and all of them, paid, on average, one extra home, for the privilege of keeping, and maintaining, the home they buy in livable condition, which is yet again another money pit. Pay for two, get one. How got all those extra homes? What difference would it make if instead of that having happened, something else happened? Instead of debt being the regime in force since World War II, what happens if credit is the regime change that occurred right after VJ Day, which was soon, but not soon enough for some, after VE Day? 1945 to today, honest productive people have been buying homes, paying for two homes, getting one home, and sending the second home to the people running the Monopoly Banking Cartel, or Cabal, or Extortion Racket, or whatever word is printed on their stationary, and note, that the value of the extra home didn't go to the honest productive employees of the Banks, who themselves where buying homes, paying for two, and sending the extra cash, each month, to somewhere, where that money was then spent. G.I. Joe, or G.I. Jane, or whomever, the waitress, the burger flipper, the car mechanic, the firefighter, the carpenter, the taxi driver, the peace officer, the movie theater attendant, the nurse, the movie theater owner, the doctor, the gas station owner, the bridal shop salesperson, whomever, doesn't pay for two homes, they pay for one, what happens? Each month, each person, works, and works, and works, and pays, and pays, and pays, each payment, each month, since World War II, and each month each person pays for their home, and each person pays for a second home, sending one entire extra home price to the Banking Monopoly, in the debt based social network, the way things are, and in the illustrated way that things can be, those people, since World War II, pay, each month, their earnings, after working, after eating, after expenses of life, after working more, and working more, pay, and pay, for only one home, in the credit based, proposed, solution to the problem, social network. What happens? What is the measurable difference between the debt based social network and the credit based social network as all the workers who did earned two entire costs of each home, buying one home, and sending an extra home cost to the Banking Monopoly Profiteers, stopped sending all that power to that one place, and they all, instead, kept all that surplus wealth that they created, they earned it, they kept it, to the tune of one entire home price, on average? What happens? Make it personal, if you are having any trouble at all, with this concept. Start today, if you are paying a home mortgage, start thinking in terms of today, and make it personal, consider stepping in someone's shoes who was someone like you, living in American, just after World War II, you look ahead to 1946, you look ahead to the next decade, 1950, and you have to pay for two homes so as to get one, or, you have to pay for one home to get one home. A. Debt based B. Credit based How does one stack up, in stark contrast, competitively, against the other one? Back to the quote that inspired my above rant: Bailouts were not gifts, but debt traps – loans at interest rates lower than the private sector but still unmanageably high. What is the interest rate? What is the meaning of the word unmanageably? Who has to pay? Who receives the pay? Why is the price set by the producer? Why does the producer have the power to dictate the price? Why are other producers not offering a lower price, and higher quality, and therefore why is the power to set the price not in the command of the honest productive people who produce the stuff that the seller wants in exchange for what the seller makes? You can't solve a debt based social network problem with debt based social network solutions; decapitation is not a cure for a headache, or ignorance. If the problem is a lack of surplus wealth, not enough people producing more than people consume, then the solution isn't to consume more in the process of making sure that honest productive people can't produce anything. That is not a solution to the lack of surplus wealth problem, that is a solution to the I am having trouble getting something for nothing, problem, or, the problem any criminal encounters when the victims run out of stuff to steal. Problem: The victims are bled dry. Solution: Turn on your fellow criminals, bleed them dry too. There are other names for the same solution. A. Race to the bottom B. Rat race C. The final solution This isn't news. This is well known stuff, as well known, by anyone who figures it out, as the certain knowledge that the problem is, generally speaking, on average: ignorance. Example: http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/203714.Henry_Ford "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." If you benefit from a debt based social structure, it may be well enough, that things keep flowing in that direction. If you earn credit, because you are an honest productive person, why do you have to pays someone else for that accomplishment? What happens when good behavior is punished, while, at the same time, lying, stealing, torture, and mass murder is rewarded? How about a score board? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ You don't have to play that game, really, it is meant to self-destruct, that is the purpose of it, it will, eventually, no longer be a choice, therefore it may be a good idea to find, and then start using, higher quality stuff, at a much lower cost, sooner, and it may be a good idea to avoid settling for something even less as good as that abomination. Or not
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 15th, 2011 12:25 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I do not sign onto the idea that people have to behave in this argumentative, something for nothing, tit for tat, aggressive, destructive manner, and since I don't agree to behave that way, I happen to notice when other people behave that way. A discussion to me, can be, a subject, and the subject is viewed from an angle of view, and words are used to convey the angle of view that the subject is viewed from, and then, another angle of view is introduced into the discussion, and if the next angle of view is exactly the same as the first angle of view, then the same exact words would be used to describe the second angle of view, and so the discussion, by the introduction of the second angle of view, would be mere repetition. The value of a discussion, when not conducted by people who agree to be argumentative, as a goal, is in comparing competitive differences between one angle of view that expresses one way of seeing the subject, and another angle of view that is not the same angle of view as the other angle of view, and therefore it is possible, through competition, to increase the quality of the perception of the subject. The value-of-competitive-discussion angle of view can illustrate, and exemplify the concept, as it compares to argumentation-for-the-sake-of-argumentation, personal attacks, for the sake of argumentation, so as to be "better" at injuring your opponent, with lies, threats of violence, and if need be - torture. Compare the two: A. Discussion as a method of getting something for nothing, discussion as a method of gaining at the expense of someone else, discussion as a political means of injuring someone by lying about them, discussion as a method of dragging someone through the mud by publishing false statements meant to discredit a targeted victims, discussion as a method of publishing false propaganda and then shoot all the messengers who challenge the false nature of the false propaganda, discussion as a method of modifying the behavior of the participants in the discussion, discussion as a method of conditioning the responses of the participants in the discussion, discussion as a political tool to reinforce a specific agenda - such as legalizing torture. B. Discussion as a method of increasing the quality of perception as many competitive viewpoints are entered into the discussion so as to directly compare the various viewpoints, finding the differences, and the similarities, and moving the perspective, theoretically, closer to the truth, or moving the perspective from a less accurate perspective, to a more accurate perspective. The A Path, above, focuses attention on the people involved in the discussion, not the subject. The B Path actually intends to focus attention on the subject. If the subject is: What is the purpose of discussion? - then having only the Path A to parrot, to know, to disseminate, communicate, and inform, is lacking a comparative competitor. Having both Path A, and Path B, as two competitive examples of: What is the purpose of discussion? - offers a competitive viewpoint to the one viewpoint, instead of a monopoly viewpoint, there is, by introduction of a competitive viewpoint, a competition of viewpoints, not one viewpoint, and therefore the subject can be viewed from both, not one, angle of view, so as to see which one works best for whom? Torturers, in secret prisons, may prefer one, and only one viewpoint, and they may actually be working toward the goal of making sure that there is only one viewpoint ever heard, while, on the other end of that power struggle, there are the victims, who have a very hard time swallowing the one viewpoint, since the one viewpoint appears only to apply to those who have the power to torture, and the one viewpoint appears not to be well suited for those who happen to be getting the screws - for some strange reason. Back to this subject. QuoteMy question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives? If the viewpoint intends to support the use of torture, as a means of accomplishing some goal, then that could be confessed, and it could be confessed openly or it could be confessed covertly. Such as: QuoteCan you relax or should we meet up?? Now this fellow forum member, who has the handle chopperscfl is painting me as a nervous person who, according to my fellow forum member, needs to relax, while my fellow forum member suggests that, failing to relax on my part, constitutes a requirement that we meet up. QuoteJosf, let's keep things peaceful. I am not un-relaxed, therefore I can't relax from a non-un-relaxed state. I can see this right here, in my peaceful home, right now. How is the peace, here in my home, threatened, now? Path A: QuoteCan you relax or should we meet up?? I wish to take Path B instead. I'm not going to settle for the path of lies, it isn't good enough for me, no thanks. I think that the focus of attention upon me, is unwarranted, typical but unwarranted, and as for the thinly veiled threats, or promises, who can ever know? - I can inform the threatening forum member that I've lived a fairly good life so far, and a sudden end now, or even a drawn out torturous end now, at his hands, as he tortures me to death, if that is his true intentions, so as he can get whatever he wants, when I fail to relax, to his satisfaction, and then my failure to relax causes him to meet me, to get whatever he wants, well, that is how I end the living thing - if that happens. That is Path A - focusing attention on me, not focusing attention on the subject. I prefer Path B. On Path B someone asks this: QuoteMy question is why is it a problem for the CIA to have a secret prison where they can interigate and, if need be, torture to extract information that can save many lives? It matters not to me who asks the subject question, unless the person asking the subject question begins to travel down Path A, then the unwelcome introduction of lies, and threats, from that person, turns the discussion into something personal, unfortunately. What matters to me is that the subject question is a self-contained monopoly viewpoint, or falsehood, if it is not merely ignorant. The subject question reports that many lives are in danger, now just mine is in danger, as an example, and the subject solution to the reported subject problem, of many lives being in danger, is torture, so the obvious competitive viewpoint is a competitive viewpoint that points out that torture doesn't save lives, not by extracting information from the torture victim, or any other method, when compared to a more effective method. When only torture is reported as the method of extracting information as a means of saving lives, there is a monopoly of methods, call it method B, by which the reported problem will be solved by the people reporting the problem, and by the same people reporting the one, and only, solution. The lack of a competitive solution, call it method A, ignores the value of competition, therefore it is ignorant of the value of competition. When the value of competition is then reported, by way of anything, anyone, anywhere, just so long as the competitive viewpoint is in view, and when in view the competitive viewpoint is rejected, and personal attacks are chosen instead of the competitive viewpoint, what is that - exactly? Is one answer good enough, the official answer is the only answer needed, and failure to relax about being "given" the official, single answer, constitutes a required visit from someone, out of the darkness, so as to bring about a confession - perhaps? Yes, of course, I see now, torture saves lives, yes, yes, of course, how could I have been so blind before, it saves my life, so long as I relax, and so long as I parrot the official line, I can avoid the visit, and save my life, and my wife's, and my children's, just so long as I relax, wow, yea, now I'm calm, I was sooooo nervous, I'm calm now, thanks, I see the light. Torture saves lives. Torture saves lives. Confess or else. I got it - thanks so much. Now I can relax - whew!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 15th, 2011 12:44 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, In case anyone is soon informed about Joe Kelley committing suicide. I am Joe Kelley, and I can confirm that I have no death wish. I am not suicidal. This is a public announcement of that fact. I am not under torture to say that I am not suicidal, to confess a lie, I am relaxed, as always, happy, as I can be, under the current circumstance, which are not idea circumstances, since, apparently, there are many more people who prefer torture as a solution than can be expected of a civil society. I am not suicidal. Joe Kelley
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 17th, 2011 12:38 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan163.html Anyone, Along the path I have been on, for decades, I once gained membership in the John Birch Society, thinking at the time that my viewpoint could be improved, made more accurate, and less costly, by that association with that group. I've since allowed my membership to lapse. I've also allowed my membership to the U.S.H.G.A lapse, my membership to the N.R.A. lapse, and so the reasons for being members of those groups are no longer powerful reasons; for me Pat Buchanan was a name I heard a lot when I was a member of The John Birch Society, if my memory serves me, so I read what Pat Buchanan writes, this time it pays off for me. Here is a quote: With the World Bank, the IMF was birthed at Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944. In the monetary order established there, the U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange. Money is a conduit, much like a road is a conduit, and much like an ocean is a conduit. It has never made sense to me to buy something half way around the world, such as something Made in China, then shipped to America, when the shipping costs must be added to the thing shipped, and therefore the same thing could be Made in America, and sold for a price that did not have to pay for the shipping. A. Made in China Price of the thing plus the price of the shipping adds to total price of the thing. B. Made in America Price of the thing, without the price of the shipping, lower price of the thing. There are some explanations that help explain the lower cost of a thing Made in China, plus the shipping costs, compared to a thing Made in America, without the shipping costs, priced higher - whereby a shopper in America has a choice, at the store, on the shelf, to choose something Made in China (plus the price of shipping) at a lower price, next to, something Made in America (without the price of shipping) at a higher price. A. Made in China Lower quality B. Made in America Higher quality That is not one of the explanations that help explain the lower cost of a thing Made in China, plus the shipping costs, added to the lower quality, compared to the thing Made in America, without the added shipping costs, and the higher quality, at the store, the shopper isn't likely to choose the lower quality just because it is less expensive. If you want to buy something you want to buy it, you don't want to buy something that pretends to be something, something that fails to be the thing you want to buy - logically, and reasonably. What is a good reason for the lower priced thing selling in America where the thing includes the cost of shipping half way around the world? A. Made in China Workers are paid very little, in China, as there are very few employers (scarcity of employers) and very many workers (over abundance of workers) and therefore workers have no power to set the price of labor other than to become employers, to stop being workers, and start being employers, which could conceivably, logically, and reasonably move the power to price labor out of the hands of the employers and into the hands of the laborers as the number of employers rise and the number of workers fall as more workers become employers. What stops workers from becoming employers in China? Is it a lack of easy access to start up capital; which isn't easy for workers on purpose? Is easy access to start up capital in China only easy if you are a member of an exclusive group, so as to keep the number of the exclusive group low, so as to retain the power to set the price of labor in the hands of the exclusive group, and so as to keep the power of setting the price of labor out of the hands of the workers? Does that sound reasonable to you? Workers in China are beginning to be paid more and more, as more employers move from America to China - is that true? B. Made in America Workers are paid less and less, adjusted for inflation, in America, as the number of employers are few, as many employers move to China, and as many more workers here in America compete with more workers moving to America. The power to set the price of work is not a power held by workers as there are too many workers competing to buy too few employers. The power to set the price of work is a power held by too few employers, an exclusive club of few employers, more and more, as fewer and fewer employers have work to sell to more and more workers here in America. Employers, in the exclusive club, are moving to China. What stops workers from becoming employers in America? This is easy. If Elon Musk has a hard time acquiring operating capital, in the form of affordable loans, in America, as he starts making affordable Electric cars in America, actually here in California where I live, with his Tesla Motors company, then what are my chances of getting affordable start up capital? What are the chances of anyone in America of borrowing a no-interest loan, let alone a Bail-Out gift of free money, in America, so as to stop being a worker, and start being an employer, so as to stop having the rate exchange of work-for-pay discounted down by the fact that there are so few employers and so many workers? The story I hear, over and over again, is a tight money policy. Tight for many, while trillions move effortlessly to a select, exclusive, few, for some reason. Not for good, unless you are reading from the false script. That doesn't explain why someone in America will be buying a cheap, worthless, knock-off, Made-in-China, thing, at a very low price, compared to something no longer on the shelf, of higher quality, and higher cost, Made-in-America version - or does it? Returning to the words of Pat Buchanan: With the World Bank, the IMF was birthed at Bretton Woods, N.H., in 1944. In the monetary order established there, the U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange. What I don't like about that story above, is the pat answer, the given, and the to-be-assumed-as-true Big Lie. That story assumes that the IMF is legitimate, as if it is a moral, legal, just, right, and good thing, and from that assumption, the story follows. They, at the IMF, do this, for good, and this happens, cause and effect, and so the story goes. If bad happens, it is an accident, they meant to do good - seriously - and there is a bridge to Brooklyn for sale. Look at the actual things reported: 1. U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange. 2. Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold 3. nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue 4. the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans 5. The loans would be repaid 6. reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports Before I am going to even begin to get any meaning out of those words I am going to build a sold foundation from which to start that process. I have to get rid of the assumption that the IMF is a force for good, which it isn't, so that has to go, and in place I can remain neutral, and then build understanding from that neutral foundation. Starting with number 1: 1. U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange. That is two nails in the coffin, already, since I know that Gold was confiscated from the American people during the Federal Reserve willful crime of causing a massive boom and bust cycle soon after those criminals stole the power over American money, which they perpetrate in 1913, which was followed by their BOOM part of their Business Cycle Extortion Racket Crime of the Century, which was falsely advertised as The Roaring Twenties, when the people at The FED (false name since The FED isn't, in any sense, Federal), increased the money supply (of dollars) by roughly twice what it was before they increased the supply of dollars, and they, those people at The FED, are the people who hand pick the people who get to spend the new money, and then those hand picked people get to hand pick the people who get to spend the money, as the new money is sold as loans, and the loans only go to the hand picked people, on down the line. The second nail in the coffin is the reference to the free world, which isn't free, unless by using the word free the meaning is that the legal criminals are free to torture and mass murder at will, and that is what free means - an obvious deception. The businesses that do BOOM, are also the businesses that are tied with The FED connection of hand picked people on down the line, while some of the excess money does, eventually trickle down to the victims, as the victims are also victimized with inevitable rising prices - during the BOOM part of the fraudulent Business Cycle, in this case of this history, here in America, where then the BUST cycle was caused by the people running The FED, and make no mistake, here, the people may starting the crime of the century at The FED may be different people now, as criminals are often killing each other in their own turf battles, while the organized crime ring continues, as the BOOM is moved to BUST, as the criminals remove roughly half of the dollars in circulation, as they alone can, which isn't simple, but that doesn't stop it from happening, just because it isn't easy to take half of the money supply out of circulation: does not stop them from doing it. So the Great Depression followed The Roaring Twenties, as if everything was by accident, which it certainly, and measurably was not an accident, and during the bust cycle the so called "government", actual people, not a thing, actual people produced an order, and then enforced the order, to confiscate all the gold in America. Look it up. Back to number 1: 1. U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange. The only people who have control of gold are those few people running the crime ring, and so they come up with this great idea to fix the value of the dollar based upon the value of gold which they control both values, so whose idea is this, who does this idea benefit, and who pays the price of this idea? The one group controls the value of gold. They can let some of it flow, or all of it flow, return it back into circulation, making it less scarce, and therefore making it less expensive to buy, because, as we all know, when something is abundant, the price goes down, and then when something is scarce, the price goes up. The one group controls the value of the dollar. They just tested their control over the value of the dollar, they added double and then they took out half of the total number of dollars to cause The Roaring Twenties, and then to cause The Great Depression, so they definitely have the power to control the value, and the price, of the dollar - no question - a measurable fact. They also have the power to write the script, as The Roaring Twenties wasn't scripted as a confession, such as, The first test BOOM by the legal criminals running The FED, soon to be followed by the first test BUST, brought to you, again, by the people who stole your money power. The headlines could have read: Thank You. The details on page one. 1. U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange. What does it mean to say "all at fixed rates of exchange"? I can't answer that question. I have to assume. I have to assume that a control is placed on the rate of exchange between one money supply, such as the German Mark, and another money supply, such as The English Pound; whereby the exchange rate changes as a direct result of which money is higher in quality, and lower in cost, as more people decide to pick the better money, that money becomes more valuable, and as less people begin to pick the worse money, that money becomes less valuable, and therefore the better money no longer exchanges for the same number of the worse money, if at all. A bad money may not be picked at all, compared to a good money - leading to a thing called Gresham's law. It is not likely that anyone, other than a criminal, would want to fix rates, since the force of competition works very well at fixing rates, and the power to compete is in the power of the producer, all the producer has to do is increase quality and lower cost, and the power to fail, is also in the hands of the producer, all the producer has to do to fail is to produce lower quality at higher cost, thereby producing themselves out of business; so what is this fixed rate if it isn't competition? I can't speculate further on what "all at fixed rates of exchange" means exactly. I can say that I smell a rat. I smell a ratified control over the force of competition, which is a force that moves quality (the quality of money in this case) higher, and competition is also a force that moves price (or cost) down, and I smell a ratified control that destroys the force of competition, and it is done on purpose, so as to empower a money monopoly; which is something that cannot exist while the force of competition does exist. Therefore "fix rates" is code for eliminate competition, as far as I can smell a rat. Moving to 2: 2. Uncle Sam gave the IMF 103 million ounces of gold Why would I give myself something I already have? The only possible answer is deception. I pretend to transfer the power I have to someone else so as to hide something that I want hidden from the victims viewpoint. Ask yourself why do the same people show up with a government title, after they have moved from a corporate title, and then through the revolving door, into another corporate title, back into another government title, like a silly game of musical chairs? The answer is simple. The criminals must create a legal fiction. The purpose of the legal fiction is to shunt any power that is meant to hold the legal criminals to account, as the victims intend to defend themselves against further victimization at the hands of the criminals. Shunting is like grounding, like an electrical circuit with a short in the circuit, as the power that normally runs the light bulb, and the motor, doesn't get to the light bulb, or the motor, and the power "goes to ground" instead of reaching the light bulb and/or motor. The legal fiction is the ground, the short circuit, the place where all the defensive effort is focused and wasted; while the legal criminals get away with torture, mass murder, and extinguishing the human species, and lesser crimes like fraud, rape, cannibalism, who knows? They may be eating toddlers while they rape them and doing so with your money, on your dime, and you seriously can't expect them to confess as much, since you hired them to lie for you in the first place. You find out about their latest crime, and you blame The Government, or you blame Socialism, or you blame Capitalism, or you blame The FED, or you blame the IMF, or you blame Monsanto, or you blame Halliburton, or you blame Blackwater, or you blame Goldman Sachs, or you blame U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), or you blame the Nazi's, and that works, and it works every time, since the actual criminals just move to another title (false front base of criminal operations) while you blame the fictitious being. Every watt of power that could have been used to stop the legal crime spree is sent to ground, grounding out, and doing the job of ensuring that the crime spree perpetuates. How neat can it get? Gold is confiscated by one group, which was done, it is a historical fact, and then gold is transferred, for free, a gift, to another place, for a specific reason, and the reason makes no sense, unless you start from a logical foundation, and avoid starting from a false foundation, such as the false foundation that the people reporting these things are people who intend to do good things. Onto 3: 3. nations faced balance-of-payments problems and had to devalue Any group of people, working together honestly, equitably, reasonably, logically, with good sense, will increase their power, as a direct result of good investments, and the proof of this is measurable, and when this does not happen, when a group of people fail at producing more than they consume, there is an exceptional cause for such an event to occur, such as natural disaster, or man-made disaster, such as war, or such as something called a business cycle which is a fraud and an extortion of surplus wealth perpetrated by a few people as the exclusive group of a few people victimize the many honest productive people, and even in these cases, the honest productive people are often able to produce more than consumption despite the parasitic force of legal crime in the form of a perpetuating, man-made, disaster, thing, crime, called a Business Cycle. Devaluation relative to yesterday is caused by the relationship between how many units of legal monopoly money circulate relative to how many things of value (surplus wealth) circulate, and the man-made disasters occur when the legal criminals increases in the money supply, and the new money is then spent on things that make the honest productive people weaker and therefore less able to produce more surplus wealth. If the increases in legal money were spent on making the honest productive people stronger the result would be more surplus wealth produced, because honest productive people like to work and make good things, that is what they do, when they are powerful, and the criminals know that, and the criminals know that they cannot allow the honest productive people to get too powerful. If you were a legal criminal you would also have a vested interest in keeping the victims weak, as you cannibalize them, rape them, torture them, and mass murder them for your enjoyment. If they get powerful, they are no longer easy to victimize, and worse for you, they may actually stop holding your legal fictions to account, and they may actually hold you to account, for the number of people you have tortured to death, or eaten, or whatever else you have done while you perpetrated your crimes as a member of the legal crime cabal. 4. the IMF would tide them over with bridge loans Why wouldn't a group of people choose a better source for money, such as their own selves, instead of choosing to buy a loan from the same people who have caused their distress in the first place? There is an answer. Here is a short list of possible answers: 1. Fear 2. Ignorance 3. I have the power to choose to take the offer I can't refuse, because I am also a criminal, just not as high up in the pyramid scheme, so I will take the loan, and I will sell the loan to other members of my club, and we will all get our own piece of the action, so long as the victims remain fearful and ignorant, and so long as the higher up criminals pick me as their good boy, and so long as the victims, err people, remain ignorant, desperate, powerless, and fearful. 4. You tell me Moving onto the Fifth thing reported by Pat Buchanan: 5. The loans would be repaid Would interest be added to the repayment of loans from those who are victimized by the money monopoly scheme as the honest productive people struggle to produce more than they consume while their power is parasitically drained from them through these crimes of legal extortion, in addition to the loan principle, that they could have borrowed from themselves, and could have become their own employers, and could therefore have employed many of the people seeking work, and could have therefore moved the power to set the price of labor from employers to employees, as the number of employers grow more and more and as the number of workers grow less and less, reaching a point at which too many people will be looking for too few workers, and therefore the workers have the power to discount the price of buying the higher quality employer? Well, I'm the one who can't write things that make sense, so why do I keep writing nonsense? I based my foundation on neutral ground. So it makes no sense to someone who reads from the script that says that "they" are intending to do "good", or some other fiction. On to 6: 6. reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports Which is it better to be, A or B, in your mind, if you use your own mind, and to do so you may have to stop borrowing the minds of the legal criminals. A. China (controlled by legal criminals) A population of too many workers and not enough employers whereby the few powerful employers darken the skies with poison, and poison the water, so as to meet a growing export demand, while the imports that do flow into the country go directly to the few powerful employers while the many workers struggle to produce just enough to stay alive, miserably, suffering from health problems caused by too much work, not enough rest, too much stress, poisonous air, poisonous water, not enough nutritional food, and little or no fun. B. America (controlled by legal criminals) A population of too many workers and not enough employers whereby the few powerful employers move their employment opportunities offshore, to poison the water offshore, and too poison the air offshore, so as to meet a shrinking demand for imports, and an anemic demand for exports, as the number of workers increase while the number of employers decrease, because the supply of surplus wealth flows from the honest productive population to the few employers moving their employment opportunities to China with bail-outs, and giveaways, of trillions of dollars that may someday return to America and cause massive inflation. Number 6 of the things I took from the report by Pat Buchanan, who may or may not be associated with The John Birch Society, explains, to some extent, the reason for things Made-in-China, being shipped to America despite the cost of shipping being added to the cost of the things sold in America, in competition with things Made-in-America, things that are made in America don't have the shipping costs added, which has to be a large amount of costs, since China is on the other side of the Earth. 1. U.S. dollar would be tied to gold, and the free world's currencies would be tied to the dollar, all at fixed rates of exchange. 6. reduced exchange rate led to rising exports and reduced imports What fixes the rate of exchange. Who has the power to fix the rate of exchange, which leads to the situation whereby things Made-in-America are no longer Made-in-America, and instead things Made-in-China are shipped half way around the world to be sold in America? Whose story makes sense, to whom, and why? I have yet to read the rest of the report by Pat Buchanan from the Austrian Economics web site produced and maintained under the name Lew Rockwell. I will edit this first and post it. Editing consumes a huge amount of my very limited power.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 19th, 2011 12:50 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I see the Author of that writing had a hard time understanding that people do work together without many problems, especially today. thegreencity, I do not attach that idea to the work of that author, and since I don't do that I am now at a loss as to why you do that, since you don't explain how you arrive at that idea. You do not support your idea with quotes from the author of the book from which you form that idea - an idea that appears to be baseless, and opposite my own viewpoint. That's what people in our current society would say, "They are self reliant. They don't need anyone else." Right? Well, they are wrong. Based upon what you have written, so far as I have read, I am going to guess that you are speaking for "everyone" so as to support an idea that you are going to propose. I don't know why the voice of "everyone" has to be speaking to help you do that, especially since "everyone" does not sound like anyone I know, as I know that people know that having access to each other, by some means, is a whole lot better than having no access to anyone ever. What is the quality of the connection? A. Equitable B. Criminal C. A mixture of equitable connection (no one gains at the expense of anyone else) and criminals (criminals are connected to their victims while innocent people are connected to innocent people equitalby) I think that many people are living their lives while many people believe things that are opposite the truth, but I don't think that the one idea you are attaching to "everyone" is true - certainly not for everyone. This one: For instance, I don't know what you do for a living, but lets just say for kicks and giggles that you are a Futures Trader, one that makes a living doing so. Ok? You would think that this type of person is very independent, very self-sufficient because they don't work a 9-5 job or enslaved by a small business right? That's what people in our current society would say, "They are self reliant. They don't need anyone else." Right? I don't think that people in our currency society would say that a Futures Trader is self-sufficient and very independent, since a few things must occur in order for a Futures Trader to be a Futures Trader (a successful one is one, and an unsuccessful one is pretending to be one - is not one). A. Access to the people who know how the game works, so as to learn the game B. Access to the inside information, so as to remove the odds of losing (access to the people who have the inside information) D. Connection to all the buyers and sellers through various mediums of exchange (money, stock exchange, etc.) E. Access and connection to all the people who actually produce the wealth, which would transfer to the winners of the game, since without them the speculators would have nothing to work to gain. If the idea here is to suppose that "The People" are all, every last one of them, too stupid to realize that most, if not all, human work involves human interaction, then that idea, to me, fails to explain a few obvious facts. A. Human beings are smart enough to create abundant wealth in spite of massive powers working to destroy human life, and destroy the power human beings have in the goal of creating abundant wealth. B. Human beings are smart enough to survive and increase the number of human beings in spite of the massive powers working to destroy human life, and the power human beings have in the goal of creating abundant wealth. If people are too stupid to realize that human beings must connect with each other to survive, as I think is your idea, then what explains the results of the power struggle to date, whereby honest productive people continue producing a surplus of wealth despite the massive power behind the criminals as the criminals, legal or otherwise, slaughter honest productive people by the millions on a regular basis, and torture them too? A. Human beings are too stupid to see the nose in front of their faces (every one of them, except me) B. Human beings are not too stupid to see the nose in front of their faces, despite what is claimed to be their entire level of intelligence. I do not think that A is true, rather, I think that B is true, and I think the evidence proving B to be true is abundant, and I think that the evidence proving A is absent. I appreciate your messages as your messages agree with my viewpoints, whereby people may do well as people choose to disconnect from destructive things and as people maintain productive connections, moving further away from thoughts and actions that result in human misery, and moving toward thoughts and actions that result in increases in the power human beings have to make the best of human life. I can most certainly agree with anyone who understands that goal, and anyone who has a competitive method of moving down that welcome path. I do not agree with things that do not ring true to me, and unless there is supporting evidence to help me know better, I can't know better, without blind faith in something I do not know. I'll read more of your reply, gladly, to see if there is anything more in your words that inspires me to use my time and energy to respond. See, he depends upon others in order for him to produce the income that he does. The concept of "income" is a focal point. If that concept can be less ambiguous, and therefore that concept can be more accurate, I think the path away from misery, and the path toward happiness (for lack of a more accurate and less ambiguous word) would be taken in a measurable way. If more people understood the need to make "income" more accurate, and less subject to unwelcome, negative, costs, then, it seems to me, there would be more income for less cost, logically, and measurably. I think that my viewpoint is well covered in the .pdf file that you appear to misunderstand. I base my viewpoint, about you appearing to misunderstand the .pdf file because you wrote this: I see the Author of that writing had a hard time understanding that people do work together without many problems, especially today. I think the Author of that writing reported the opposite of your claim about the Author of that writing. What if instead of being in a tall building on the phones pushing papers around the people were instead growing organic food, recycling products from nearby communities and producing art work such as glass art, traditional art, quilts, metal, clay, pottery, etc. and using money they obtained from the monetary systems surrounding them but did not use any monetary means amongst themselves? I am going to guess that you are one of the number of people who think that a social connection can work without money. If that is what you think then you are going to have a very difficult time finding anyone to agree with you if you do not accurately communicate exactly what you think that money is, and exactly what you think that money is not, failing to do so will result in miscommunication, since your concept of money appears to be an exclusive concept, something only you know, and therefore something that you will die knowing alone, unless you find one other person to agree with your concept of it. In other words: you have a negative measure of money, if I understand that much about what you are reporting, and few, or no one, else shares that negative measure of money, exactly the same way as you do. I don't. Money takes on various forms, many of which are easy to know, and easy to compare competitively. 1. The Dollar form of money 2. The Labor note (in history, such as the .pdf file version that was used during the 1800s) 3. The California town version of town shares (possibly stamp script or negative interest money) 4. Gold or precious metals, as money 5. No forms of money at all. So there are 5 forms of social connection, 4 of which are social connections that use money as a tool, and one social connection that doesn't use money as a tool. The obvious question that arises from comparing how each social connection works, is by what means, what methods, do people in the social network without money, inform each other as to what is needed, when something is needed, and how much of what is needed, when it is needed, and who pays the cost of producing it? If money is understood to be a tool that is used to as enable each person to inform each other person the measure of needs, wants, demands, then that is what money is understood to be, and money can be that, and money can be nothing more than that, so long as that is the form of money produced and used, chosen, by the people within that social network. If there is only one money used and no other money is used there could be a reason for such a situation, and the same applies to a social network that has no money, where money is not used, there could be a reason why no money is used. Just ask someone, and a reason can be known. Ask enough people and a common reason may become obvious, when comparing all the many reasons. In the case of a social network where money is used there are people who can report their reasons for using the money they use, according to each person. "I use dollars because everyone else is using dollars, and Uncle Sam says that taxes are due in dollars." In the case of a social network where money is not used there are people who can report their reasons for not using any money? "I stopped using dollars, and a bunch of us stopped using dollars, now we barter, to avoid paying taxes." If there are cases of using one money, or no money, or a bunch of different forms of money, then something can be known about those cases, as questions are answered by the people within such a social network where one money is used, or money is not used, or many different moneys compete to see which monies are chosen to be used. Now, when we (you and I) being immersed in a monetary system like we are think of a corporation we think of a tall building with shiny glass windows and lots of offices where people are on the phones and pushing papers around magically making money, right? I can only speak for myself, in answer to that question, and my answer is no, that is not right. I know the difference between a monetary system based upon enforced crime, and a monetary system that is based upon enforced competition - so I don't confuse the two, since I know that confusing the two is very dangerous, as the criminals gain power by that confusion, and the victims of the criminals grow weaker as a result of such confusion - therefore I don't confuse the two. Confusing the two may result in something that happens whereby some people may want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some people may want to get rid of the useful and productive advantages of money in the effort to get rid of the destructive advantages of money that are exclusive advantages that money affords to criminals, as a result of the criminal enforcement of money. I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, since money can be a useful and productive advantage for honest productive people as they work toward moving life toward better life, at the expense of no innocent victims. I may be wrong, but I have yet to see any evidence that supports a competitive viewpoint. See the irony and the genius behind these thoughts? I saw the genius in the thoughts and experiments recorded in that .pdf file I linked, the same file that you misunderstand, as far as I know at this point. As far as I know at this point, having read up to that question above, your thoughts misunderstand what I think, and your thoughts appear to suggest that a social network can work without a means by which people communicate the vital information needed in accessing division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, a medium of exchange, a connection of some kind, by which information flows between each person in the social network. I see no genius in that, at this point. Let me put it another way, go back to the corporation that is housed in a tall glass building, lets say the corporation (being made up of the people in the building) own a pool of vehicles, say 20 of them, they own a spa, a bakery, a work-out place, a subway sandwich shop. Now, everyone that does not work at the corporation must pay the prices that are posted, but the people that work at the corporation do not (this happens in real life), so what do you think about that? I think that your way of putting things "another way" is the same ambiguous way that is way too ambiguous to convey accurate meaning. A corporation can be a legal fiction, and as such it can be a tool used by criminals to commit crimes, and in so doing the force of defense against becoming a victim of those crimes are wasted in the effort to hold the corporation accountable, while the criminals just raid the corporate bank account, and then move to another corporation. Your words do not mention that fact at all. Your words confuse the concept of ownership too. How can many people all own one thing? If more than one person owns something, according to one concept of ownership, there is then collective ownership, which is very confusing to me - because it is too ambiguous. I do not understand the concept of collective ownership, unless an example is thoroughly inspected. You employ an example that makes no sense to me, so I can employ an example that makes sense to me. A. 20 people own a pool of vehicles B. Everyone owns air, and sunlight. Your concept of ownership appears to suggest that 20 people own a pool of cars as an exclusive group of people and no one else owns those cars, just those 20 people. I do not think that such a thing works well, not to me, such a thing sounds like a false arrangement, since someone, not everyone, will be driving the better car, and someone, not everyone, will be driving the worse car, and someone, not everyone, will abuse a car, and someone, not everyone, will take very good care of a good car, and who will be accurately held accountable for anything, when all 20 own each car in the pool? Who pays? Who benefits? My concept of collective ownership is such that no one owns the air since everyone owns the air, without exception. Each person is unable to exclude anyone else from owning the air, according to how I understand collective ownership to be in reality. If someone pollutes the air, they exclude the ownership of the air of the people who have to then breath polluted air, and therefore it is the polluter who volunteers to become a criminal, to injure innocent victims, by taking away the victims ownership of the air. If ownership means something, it means something specific. If ownership is unspecific, and if ownership is ambiguous, then ownership can mean one thing today, and something different tomorrow, and if ownership is ambiguous, then it can mean one thing for one person, and ambiguous ownership can mean the opposite thing for someone else. That is in response to this: Let me put it another way, go back to the corporation that is housed in a tall glass building, lets say the corporation (being made up of the people in the building) own a pool of vehicles, say 20 of them, they own a spa, a bakery, a work-out place, a subway sandwich shop. Now, everyone that does not work at the corporation must pay the prices that are posted, but the people that work at the corporation do not (this happens in real life), so what do you think about that? That is way to ambiguous to be of much value to me. I don't get the point. I can comment on some of the information in the words quoted, but the bridge between your viewpoint and my viewpoint is measured to be vast, as I read those words. What is the method by which price is calculated in the reference to price above? How is "must pay" enforced in any case whereby "this happens in real life"? When I see tall buildings I see economy of space, many cubic feet of human living area, climate controlled, in one geographical spot on earth. I do not necessarily see a legal fiction in operation. I am more inclined to witness a legal fiction in operation when I see an American Flag, because I understand the function of it, and I am more inclined to see a legal fiction in operation when I see trade mark logos on advertisements. Tall buildings can be very interesting, even beautiful, expressions of architectural genius - to me. That is in effect a cash-less system in a micro community setting. You are now suggesting that a corporate (legal fiction) social network, where 20 people collectively own a pool of cars, is a cash-less system in a micro community setting? I've worked within a corporate (legal fiction) and I understand how that one worked, and it worked to the benefit of the owners (those with the legal power to spend the legal corporate monetary account) and it worked at the expense of everyone else. I saw that first hand. I can explain how that worked in great detail. I know for a fact that my experience of that was nothing even close to a cash-less system, as I understand the term cash, and as I understand the term system. I can confirm that the legal fiction I experienced was a case of micro economics in as much as its internal system was independent from the external system, but only in that measure of it, since the connection between the internal system and the external system was vast and was dominant, not submissive to the internal system. The dominant system, in the case I experienced, was the external system, or the "State" system, and then again submissive to the "National" system, the submissive system, the lower system, was the internal legal fiction, or the micro community setting was certainly the submissive, not the dominant system. Now, lets take this step further, lets say this corporation owns a farm and they grow their own food that they provide to the subway and bakery, now they've driven their cost down even further to just the fuel for the tractors, seeds, and manpower. Lets go even further now. Let's say the corporation owns a complex of housing, enough to house everyone that works for the corporation and they all get to live there rent/mortgage free, why? Because all the material to build this housing was completely paid for (no mortgage payments) now what do you think. These people, live in mortgage free housing, eat free, drive free, and any and all money coming in from their subway sandwich shop, or bakery and spa all goes into their bank accounts without much overhead for themselves. See, this is the way to true retirement, true living. A corporation cannot own anything, do anything, think anything, or be responsible for anything. A corporation can be held accountable for things that are done by people. The people are not held accountable. The corporation is held accountable. How does that work for the victims, in cases where the people running the corporation have injured innocent people? The corporation is held accountable. The people who commit crimes are not held accountable. How does that work for the people who commit crimes? Who benefits? Who pays the bill? These are your words: Let's say the corporation owns a complex of housing, enough to house everyone that works for the corporation and they all get to live there rent/mortgage free, why? My answer to your question is: The reason why a corporation is thought of as a responsible being is so that criminals can avoid accountability, so as to perpetuate crime, as the criminals are never held accountable for the crimes they commit. I see many other ways to address your question; but that way, to me, gets right down to the core of it. Criminals invent legal fictions, or Gods, or isms, or nations, to hide their crimes, so as to allow the criminals to escape accountability, as the victims are fooled into holding the legal fictions to account, for the perpetuating crimes committed by the criminals. That is how that works, it is working that way right now, and it will continue to work that way until such time as the victims understand how that works, not before.
If there is nothing but human labor and raw materials, no wealth, no human action yet, no human thought yet, just naked, cold, dirty, or hot and dirty, people standing around, breathing air, and experiencing what life has to offer, then that is how things start. Someone decides to improve life on earth, thinking, then acting, and then raw material is forced into becoming wealth, a chair, a hammer, a pencil, a wedge, an apple is found, picked up, and eaten, by someone, somewhere, and then two apples are picked up, then three, and arms are made into a basket, and surplus wealth is created with a basket of apples, from a time, and a place, where no surplus wealth existed. Then one person, with the basket of apples encounters another person with a basket made of hide, after an animal was eaten, then they may agree to cooperate, to divide labor, to specialize, and begin economies of scale, using power to make more power, creating and increasing the supply of surplus wealth from a time when there was none. Those are the actions of specialization, and division of labor, evolving into being a part of human interaction. Those things have happen before the invention of legal fictions, and the people who support legal fictions may want their victims to forget such things, and the supporters of legal fictions may include the victims of criminals who support legal fictions, because that is the way things are, and again, the core of the problem is the fact that criminals use legal fictions to perpetuate crimes, including the crimes by which radioactive material is now flowing to a legal fiction near you, and threatening to cause human extinction. Money didn't do it. The gun didn't to it. The corporation didn't to it. People are responsible. People have the power to respond. People are able to respond - response-able. If the response is to resort to crime, that is the response. If the response is to reject crime as a response, that is the response. If the response is to offer something better than crime, the response will be equity, or universality, or liberty, or any word that is defined by human action that incorporates division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, without enforcement by deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence used to accomplish the goal of gaining at the expense of innocent victims (crime). How those non-criminal methods compare competitively, one compared competitively to the other, is the stuff of liberty, as competition is a natural force, seen in nature, whereby the higher quality stuff, and the lower cost stuff, wins, and the lower quality stuff, and the higher cost stuff does not win the competition, and losers either find things to do where their stuff is higher in quality, and lower in cost, or they depend upon charity, or they perish, or they resort to crime. A. Crime (competition is destroyed on purpose - for profit) B. Competition (non-criminal methods compete to gain welcome acceptance and use) If a new version of "collective ownership of the means of production" or "socialism" works, without resort to crime (deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence produced and inflected so as to gain at the expense of the targeted, innocent, victims), then that is what happens. If the new version of "collective ownership of the means of production", or, "socialism" resorts to crime, then it is crime, by any other name, it is crime. If a new version of "collective ownership of the means of production" or "capitalism" works, without resort to crime (deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence produced and inflected so as to gain at the expense of the targeted, innocent, victims), then that is what happens. If the new version of "collective ownership of the means of production", or, "socialism" resorts to crime, then it is crime, by any other name, it is crime. Stock shares, the military, or any collection of individual power flowing to one expense of power, to gain anything, is either socialism or capitalism, or any word that describes the same thing. If people what to go out in the wilderness and give socialism a try, then they may want to read the .pdf I linked, and I will link it again, and I will link yet another expose' on what happens when people go out in the wilderness and give socialism a try. Lessons have been learned, it pays to avoid repeating the same mistakes over and over again, unless that is the goal. A. Let's repeat the same mistakes over and over again, because I am confident, "we" are confident, that a different result will occur this unique time. B. Let's work away from crime and toward liberty by avoiding the same old mistakes, and this time lets use something that has proven to work in the past. Which is it? http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm And, lets say everyone in this corporation were friends, family, neighbors, now they spend time with each other, building upon their artistic and creative side of their brains instead of being enslaved like most people. Are you getting the picture without the complexity of what this Author wrote about. The links above were written by people who used English language as a tool to accomplish the goal of accurately transferring information. The tool is commonly used today to accomplish the goal of deceit. It may help the reader, if the reader wants to know something, to read carefully, in a word: peruse, the works links. Speed reading has a purpose, it seems to me, and the purpose is for the speed reader to know what the reader wants to know, and the goal can be accomplished by not reading, as well as reading. A speed reader can say, to himself, I read that, and the goal is accomplished - according to the speed reader. The proof of knowledge is not so easy. He is to complex, makes it seem to hard to live debt free and self-sufficient. Too many words are chosen by some to intentionally confuse the targeted readership. Not enough words are chosen by some to hide the true meaning from the targeted readership. Too many words can weaken the power of the idea that is offered to the readership for consideration. Not enough words can fail to convey essential information required in explaining the idea that is offered to the readership. Choosing too many words, or too few words, can be a mistake when the intention is to convey accurate meaning to the readership. Few of us are blessed with perfect knowledge, I know of no one, certainly not me. The author in question put his money where his mouth was, and tested the validity of equitable commerce, and the results are recorded for anyone wanting to know the results. If there was an easier way to move toward liberty, and away from crime, then, there would be a case of it happening - or absent the case, since there was an easier way, there are few explanations as to why the move was not made - ignorance, apathy, indifference, etc. As people do move toward liberty and away from crime, those people provide competitive examples of what works, and I've already linked one example. Here it is again: http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/ Here is another: http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm If I can re-find one more, I will, and this current example involves a group of people who began working toward liberty, and away from crime, in Alaska, and they use gold as money, and I had links to them, but I lost those links, I want to find those links again, since they are a current examples of people moving toward liberty and away from crime, and doing so effectively, competitively, setting an example, and setting an example that can be emulated, and setting an example that can be improved upon. I will try to find the links to that group that began in Alaska. They used a form of public declaration of independence, if my memory serves me. The bottom line is, we are all connected in one way or another. The only question is: How do you want to live? You can make your choice at anytime in your life. As a slave or as a free person? The choice is really yours and mine. I choose freedom in all forms. Thanks for your time and your kindness in sending me the information you did. I am working on building a corporation exactly like I stated above and if you are willing to join me you will be very happy, as well as your family, friends and anyone else that understands the essence of really living, instead of just subsisting. We, my family, are fighting our fights as we can, within our limited power, I am connected to my wife, my son, my daughter, my brothers who live close-by, my aging mother, I am aging, and my efforts to disconnect from the criminals must include my efforts to disconnect the criminals from my family, I can't just leave them, and it takes a lot of effort on my part to help my family members realize what is at stake, while they struggle to make ends meet, so an idea of picking everything up and moving somewhere else as a group, if that is the idea you are offering, is unworkable. I was just told by my Electrician friend that the laws for producing excess electric power, at home, have changed from a lawful exclusion of profits earned by the home owner to a lawful inclusion of profits earned by a home owner. To be clear: Before the change of the law a home producer of excess electric power could not demand payment from the electric company for surplus electricity, now the home owner, by law, will receive a check from the Electric Company for excess electricity produced at the home and sent to The Grid. That is a huge change in the way the law works. Instead of the law working for some, at the expense of the many, which is the default method, the law has been changed to be equitable instead. Things like this measure the power struggle significantly. If you can accomplish whatever it is you are setting out to do, and you can record your progress to set an example of what works, and what does not work, then that would be very helpful to anyone wanting to know what does work, and what does not work, for you, as your reach toward your goal. That is what was done in the link I offered, you can heed the warning or ignore it, as you wish.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 20th, 2011 10:36 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The Libertarian Party web page candidate submission form generated an e-mail from a Libertarian Party member, which led to an e-mail from me, which led to a phone call from a Libertarian Party member, which was not immediately picked up by me, which led to a message I read, which led to a phone call from me, which was not picked up, which led to a message entered by me, which led to nothing more as yet. When I ran as a Libertarian candidate for the California 40th District House of Representatives I ended up getting on the Ballot, with a list of names provided by someone in the Libertarian Party, and those names were members of The Libertarian Party in my district, and those people signed my money saving petition, when I knocked on their doors. There is a method by which The Libertarian Party picks candidates, and that method is obviously not a web based method, since my web based experience proves that candidates are not recognized to be candidates by that method. There was no mention whatsoever in the e-mail or the phone message as to candidacy of any kind from The Libertarian Party. There is a concept called push, and there is a concept called pull. An example of the pull concept could be illustrated by such things as any competitive Racing Association. Take NASCAR racing for example, and consider the process by which the best drivers move from where they were young on into the race cars on race day. Competition pulls the best in from all possible sources so as to move the best up to the front of the pack, where the best race against the best, and the winner is the only one that wins, because the winner is the best. Talent shows on T.V. work to illustrate the concept. Push is the concept that the driver does, or the singer, or the dancer, so as to push past each difficulty on the path, and the team backing the individual pushes the individual to maintain the highest competitive edge over the competition. What pulls liars, torturers, and mass murderers to be drawn into the thing that is called government, the thing I call legal crime? The obvious answer is power, and it is destructive power, it is criminal power. A liar, torturer, and mass murderer can't get away with lies, torture, and mass murder without a powerful cover. It is not a surprise to find that the process by which candidates are moved from all corners of the country to those lying, torturing, and mass murdering cover posts, is criminal in nature, where the best liar, the best torturer, and the best mass murderer wins. That makes sense, that is how that works, but what does not make sense is the vacuum. The concept of push and pull can also be illustrated by the concept of supply and demand. When there is a demand for lies, torture, and murder, there are those who will fill that demand, and since there is an abundant supply of lies, torture, and mass murder, there is therefore an obvious demand for lies, torture, and murder, and the demand is obviously being filled by those professionals who are best at filling that demand. What about the demand for accurate information, productive power, and adaptive invention? Has the power of falsehood grown so massive as to cover up the demand for anything else, on the surface, and therefore has the demand for accurate information, productive power, and adaptive invention gone underground, as far as the political economy sphere is concerned? Where is there, if one exists, a working competition, pulling, and demanding, that candidates who are providing the most accurate information, leading to higher quality and lower cost productive power increases, and the most adaptive inventions to overcome the most difficult problems facing mankind, and where are the people pushing those qualities from all corners of the country into the race that determines the best of the best so as to move the best into that job? What explains the vacuum? Is it under the cover of darkness?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 11:45 am |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, I have a few moments before demands upon my time and energy (my power) require investing expenses, to work, and in particular I am tasked with bill payment routines - paper pushing. My days of hard labor, and dangerous sports, are over, the price is too high, my body is deteriorating with age, blood clots, bone density reduction, other things, older age. I sent out three responses to solicitations as follows: 1. Candidacy notice to The Libertarian Party (The Libertarian Party solicits membership) 2. Candidacy notice to The Constitution Party (soliciting membership too) 3. Debate Challenge as follows: Cut and pasted: http://libertariannews.org/Forums/index.php Forums Update on The Libertarian Party: Two e-mails from a representative to me, having nothing to do with the candidacy notice - as if I never submitted a request to be a candidate. Phone tag. No further response from The Libertarian Party Update on The Constitution Party: One e-mail from me to their contact e-mail address. No response as yet. Update on the Libertarian News challenge: My registration on the Libertarian Forum was accepted, two submissions were accepted, and my third forum topic response is held up in the evaluation process, having been submitted on May 27, it is now May 31. My last response, mirrored earlier in this thread, may have been set aside during the Memorial Day Weekend. Note: It is unusual for a forum to screen responses, which requires personal effort (time, energy, power) by some person, and therefore not possible on forums with many users posting many responses, as a function of numbers. Who has enough spare time (surplus wealth) to personally evaluate 100 forum submissions a day - for example? At some point the practice of personally screening forum responses becomes economically unproductive. How many forum users use forums, or are active members of forums, that process forum submissions through personal filters, whereby a submission is sent to the forum, and then a forum moderator, or owner, personally screens each forum submission? My guess is that the number is few, the number is exclusive, as few people demand, or want, to have their work censored in that manner. A forum is a forum. What is a forum? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forum 1. Awhile ago there was an Austrian Forum where my questions were published, not answered, but published, and the forum owners didn't like my questions, and the forum owners discredited me publicly by publishing false, and libelous, things about me, and then the forum owners removed my access to their private forum. What is a forum? If the connection is private, then why is the connection advertized with the word: Forum? There is a contradiction occurring in time and space, in reality, and the contradiction occurring here and now illustrates the divisions between those who purport to support capitalism and those who purport to support socialism. Is a Forum a public or a private thing, connection, device, tool, power, or invention? What is a Forum? My understanding measures a forum as a medium of exchange, much like money, and much like air, water, food, Television, The internet, roads, land, electricity, The Grid, transportation fuel, knowledge, information, understanding, language, and power in general. A forum is a thing that is separate from those who connect to the forum. People are separate things. People use a forum to connect to other people. The thing that connects people is a separate thing. A forum is a thing. A forum is a connecting thing. A forum connects separate people with separate people. What is the nature, character, constitution, make-up, specifications, and measure of a forum? Is the connection equitable? Is the connection voluntary? Is the connection welcome? Is the connection open? Is the connection secure? Is the connection used by people who use the connection to help each other? Is the connection used by people who use the connection to injure victims? Does the connection enable users to gain access to other people for equitable, productive, helpful, and mutually beneficial goals while, at the same time, does the connection protect people from harm by criminals? Does the thing that connects people work to help people while the thing that connects people also accomplishes the job of insulating people from injury by criminals? You may say: It is just a forum, it isn't as if it were The State, for Christ's Sake, you are a nut job, why don't you take off your tin hat, for once, and speak plain English. Someone posting words as those just published would be an illustrated example of intentional injury by someone targeting me - would it not, and by whose authority would the words just published constitute morally acceptable behavior, justified behavior, defensive behavior, offensive behavior, or innocent, neutral, insignificant, or in any way valuated behavior? Who gains license to censor whom, and what is the process by which said license is empowered in anyone, at any time, anywhere? You may say: There must be a law, otherwise the bad guys will run amok, posting porn, pictures of extreme violence, and other harmful things that the innocent may then suffer from such destructive exposure. The matter is what it is, I'm offering a point of view on it. I may be targeted as one of the bad guys, one of the ones who run amok, and one of the one's in dire need of censorship, so as to protect the children - of course. What did I actually write, that is in dire need of censorship? Are the laws made so as to protect the innocent? Really, measurably, and accurately measured, and then accurately communicated to each person having an interest in knowing, are laws made, and enforced, so as to protect the innocent, or, on the other hand, are laws made so as to exclude, or render power-less, the force of competition? Competition forces quality up and cost down. Competition, thereby, forces crime out of business. Crime is definable, measurable, and accurately measurable as low quality, and high cost, behavior. Crime only exists where ever, and when ever, competition is rendered power-less, less powerful relative to crime. Read The Prince by Machiavelli, please, and reconsider, if you will, the true constitution of government. A. Friend B. Foe Your enemies won't be confessing as much, more likely, they will pose as your friends.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue May 31st, 2011 02:06 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north986.html Anyone, Gary North appears to be blaming Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn for crimes of false witness, or propagation of lies, and so as not to conclude as much, I link the source above, and let the reader judge the measure of it. I will address a general trend. Capitalists blame socialists for all the bad things done by the criminals. Socialists blame capitalists for all the bad things done by the criminals. The criminals give themselves the license to commit crimes, and the general trend is to blame the victims for their weakness. That is a criminal trend, and I'm not the only one who measures that trend in that way. From my copy of The Prince I offer the following introductory message published in the introduction: Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the on element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual. I've heard similar confessions from criminals I've heard, personally, explain their reasoning for resorting to crime: If the victim affords me the opportunity to injure them, they deserve what they get, I'm doing them a favor, teaching them a lesson, no pain no gain, and once I'm done with them, they will be better off, having been taught a good lesson by me, as I play The Devils Advocate. There is more to it. As you can learn from a few sources, reading Eric Fromm helps. Here: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Anatomy_of_Human_Destructiveness.html?id=YjR5Ve-zTcYC Another good source is a rare book I found in an antique store: http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-rebellion-Robert-Mitchell-Lindner/dp/0837180163 Another source for this angle of view is in The Prisoner's Dilemma: http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/ There are reasons for willful plans and willful executions of plans by which the planner, and the executor of the plans intends, and then accomplishes, the goal of injuring innocent victims, for profit, or for whatever reason imaginable. The trend is to transfer ownership of the the thoughts and actions onto the victim, or onto anything other than the person thinking and acting criminally. Blame the government. Blame socialism. Blame capitalism. Blame the gun. Blame the Devil. Blame (the wrong) God. Blame the victim. Blame, and punish, anything but personal accountability for the thoughts and actions of the person doing the blaming; anything but realizing that which the person is responsible. It is the same old story of a thief shouting "thief" (and pointing away from the actual thief) before, during, and after the commission of a crime, so as to misdirect blame away from the criminal and onto anything other than the criminal, and it works, so therefore such behavior reinforces such behavior, as such behavior pays off, as crime pays, since the victims fall for it often, a fool and his money are soon parted, and one sucker is born every minute. The opposite is as true. The concept of trust is the opposite of the weakness seen by criminals, as criminals gain access to their victims through the open door of trust. To trust someone, from a criminal perspective, is to welcome, ask for, and solicit injury by a criminal, a weakness, trust is a weakness. Trust is a necessary element for human prosperity, without which the cost of trading becomes exorbitant, and I can explain, and you can judge for yourself, you can trust the information I offer, or you can distrust it as you see fit. What could be the process by which one thing is traded for another thing when both people, or any person, involved in the trade, have no power of trust - whatsoever? You have something. You want something someone else has, and you have no trust, at all, in the person who has what you want, and the person who wants what you have is just as unable to trust you. Work that out in your head, and multiply that type of transaction by any exponential increase in numbers of transactions working again, and again, over a period of time, and consider using an illustrative number such as 1 hundred million people lacking trust and trading as many times as they can in 100 years time. Now consider a competitive 1 hundred million people trading as many times as they can in 100 years in a separate place and all 1 hundred million people in the competitive place trust each other while they trade for those 100 years. What is the likely differences between those separate places where group A lacks the factor of trust and group B is empowered with the power of trust? In God we Trust. It is unlikely that the concept just offered can avoid the measure of criminal activity. What explains the fact that one group has no power of trust? How can a group of people exist, how can human beings exist, without trust? What explains the lack of trust? How does trust vanish from that group? Having no answer for those last questions it may be very difficult to quantify the differences between the illustrated group A (no trust) and group B (trust) as 100 million people in each group trade for 100 years time. Make it personal. You want something that someone else has, so you offer something you have in trade for the thing you want, and you don't trust the other person. How does that work? I can't see it happening unless I am right there face to face with the person I don't trust, and I am armed, and I can't imagine how I got armed, but I am armed, perhaps with a pointed stick, and I insist upon seeing the thing I want, and I insist on testing the thing I want, and while I allow the thing I have to be seen, and while I allow the thing I have to be tested, I am ready to strike out and get the thing I own back as soon as I suspect that the person I don't trust is threatening to take my stuff. I can add, in that situation, the idea that I want to find other people to help me defend my stuff, to hire people who are willing and capable of violence, if violence is necessary, in order to get my stolen stuff back, in case the person I don't trust does take my stuff, but, I don't have trust, so hiring other people to help me get my stuff back is just another trade that is going to be very difficult for me to perform, having no trust in "my fellow man" - or woman. How can I reproduce without trust? Without trust will a woman ever procreate, how would that work out? 100 years time is enough time for one group, without trust, to fail in the work of reproduction - extinction. Is trust a weakness? Ask an honest criminal. Will you be able to trust the answer? Ask the politician you hired to lie to you; if you ask, and the answer is yes, can you trust that the politician you hire to lie to you is lying to you? When someone, like Gary North, keeps on blaming the socialists for bad things, is Gary North blaming all the socialists, including the voluntary ones, or is Gary North blaming only the criminal socialists? Can I trust that he is aware of any non-criminal, voluntary, socialists? I'm having a hard time with such trust at this point. I've read Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, and if I had to trust either Gary North or Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, if my life depended on such a personal appraisal, or if my loved one's lives depended upon the right decision to trust the right person, based upon what I have read about those two, I'd flip a coin. I trust both. I also think that Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn would, if he could have, treated Gary North equitably, and would not, if he could have, published false or misleading words that target the good moral standing of Gary North, the good faith and credit of Gary, and as far as I can tell, if I can trust my own measure of things, the reverse is not true, as Gary North is, as far as I can tell, besmirching, discrediting, defaming, and injuring the good name of Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn, by falsifying the meanings of Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn's words. That is my guess. I prefer to know the truth; not guess. I think that Gary North is trying to injure anyone who challenges the monopoly power of capitalism, as a dominant dogma, and to do so Gary North will collectively punish the voluntary socialists by blaming the voluntary socialists for the crimes done by the involuntary socialists, as if both are one and the same, which they are definitively not, and to collectively punish everyone, for the crimes of the few, is exactly the same thing done by every criminal, so as to weaken all the innocent people and so as to strengthen the criminals by that close association. The good people, good by their thoughts, and good by their actions, are dirtied, made less good looking, by the close miss-association with the criminals. The bad people, bad by their thoughts, and bad by their actions, are less evil looking, by the close miss-association with the good people. In the name of making capitalism look good, be it voluntary capitalism, or be it involuntary capitalism, all socialists are maliciously attacked and falsely blamed for the crimes committed by the involuntary socialists. Can I trust that my viewpoint is true? When evidence contradicts my viewpoint I'll have reason to distrust my viewpoint, not until then, since so much evidence, so far, supports my viewpoint. Why blame all socialists for the crimes a few, twice, once the error is known, and once the false association is repeated, it is no longer an error, it is a willful deception.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 05:09 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
06-01-2011 Listening to Alex Jones. I heard Alex explain the situation in Texas where the criminals running the Texas government are demanding payments or executing punishment when honest productive people intend to, and then accomplish home electric power production; solar panels, wind mills, etc. Later Alex Jones claims that they blame capitalism for their crimes so as to pave the way for socialism which is their goal. Who is they? If they can be known, then it can be known if they want socialism or capitalism. If they cannot be known, then how can what they want be known? If they are criminals, with badges, then they want organized crime, not capitalism, and not socialism, they want organized crime. Why would anyone claim that they want capitalism, when they actually want organized crime? Why would anyone claim that they want socialism, when they actually want organized crime? Why would anyone claim that they want Federalism, when they actually want organized crime? What do they want? Now I hear Alex actually ask: "What do they stand for?" as an introduction to a song: http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/tippin-aaron/youve-got-to-stand-for-something-9063.html If someone stands for an involuntary association, what do they stand for? What is the word that will accurately communicate the desire for perpetual crime; whereby many people plan on injuring innocent people, and then many people execute that plan? What is the word that will accurately communicate organized crime? 1. Organized Crime 2. Involuntary Associations 3. Master and Slave relations 4. Crime and Victim relations 5. Dictator and Subject relations 6. Fascism/Capitalism 7. Communism/Socialism 8. Nationalism/Consolidated Government 9. Limited Liability Corporate Legal Fiction 10. Dictatorship/Cult of Personality 11. Legal Crime When "they" are ambiguous, on purpose, what does that confess? If asked, what does the answer confess, if the answer is an ambiguous answer? A. Ignorance (as to who "they" really are) B. Willful deceit (so as to keep who "they" really are unaccounted for, ambiguous, false, confusing, inaccurately communicated) If "they" never answer questions, what does that confess? I hear Alex saying: "They were demonizing the Founding Fathers." Which one's? Alexander Hamilton was identified as an agent for the English Monarchy by some of the Founding Fathers. There were two groups in the Founding Father group. A. Nationalists (involuntary association, or, legal crime) posing as "Federalists" - using the good name of "Federalist" to cover their true color, which was Nationalist, or "consolidated (monopoly) government". B. Federalists (who were falsely labeled by the Nationalists as "Anti-Federalists") In whose best interest is it to keep the victims ignorant by manufacturing and perpetuating false language, false data, false "information", false-hood? If bad people are collected into the same group as good people the result is that the bad people appear to be not-so-bad by close (and false) association with good people; while, at the same time, the good people appear to be worse by close association with the bad people - in a word: prejudice. The thief yells "thief" and points to an innocent person. What happens? Will those who are good people, people who have the power to prevent crime, and prevent crime without violence, be misdirected by the "news" that purports to accurately identify a thief, be shunted, wasted, misdirected, grounded, short circuited, lost, wasted, and even be used in the work of helping crime perpetuate? Back to the concept of home power production, with solar panels, or wind mills, or Modular Home Vertical Farming Units (making food or algae based gasoline for running any car currently running on petroleum powered gasoline), and going back to that viewpoint so as to accurately discriminate the differences between voluntary socialism, voluntary capitalism, involuntary socialism, involuntary capitalism, crime, legal crime, and honest productive employment of power, equity, freedom, liberty, and good political economy. Is the idea to know? Is the idea to remain ignorant? What is The Grid? If The Grid is owned by one person then The Grid is an electrical connection owned by one person and if there is only one grid: then The Grid is a working monopoly electrical connection, then who can complain if that one person, with that monopoly, charges "that which the market will bear" for the use of The Grid? Confused: do you have no idea why I'm pointing this out to you? What is socialism (voluntary socialism and absolutely not involuntary socialism)? What is capitalism (voluntary capitalism and absolutely not to be confused with involuntary capitalism)? What is The Grid? What is the electrical connection running from sea to shining sea across the geographical area known as America? What is the electrical connection running from sea to shining sea across the legal fiction known as The United States of America? Who owns The Grid? You, yes you, whomever is reading this, will not answer the question publicly, for whatever individual reason you have, but the answer goes directly into the definition of capitalism, and the definition of socialism, as both are defined by the very people who define socialism and capitalism. What is The Internet? Who owns it? What is the network of roads that cars drive on in that place between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean whereby Canada boarders the north and Mexico boarders the south? Who owns those roads? Who owns sunlight? Who owns air? Who owns The Military? You have to answer those questions before you can claim to command (or own) the understanding, the power, to accurately discriminate between that which is socialism and that which is capitalism (voluntary or involuntary). If you do not answer those questions, you fail to earn the authority to know the facts, you fail to be in a position to dictate the truth to anyone, and your claims, if you still claim to command the power of knowledge, falsely, amounts to either ignorant error or willful deception. Once you have been challenged, to either produce the facts, or stop claiming to have that power, and you continue to ignore the challenge, and you continue to fail to produce the facts, and you continue to keep claiming to have the power of knowledge, despite being exposed as someone who fails to meet the challenge, then you choose to be deceitful. Why do you do that, if that is what you do? There are a few possibilities: 1. You choose to produce and perpetuate lies, so as to reduce the power of the truth, and keep people ignorant, rendering them power-less. 2. You choose to produce and perpetuate lies, so as to eliminate the force of competition, to keep the power of truth competitively absent - less powerful. 3. You choose to produce and perpetuate lies, so as to profit from the knowledge you command over the victims that you intend to, and accomplish, perpetual ignorance, perpetual confusion, perpetual ambiguity, perpetual grey area, perpetual argumentation, perpetual division, so as to perpetuate your dominion over your hapless, ignorant, victims. Knowing that accurate facts, such as the accurate factual identification, and accounting, of the criminals, accurately discriminating the difference between the criminals, and the victims, is possible, and once that power is gained, once that possibility becomes real, that knowledge can then be kept secret, and used, to perpetuate victimization, or that accurate knowing, that factual understanding, and that power can be passed on to other victims, given to them, or sold to them, to empower the victims, to help the victims, to be powerful enough to avoid further victimization. Back to The Grid. I am speaking about the electrical grid that connects anyone who needs electricity to anyone who produces electricity. I am speaking about this connection because it, the connection, defines capitalism or socialism or both, or something new, something that is not capitalism nor socialism. If you are in California, for example, and you want, or need, electricity, you can pay for it, or you can make it yourself, at home, and once upon a time there was an enforced law that perpetuated a monopoly power company power, and that law can be known, and it can be know truthfully, and it can be known accurately, and therefore it can be communicated to anyone as it truly is, in reality. If The Grid is a private ownership thing, in California, or in your city, or on your block of houses in your city, or in your country area lot, or farm, or acre, or ranch, or valley, or river front, or mountain, then the private owners have exclusive control over that connection, that example of The Grid. That is what it is, in that case, wherever that fact is factual. A private owner owns The Grid. What stops someone else as someone else offers a competitive connection to compete with The Grid? If nothing stops a competitive connection to compete with The Grid, then competition will force the quality of The Grid up, and the cost of The Grid down, because that is how that works in reality, and it works that way if the people who choose to connect to the higher quality grid, and the lower cost grid, think that they are being capitalists, or if the people choosing to be connected to the better grid think that they are choosing to be socialists. What power stops anyone from offering a better grid? Why not make it personal, if you think that the questions now challenging you are stupid, and if you think that just maybe the questions that are now challenging you are, remotely, worth answering? If you know that it is much cheaper to make your own electricity at home, if you do realize that you can no longer afford to pay "the going rate" for electricity flowing to you from The Grid, and that realization, that you suddenly realize, is one step to another obvious step, where you further your knowledge, and you suddenly become aware of the fact that you can, by your industry, begin "making a living", and you can begin increasing your "income", by expanding your cheap, inexpensive, competitive, home electric power production, to make more than you consume, and they having more power than the power you consume, you realize that you can sell that excess power, what do you realize at that point? A. You gain power through The Grid. B. You can use The Grid to gain even more power. Who owns The Grid? When The Grid is a monopoly power, as it was in California, as it may be in Texas, then The Grid is exclusive, it is a one way street, it is a flow of "profit" from the consumers going to the one, exclusive, producer, and if you do produce power at home, with solar panels, or wind mills, or tide generators, or algae powered internal combustion engine electric generators, then, you are outside the law, against the law, an out law, if you sell electricity to other people. If The Grid is a monopoly, a single owner, a single legal fiction owner (if there is a "collective" ownership of more than one separate and sovereign human being), then how does it remain a monopoly despite all competitive forces such as yourself, as you begin to use the power you have to begin producing more power than you consume, and when you produce abundant surplus power, so much more surplus power over the power you consume, that you can begin to sell excess power to other people if there was no monopoly power preventing you from doing so? Suppose, for example, that you are one farmer on a lot in the middle of the valley, and as a side product, in addition to corn, or wheat, or cattle, or all of those products, you also begin producing electric power with a movable Solar Panel rack, covering overused land that is then fertilized to reinvigorate, re-power, the soil, and you begin producing Algae for motor fuel in Modular Vertical Farming Units, and you begin to produce more power with wind mills, and you begin to produce more power with electric generators that run on algae fuel (generators that were made to run in diesel fuel but they now run on algae fuel instead), and to the east of you, to the west of you, to the north of you, and to the south of you, are farmers, like you, who pay more for electricity than your less expensive electric price - suppose you do that, or something similar. Your neighbors north, east, south, and west pay a higher price for electricity from the one monopoly Grid and you can offer them electricity at half that "going rate", and so you set about to do so, and then what happens? You find out that The Grid is a one way street. You find out that you can get electricity from the monopoly Grid, but you find out that you can't sell electricity to your neighbors through the monopoly Grid, because the law say that you can't do that, to bad for you. You can make much more electricity, power, than you consume, but the law says that you cannot offer that power at a competitive price. You can make more power, but you can't make more power, because the law prevents you from selling power at a competitive price. That was the law in California until just recently the law was changed, as far as I know at this time. What is the law in Texas? If the same farmer decides to invest in wires that will by-pass the "private" owners of The Grid (one person "privately" owning The Grid, or a legal fiction "collective" ownership "private" legal entity, that is also "limited liability"), and the home power producing farmer makes his own Grid, and his neighbors to the north, east, south, and west will now consume power, at half "the going rate", half price, then who has a problem with that increase in power production? Who says no? Why does someone say no? Who sides with the "no" more power vote? Who has the power to stop someone from producing more power? Why does someone have an interest in stopping someone from producing more power? If you now have a working understanding of The Grid, because you thought about it, and now you have a working understanding of The Grid, then use that understanding to help in the effort to understand money. Use the more powerful understanding of power to know why some people choose to perpetuate lies. Let me know how that goes for you. Then tell me why someone feels the need to demonize (voluntary) socialism, or (voluntary) capitalism? I have my theories. They must reduce the production of power so as to keep the power supply down to a manageable level; failing to do so will allow the victims the opportunity to become powerful enough to avoid victimization. They must destroy competition where ever and when ever competition arises; failing to do so will allow the victims the opportunity to become powerful enough to avoid victimization as competitors will be offering higher quality (more powerful) stuff at lower costs (more powerful by that measure too). Money is no different, as a power, than electricity. Your mind has been stolen from you if you think that money is an exclusive monopoly power owned by someone other than you. You can know the truth, empower yourself - please.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jun 1st, 2011 08:03 pm |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/gen-hamid-gul-us-will-start-ww3-if-war-expands-to-pakistan.html Anyone, Anyone who has begun seeking accurate information concerning the power struggle, by any name, war, politics, economics, capitalism, socialism, nationalism, law, order, torture, mass murder, enslavement, dictatorship, victimization, whatever word accurately identifies what I call The Problem, anyone on that path, will encounter the factor of money. Look at the video, watch it, and get to time 9:40 in that report. Listen to the following quote (in context): ...the enforcement of Sharia... ...because the Americans and the west will not want the Sharia. The Sharia as an alternative social monetary system, because this is what they are fighting there is Afghanistan, that new system must not emerge, a new fiscal system, a new monetary system, a new system of equality, which Islam exposes, they are basically fighting the system. I have spoken of this before, and it reaches the core principle, or to play with words: The National Interest. A money monopoly cannot exist as soon as competition begins to take over market share, one person at a time, one day at a time, or many people all at once in one fell swoop, the process occurs slowly, or the process occurs swiftly, it occurs, as day overcomes night, as truth overcomes falsehood, and warmth overcomes vicious lethal cold, and good overcomes evil, the force of competition is voluntary, welcome, higher in quality, and lower in cost, and it takes over, nonviolently, the monopoly money enforcement power; and the monopoly money enforcement power is deceitful, fraudulent, it relies upon threats of violence, and it must include actual, willful, premeditated, use of horrendous violence upon the innocent victims in order for the monopoly money power to remain in force, as the monopoly money power must regulate the production of power to a manageable level, and the monopoly money power must use the stolen power in the work of eliminating competition where ever, and when ever competition arises. Without honest productive people there is no power that can be stolen by the monopoly money power, and once competition is in force the honest productive people can choose higher quality and lower cost measures of the power they alone create. If The Dollar Hegemony, or The Fed, or The Globalists, or the New World Order, or whomever is on the receiving end of The U.S. National Debt, is unable to enforce The Dollar money monopoly upon anyone else, including people in Afghanistan, people choosing Islamic Finance, or The Sharia, there will then be no one, any longer, connected to the flow of power shown in The U.S. National Debt clock, in that land, as they choose a competitive alternative. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Power flows one way in that system, by that measure, or by a more accurate measure done by each individual connected to that exclusive legal monetary crime network. That system can be called socialism. That system can be called capitalism. That system can be called fried chicken. The numbers record the flow of power. A paper, and a digital, trail records the flow of power in that systematic criminal fraud system; that money monopoly system. Call it The Dollar Hegemony, call it whatever you wish, just don't call it late for dinner, as you live, or die, at it's exclusive pleasure. If Americans can learn anything from the event that avoids WWIII, whereby The Dollar Hegemony fails to enforce their criminal fraud on the people of Afghanistan, and the leaders of The Dollar Hegemony walk away from that enforcement of that crime in that land, it will be knowledge of the power of competition, and if Americans can learn that much, then Americans can begin seeking competition in money markets at home, and in that way a new regime at home will emerge, as monetary suppliers will be forced to increase the quality of money, at home, and decrease the cost of money at home, or monetary suppliers, like The Fed, and/or Wall Street, or The Dollar Hegemony, will go out of business as all their former customers choose the better, and less expensive alternative. The capitalists can pat themselves on their own backs, and the socialists can high five each other, as everyone takes credit for the new age of monetary competition, being rewarded for their wisdom in supporting a peaceful solution to a very troubling, torturous, and mass murderous problem, the enforced money monopoly. If Americans can't learn that much, then the problem will continue, and the problem will get worse, and those who pay the price will pay more, or those that pay the price will fail to produce anything, and as fewer and fewer honest productive people are unable to produce more, more and more people will be seeking control over the shrinking supply of power, or surplus wealth, or whatever word, or whatever term, accurately identifies the stuff the criminals seek, and at some point the race to the bottom tortures everyone, criminal and victim alike, as the number of honest productive people expire into nothingness - as planned, on schedule. This is not news. This is as old as human history. When crime pays, more criminals join the club. When crime no longer pays, there aren't any victims left. America is on schedule for bust, doom day, recession, great depression, as power shifts to China, and Islamic Finance is a relatively small bump in the road, compared to the solution, which is WWIII, on schedule, and to be accomplished, if power remains in the hands of those who work toward that goal, the goal of causing WWIII, so as to shift home base to China. WWIII is their solution, it is on their schedule, and it's purpose is to redraw the map of the power struggle, on schedule, so as to ensure the perpetuation of their exclusive power over money. If the Middle East is turned into a radioactive parking lot, along with whatever those powers in those lands can do in retaliation, so be it, what does it matter to the legal criminals, when that is a viable option on the schedule, if that will accomplish the goals that the money monopoly power seeks. 1. Limit power to a level that is manageable; do not ever let power reach a level that affords the victims the means by which they victims can avoid victimization. 2. Use the power stolen to eliminate competition where ever, and when ever competition arises. 3. Boom specific markets on schedule so as to have inside information as to when to sell ownership of things at the highest prices possible, things purchased at the bottom of the man-made (criminal made) business cycle, and cause a bust on schedule so as to have inside information as to when to buy ownership of things when prices are at the lowest price, on schedule; and do so by expanding and contracting the one legal money supply in the targeted area, and in the market targeted for exploitation. One method of stealing the power away from those who create it, from the honest productive people, is by way of a legal monopoly fraud "interest" payment charged to anyone who needs the single legal monopoly money product, and everyone who is targeted for taxation will be in need of that exclusive monetary product - such as The Dollar. That is all I have to say at this time.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 11:27 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Josf, with regard to the currency question, do you support a citizens dividend as outlined here: freedom_commonsense, I can't speak for or against a citizens dividend without a much more accurate understanding of who wants to do what to whom and when. I have read enough at this point to get a general idea as to what is being proposed. If a citizens dividend is created and then implemented it will, as far as I understand it so far, be an example of a competitive legal money system, and as such, if I understand it well enough, it will either cause The Fed to go out of business, or inspire The Fed (the people in control of it) to improve the quality and reduce the cost of their money system to a higher quality and lower cost compared to the competitor, or The Fed people will use deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence to destroy the citizens dividend legal money system. If I understand the citizens dividend well enough I will choose it over The Dollar Hegemony as my power to do so becomes my power to do so, and therefore my power will be used to end The Fed extortion crime spree. I can also say that I think that the citizens dividend sounds like a method of taxation followed by a method of surplus wealth redistribution and so long as the taxation part is voluntary, such as what would be the case in a working Federated Democratic Republic, not the National Consolidated One Nation Government Legal Crime Extortion Racket we have now, under The Constitution, and so long as the surplus wealth redistribution part was as voluntary as the taxation part, and again something that is, as far as I've seen, a real possibility within a working Federated Democratic Republic, and not at all possible, actually against the law, in a Nation State like the one created with The Constitution. The premise of the citizens dividend, if I understand the concept, is such that there will be surplus wealth, and then once there is surplus wealth, the people in the National Government will take it, somehow, and then once the people running the Nation Government have that surplus wealth taken from those who create it, they then divide it out to people they pick by some method of picking who will get the surplus wealth that the people running the National Government have gained power over. In a working Federated Democratic Republic the concepts that are now on the table can be illustrated to point out a few general principles involved in what I call The Problem. The Table (co-conspirators gathering around a table and planning to re-take control over their own Nation Government) 1. Business as usual (The Dollar Hegemony) 2. Citizens Dividend 3. Product 1, and Product 2 Those are the things on the table, as far as I can tell so far. Suppose that Montana begins using a State wide citizens dividend, and suppose that the people running the criminal National government don't intervene by deceit, or by threats of violence, or by acts of violence to stop that threat to their legal money monopoly power, such as they had done in both Shays's rebellion, when the people running the criminal Massachusetts government suppressed the competitive use of Whiskey as a currency, during that period when the criminals running the Massachusetts government used their monetary money monopoly power to conduct aggressive wars for profit that failed, and then they inflated their legal fraud money, and then they drove out gold from Massachusetts, as people purchased import goods with gold, since import sellers would not accept the fraudulent money, and since the ex-military frontiersmen began making their own money at home, in the form of whiskey, and since a money monopoly can't survive in competition, the rebellion was violently ended, since the rebels didn't fall for the lies that were meant to cover it up, and in the other case: Washington crushed the second Whiskey Rebellion, once the legal criminals had their enabling documents in place, their Constitution, the president is already well set, that Montana is going to have a tough time running a separate competitive legal money system in reality. We can suppose that Montana goes ahead, and we can suppose that Montana begins using the State wide citizens dividend, and we can suppose that the people running The Fed, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) allow it. We can suppose such things to bring light to the differences between a working Federated Democratic Republic and a Nation State, while we compare that competition with a monetary competition. So...on the table now are: I. Nation State (Dictatorship) 1. The FED legal extortion crime spree in progress 2. Citizens Dividend exclusive to Montana (to see how it works in Montana and to see if it spreads into neighboring States within the operating Dictatorship) 3. Product 1, and Product 2 (which is offered to anyone on the planet, but begins in California initially) II. Federated Democratic Republic (such as the Swiss example, or the example offered in history by The Articles of Confederation - before The Constitution created a working Dictatorship) 1. The Fed legal extortion crime spree (accepted voluntarily by all the Separate and Sovereign State governments except Montana and California) 2. Citizens Dividend exclusive to Montana 3. Product 1, and Product 2 exclusive to California So far now we suppose that there is one money monopoly as The Fed, with their Dollar. We then suppose that Montana begins an adjustment to the Nation wide legal money system, by implementing a State wide citizens dividend system, and the people in control of the Montana legal apparatus either use The Dollar unit of currency, or they produce and maintain a separate currency, I don't know enough about the citizens dividend to comment on that point, other than to say that The Fed is the source of Dollars, so how does Montana get the Dollars they use to begin their citizens dividend, or, what happens if The Fed decides to change from Boom to Bust, as they are doing now with what they call "tight money policy", or, what happens if the people running the criminal Fed say they are doing one thing while they do the opposite, or what happens to the Montana use of the Dollar in their citizens dividend campaign if The Fed raises the interest rate only to those who borrow Dollars from Montana, and lower the interest rate to everyone else, or what happens if the Fed people decide to cut off the supply of Dollars to anyone within the Nation State, including Montana, while the people at the Fed pump as many new Dollars they create into China, and Europe, and all over the Globe, in preparation for a new World War, while Montana tries to implement a new system of money use, with Dollars as the legal Montana money unit? Now, to help expose the principle differences between a competitive Federated Democratic Republic, and a one Nation, indivisible, under whatever God imaginable, I can offer a third State, California, in the involuntary or voluntary Union, whereby that State, California, uses Product 1 and Product 2, and that State uses a different legal monetary unit, completely disconnecting from The Dollar extortion racket, as time goes by, since Product 1 is used to pay off all the Dollar Unit loans, one at a time. So now, for you to consider, are three competitors working out in time, within this Nation State Legal Crime Cabal, or without it (a working Federated Democratic Republic instead of a Nation State), and again it must be assumed that the monopolists keep their minds and hands off the competitors, so as to allow the viewers the chance to view what could happen under that supposed, competitive, scenario. 1. The Dollar keeps doing what it does, where it does what it does, such as what is documented on the National Debt Clock. 2. Montana does what it does with it's working citizens dividend, with or without The Dollar unit of currency as their exclusive legal currency unit - I do not know which choice is taken by the supporters of the citizens dividend. 3. Product 1 and Product 2 begin working in California and I can also remind anyone that those products are offered to anyone on the globe, and the entire transaction can occur on-line from anywhere on the globe, which occurs all the time in modern business practice. I can speak in detail as to what happens with Product 1 and Product 2, I do not yet see any need to support, or to not support a citizens dividend, since I am ignorant concerning it, other than guesses I have about it, based upon the limited information I have seen so far. Here is an opportunity to support the best of three competitive examples of government run money competitors as competition forces higher quality and lower cost upon the competitors, so long as one competitor does not begin to use deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence, effectively, in the work to eliminate competition. I think about The Problem, and the obvious solution often enough, to wake up with it running in my head, for decades, and I can confirm that the solution is a numbers problem, there is power in numbers, and once enough people realize the true nature of the problem, and once enough people realize the essential principles involved in the solution, the problem will cease to be a problem, and that can happen on one day, where the day before the problem existed, and the day after the problem is no longer a problem, so long as enough people solve the problem on that new day. Set a date on the calender, much like a date to March on Washington with guns and a rope, only make the protest date a peaceful day of total revolution, and on that coming date the people decide to use a better, competitive, money - effective on that date. If not enough people are ready on that date, the date moves to a later date, and when enough people are ready, the revolution happens on that date, those left holding the Dollar Debt Bag, on that date, lose, but they were given advance notice, and while people maneuver to get their power to control their legal portions of surplus wealth it can become very evident as to who is friend and who is foe, such is the nature of open, and honest, competition. Once the day when enough people have signed onto the new declaration of independence, and everyone having an interest in the event know that the new money will be used, and the old money will be discarded, those who still think they can get something for nothing with the old money, may, or may not, depending upon who is left holding that empty bag. If the people wanting to solve the problem insist upon using the cause of the problem to solve the problem then that is what they do, I don't. I see no point at all in supporting a solution that intends to use the cause of the problem as a means of solving the problem, if that is what the citizens dividend is, in fact. Does the citizens dividend intend to use the National (monopoly) government apparatus, as it now exists, to solve the problem, complete with The Dollar unit of currency? If so, then, how does that solution intend to address the National Debt? Product 1 and Product 2 intends to replace The Dollar as the best money choice that most of the honest productive people will choose to use, once they have a choice, instead of having no choice, or one choice, and that one choice happens to be one of, if not the worst, competitors on the global monetary monopoly money extortion racket market. Product 1 and Product 2 can start anywhere on the planet where enough people involved constitute a powerful force of diverse skills and abilities that are required to produce high standards of living, both products do not work without division of labor, specialization, and economies of a scale that is sufficient to be independent, and remain independent against criminal aggression of any scale on the planet. If you have read what I just wrote, again not a sound bite, and you do not agree that the supposed competition between separate States begins to expose, or illustrate, the concept of a Federated Democratic Republic, then I think you fail to understand the concept, but go ahead and blame me for your failure - because that is how you are programmed to respond to things that tax your brain. If you understand the concept but still do not agree with the concept, then how can I know why you don't agree with the concept if you do not explain why you disagree with the concept? If you think, for example, that a citizens dividend will work, competitively, against Product 1, and Product 2, in California, while your citizens dividend works in all the other States in the Involuntary Union, then explain how that works, in your mind. In my mind Product 1, if it is offered, and if it is made legal, world wide, nation wide, or just California State wide, will take over the market in a very short time, as people turn in their old Dollar denominated mortgages, and begin using, demanding, getting paid with, the new competitive money, and that has not even begun to explore what will happen when Product 2 moves into general use. If you think that I have no capacity to understand the citizens dividend thing, then think again, such things are well covered in Equitable Commerce, a link I have already linked, and if that isn't enough, to explain the concept of a citizens dividend (based upon surplus wealth), then read: http://anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm The Science of Society In those sources it becomes clear that surplus wealth accumulates in large sums as a direct result of the generally accepted practice of fixing the price of something according to the demand for it, which is an outdated, and obviously destructive practice, that is falling by the wayside, as surplus wealth grows, when it is allowed to grow, and while it continues to grow despite all the enormous force that is designed to prevent the growth of surplus wealth. When surplus wealth no longer accumulates in large sums, as a result of prices that are jacked up by monopoly forces, the result is wealth redistribution, by way of open, and honest, competition, and therefore more surplus wealth is produced by more people, there is then more surplus wealth, and therefore the unit of monetary currency gains purchasing power (assuming that the supply is not deceitfully, or fraudulently, inflated, or deflated) as a direct result of less monopoly power causing prices going higher than cost, and more open and honest competition forcing quality up and price down - to cost. I have to cut off my reply to meet the demand for it, down to a sound bite, from my viewpoint. Please do not take my "if the shoe fits, wear the shoe" words personally, unless the shoe fits, then it stand to reason that you will wear the shoe, and take it personally. I do not target anyone with my words that intend to fit the shoe on those who wear that shoe, so again, please, don't take anything I say, addressed to anyone, personally, unless the shoe fits. If the shoe does not fit, why would you wear the shoe? I am being civil despite the enormity of The Problem as facts intend to overpower fiction.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 2nd, 2011 12:47 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28226.htm Honest productive Americans, The link above exemplifies the cost of falsehood; when honest productive people are misdirected they will work to solve a problem by employing the cause of the problem. If the problem is accurately identified as the abuse of punishment to enforce debt collection, then what is the solution? A debtor fails to pay a debt, a debt collector then gains access to a legal enforcer, the legal enforcer then captures, arrests, or otherwise imprisons the debtor for failing to pay a debt, and in case of resistance to arrest, the punishment routine escalates as the legal enforcer is trained to enforce the law, and the legal enforcer is not trained to be overpowered by those who the legal enforcer has targeted. I know, my words appear to be foreign, to many, as if I spoke in a foreign language, but I am informing you of the need to regain control of our common language. If the law enforcer is worth anything the law enforcer will overpower the object of his, or her, attention, not the opposite, and therefore it is vital to employ law enforcers in moral work, not "just" legal work. Laws can obviously be immoral, as those who write laws are typically those who are known liars, such is the State of our (involuntary) Union. It is past time to declare a war on Falsehood, and begin taking back the control we lost over our language. If it is acceptable to punish those who fail to repay loans then why would anyone ever decide to start at the bottom and work their way up? If it is acceptable, moral, lawful, legal, right, and even a majority rule, to employ the law power in the work of punishing those who are found guilty of failing to repay loans, then, having established that goal, why not start at the top and work down from the top, to see if the idea works, instead of starting at the bottom, where the evidence that must be used to establish working, or not working, facts are small, insignificant, and ambiguous numbers. Why start arresting, and imprisoning, and punishing, dime and nickle debtors, when there are trillion dollar debtors accused, and confessed, in abundance? The FED people borrow money from The Good Faith and Credit of The American Tax Payers, also knowable as the honest productive people of America, the only source of surplus wealth, the place where the value of legal money is produced. When did The FED people make their last payment back into the fund from which they borrow the money they borrow, and the same money they lend, or sell, to other people so as to profit by that use of that money? The FED people borrow trillions of dollars, not nickles and dimes, and therefore, again, if it is established, by law, already, to set the power of law enforcement to the task of punishing people who fail to pay back debts, then why not work at the top 10, America's Most Wanted, instead of the petty criminals who are found guilty of failing to pay back insignificant debts; no longer assumed to be innocent until proven guilty? See how some questions will not be answered by people who actually do not understand the scope of the problems that they expend their power, their lives, to solve? What explains the often repeated mistake of purporting to employ the cause of the problem as a means by which the problem will be solved? You have to get past the false front to get to the accurate answer. There are no short cuts. So, supposing that it is a good idea to punish guilty debtors, failing to repay debts, and then supposing that one of The FED people, the one found most guilty of failing to pay back the most money ever borrowed, the number one guy, or gal, on America's Most Wanted Top 10 list, and that guilty person does find his, or her, behind in jail. How is that working for us at that point, compared to a million much lesser criminals begin arrested, and punished, and imprisoned, for failing to pay back much less than the one worst criminal? The one worst criminal is then accurately known to have borrowed trillions, failed to pay back one cent, and the next one after that one is also in prison, and the top 10, also confessed, or also found guilty, and also in prison, and new criminals take over their jobs at the top of the food chain at The FED, and at that time the honest productive people in America are paying for 10 criminals doing time in lush prisons, or not so lush prisons, depending upon where those 10 actually do their time, while the new FED employes continue to borrow trillions, and fail to pay back one dime, so the productive people in America still pay that bill too as the borrowed money is spent on Booming the Chinese Economy, or the propping up the European Economy, or running aggressive wars for profit, or whatever other secret, undisclosed, expense that borrowed money buys. How does that work? How much does it cost to keep 10 of the worst criminals in a prison, failing to pay debts, compared to how much it costs to keep a million lesser criminals in prison? What do the 10 worst criminals learn in their lush prisons, with satellite T.V., and conjugal visits with captive under age sex slaves, compared to what the millions of lesser criminals learn in their prisons where they will be tortured, gang raped, sodomized, and where their punishments may never end? What is the cost of falsehood, and who pays that cost? Is it past time to know better?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jun 3rd, 2011 04:47 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.infowars.com/the-spirit-of-thomas-jefferson-lives-in-nullification/ Anyone, I do not see the wisdom in beating a dead horse. My idea is to use the same tactics that the enemies of liberty use to enslave their victims, and they use repetition to reinforce specific angles of view. A victim may be exposed to the same message through magazine articles, books, newspaper articles, radio broadcasts, television shows, as the basic principle is repeated over, and over, and over, and the effect is something called "gaining currency" as the message spreads like a popular song. The Legal Crime message is one word: Obey There is no need to expand upon that theme other than variety, or boredom, that is the essence of the message, it is all that is needed, so long as there is no opposition - no competition. So long as there is no power left to oppose the one message. Obey What happens if the intended victims invent a competitive alternative? The message remains the same, but the message must then be sugar coated by some means. The words "sugar coating" exemplify the process, actually, because the accurate work is "falsify". The message is Obey. When opposition to obedience is encountered by those who produce and enforce the message the response is to falsify the message. The message remains the same thing; falsification is used to nullify opposition to obedience. What happens if the targeted victims continue to oppose obedience even as falsification reaches over-abundance; what happens when falsification is so ubiquitous that concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, liberty and slavery, war and peace, truth and fiction, are ambiguous concepts, mysteries, grey area, and opposites in meaning? What happens when war is peace? What happens when right is wrong? What happens when truth is fiction? What happens when liberty is slavery? What happens when right is wrong? What happens when torture is fun? What happens when life is death? If we are all not dead, by then, it may be a good idea to begin using the same tactic that moved things to this point, to move things back the other way, and to do that, it may be necessary to be as diligent, to be as tenacious, and to be as consistent, deliberate, and repetitive, in reinforcing the exposure of falsehood, and reinforcing a more accurate viewpoint of reality. If the idea is to support The Constitution and to depend upon The Dollar to do so, then how can such a goal explain the actual history of The Constitution and The Dollar? The Constitution enabled what we have now, going back to it, may be the lesser of two evils, assuming that getting back to it is possible, which is a huge assumption since The Constitution is the thing preventing "us" from getting back to "our" control of The Constitution, by design, but assuming that it is possible to get back to limited government, limited by The Constitution, what happens once "we" reach back to that preferred limit of government, when, The Dollar still gives free, and unlimited, access to the production of surplus wealth to the legal criminals? In other words, where to "we" get the power to regain, and limit, the Nation State (enabled to be a Nation State by The Constitution enabling documentation), while our power to survive is stolen from us through the legal money monopoly fraud dollar system of extortion? "We" can't accumulate enough power to pay off our debt, by design, let alone have enough power to oppose those who steal our power. Who has enough power to spare, to use excess power in the work of opposing criminal legal power? The people who have managed to use the legal criminal power system, so as to take their piece of the pie, are now complaining about their system of extortion, and now they want to stem the accelerating rate of acceleration toward absolute despotism, because too many fellow legal criminals are having too much trouble squeezing their division of the booty from the shrinking supply of honest, productive, gullible, and stupid victims? The worst of the worst on the top of the pyramid scheme are ordering too much obedience from the actual productive group, the leadership of the parasites are too greedy, and the lower level parasites are unhappy about their shrinking supply of profits, and now there are divisions occurring among the ranks of the parasites? Where are you going to stash your booty, as the criminal income stream dries up, so as to avoid being forced down into the class of victims? What explains the complete lack of ignorance concerning the historical fraud behind The Constitution and The Dollar unit of currency? Why does anyone support legal crime? Is it ignorance? It isn't ignorance once the accurate facts are understood by the ignorant, and then the ignorant is no longer ignorant, and if then the no-longer-ignorant still support legal crime, the only other option is willful support of legal crime. What explains a lack of response to information that exposes support for legal crime? A response will confess awareness of the accurate information, and such a confession will blow off the false cover, and once the false cover is blown off, the confession confesses the truth, that the person does, in fact, support legal crime - for whatever reason. If a person works at challenging the National government, be aware, that person opposes an official, lawful, interpretation of The Constitution, and this has already occurred on occasions such as The Whiskey Rebellion, The Alien and Sedition Acts, The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, The Civil War, and other examples. The Constitution was designed by Monarchists, Dictator's to be, hiding behind a false front of Federalism, and it was designed to be constructively interpreted, and both The Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights are diametrically opposed to that legal crime document. A. The Declaration of Independence (enabling document used to explain resistance to criminal government) B. The Constitution (enabling document used to excuse the use of government to commit crimes, including the suppression of rebellions that are examples of resistance to criminal governments) C. The Bill of Rights (a last ditch effort by the falsely labeled Anti-Federalists to resist the criminal empowering Constitution) What happens when those facts are reported to someone and the person who then knows those facts decide to continue supporting, without reservation, The Constitution? What does that confess about that person, if that person is known, beyond a shadow of doubt, to be a person who knows those accurate facts? The Constitution was designed to be a fraud, was fraudulently imposed upon the ignorant masses, and it continues to be the enabling document used by the current criminals to steal as much power from the honest productive people in America as can be stolen, and then use that stolen power to accomplish the goals of all organized criminals. 1. Limit the production of power down to a manageable level; failure to do so will enable the victims to overpower their oppressors. 2. Incorporate all criminal powers into one exclusive dominant power; recruit willing, and welcome, fellow criminals; in one word: Monopoly 3. Destroy competition where ever and when ever competition arises; failure to do so will force the quality of everything produced up, including the production of moral government, and including the production of accurate, and powerful, money, and honest, productive, competition will force cost down, again, even the cost of moral government will be forced down, and again, even the cost of accurate, and powerful, money cost (interest) will be forced down; failure to destroy competition, by definition, destroys monopoly. If going back to The Constitution is a goal, the lesser of two evils, such a goal can be understood as such; but claiming that The Constitution was, is, or will be a moral law is either ignorant, or it is a false claim done on purpose for some un-confessed, true, motive. Keeping the dollar, along with all the debt recorded within that legal system of money, as if honest productive people are somehow morally held accountable for the crimes committed by the legal criminals who stole the power produced by the honest productive Americans who are connected to that legal crime in progress, can be a goal. Keeping the dollar can be a goal. Paying the debts caused by those who ran, and are still running, for now, The Dollar Hegemony, can be a goal. Why is that a goal? Why would anyone supporting that goal fail to answer my questions? Honest productive American people are the source of The Good Faith and Credit of The United States of America. Honest productive American people create the stuff that was borrowed. Who owes whom, what? Who is claiming that they are owed something from whom? Who borrowed money from the capacity of the honest productive American people? If someone borrowed money from the capacity of the honest productive American people, then that person has a name, and if there is more than one person who has done that, then there are more names of people who have borrowed money from the capacity of the honest productive American people. Do you still have a brain in your head? Can you comprehend the difference between a Creditor and a Debtor? The Debtor is the person who borrows the money from a Creditor. LOOK: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Who owes whom? Who borrowed from whom? Who is the beneficiary? Why is finance complicated beyond the capacity of an honest productive American to know the simple difference between a person who borrows money and a person who lends money? Do you think that you owe someone, anyone, any money, if you did not ask to borrow anything from anyone? Even if you think that you owe someone for the home mortgage that you did ask for, sign for, and receive, because that is the way things were done in America, why can't you now know that there are options to that system of fraud; whereby you have to buy two houses, not one, and a second entire home cost is paid by you in interest to someone else, and that constitutes, in real terms, a crime. What on earth explains the requirement of an honest productive American, who has earned, is earning, and will earn Good Faith and Credit, to have to come up with twice as much earnings to buy one home? Who is lying to whom? Who is believing, and living, such lies; actually to the point that people hire known liars to lie, and then actually taking on a second job, so as to afford an unimaginably powerful reward awarded to the most efficient criminals who are hired to lie? Who is the debtor? Who borrowed the money that is recorded as that National Debt? Who is the creditor? Who loaned the money? Who is owed all that money that was borrowed? Can you see the big lie yet? Have you looked yet at Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports yet? Do you still believe the lie that the hired liars keep repeating, over, and over again, that we are broke, and that "we" have borrowed to much money from someone, and that if "we" don't pay back all that money, plus interest, to that person that "we" borrowed all that money from, then "we" are in big, big, trouble? Do you actually believe that lie; because the liars you hired to lie to you are really, really, good at lying to you? Really? Explain to me, please, why no one answers my questions. I've been at this for decades. You may just be beginning to see things I've been seeing for decades, and no one answers; where are your "authorities"? Product 1 is a no interest home mortgage loan to anyone on the planet who has earned, does earn, and will earn good faith and credit. What is wrong with such a product? Will one of your hire liars claim that there is no demand for such a thing? Will one of your hired liars claim that such a thing isn't profitable enough to attract that mysterious entrepreneurial spirit? Would you buy Product 1? If you could submit a competitive bid to gain a license to produce and maintain the product 1, and product 2, paper work, could you, and would you do so if you knew how much potential income was going to flow into your person bank account as everyone who buys Product 2 sends you a 1% "piece of the action", as they use that Good Faith and Credit to produce more and more and more surplus wealth? How about some numbers? If Product 2 is on the shelf at the bank and you walk in and you "go for it" and you buy enough Good Faith and Credit, at 1% interest, to rig your home, in California, to begin using the Sun to make electricity, and you then make enough electricity to run your home, and enough to pay back the loan, and enough to sell, so as to generate a steady income, then you do that yourself, and what happens of similar people do similar things across America; and look at a few numbers. Suppose that 1 million people buy Product 2 from you. You also have to process all the Product 1 loans you are selling (give away the razor), so as to sell Product 2 (so as to sell the razor blades), and then suppose that the average loan is a 30 year loan, low monthly payment, and the average loan amount is 1,000 dollars. 1,000,000 (1 million people) 1,000 (1 thousand dollars) 6 zeros added to 3 zeros equals 9 zeros. 1,000,000,000 Divided by 1% (we are now doing "high finance" as stupid as we are, we can do it, if we want to, if we are so bold, so incredible audacious) Stumped? How about cheating with a calculator, or just take 2 zeros off the total, whichever works for you, or do both. I'll do the calculator first (there is one on this computer) 1000000000 x .01 = 10000000 The zeros are small and hard to count, I count 7. Now the take away 2 zeros method: 10,000,000 A licensed franchise Product 1, and Product 2, producer, and maintainer, seller, and profiteer, can make 10 million dollars, in 30 years, for doing what - exactly? An on-line computer program, with encrypted, backed-up encrypted, mirrored, and mutually exclusive encoded software programs, or some such already well used hardware and software, can automate almost all of the human labor, and so, what explains the cost of the loan, and is that, conceivably, a profitable venture able to inspire an entrepreneurial spirit? Is that the official denouncement of my illustrated example of legal monetary competition: that there is no demand for such a thing, that such a thing will cost too much, no one will buy into it, it does not inspire growth, it does not afford profitability? 10,000,000 dollars (not dollars, exactly, some other unit of currency so as to disconnect from The Dollar Hegemony extortion racket whereby the creditors have been fooled into thinking they are the debtors) 10,000,000 dollars, over 30 years, for maintaining a licensed, automated, networked, computer program? Do you think that Microsoft, Google, Paypal, Skype, Amazon.com, and other "legal fictions" will be falling over each other to submit a higher quality and lower cost bid for their license? How many licenses are needed? Currently there is one license. Currently the holders of the one license to "print" legal money have awarded themselves said license, and that group have also given themselves the license to use that money printing license to steal all the surplus wealth that can possibly be stolen, and they give themselves, each new top boss in turn, a license to torture, to mass murder, and to threaten the human species with extinction. And the ignorant masses prefer ignorance, which is a stupid decision, but one that is ordered; as part of the one order to be obeyed. Obey There is no other option.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jun 9th, 2011 11:12 am |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Cooler Heads Fail to Prevail and How can The Big Lie be accurately measured? Inspired by http://lewrockwell.com/caruba/caruba31.1.html
Anyone, The single political power becomes the single political power by following a simple recipe: lie. The lie has to work. When the lie works, as planned, all the political power flows from every competitor to the one political power. Once that happens there is one head, if it is a cooler head, it may be benevolent, nice, polite, equitable, reasonable, rational, logical, peaceful, moral, honest, and productive. If it is not a cooler head, cooler heads can't prevail, not without a fight. The next big fight is WWIII, and if you believe in the lie, you will support, and you will empower, and you will prosecute, and you will suffer WWIII; which brings up the question as to how can the big lie be measured accurately? “One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.." Here is your chance to participate in accurately measuring just how big that big lie measures up to be, in our world - today. The author of that sentence manages to parrot the big lie, and therefore that sentence measures the big lie. The sentence measures the effects of the big lie, even if the reader can get past the false parts of the sentence. Politics is "all in the mind", or it is psychological, it is measured in perception, it does not exist as a thing, it is not a being, it is not a physical mass, having no mass: it cannot be forced to accelerate, or decelerate, and it must be understood, in the mind, that it, politics, is separate from things, such as The Country. Individual States, therefore, cannot break away from the country, and thinking as much, is lending psychosocial support, or moral support, which can lead to tangible support, or material support, to the single political power person, or dictator, or the single political power group, or despots, so you can now stop doing that, if you have been inspired to do that up to this point. Please stop feeding the legal criminals, they are thereby well fed, powerful, and then they lie better, and then they steal better, and they then order aggressive wars for profit, and then they torture, and then they mass murder, all on your dime. Please stop. The sentence claims that "One-in-Five Americans believe" that some of the victims have enough power, themselves, to be able to avoid further victimization. If you can't understand my rewording of the inspiration quote, so as to cut out most of the falsehood, then you are measuring the lie, you do that, I don't. You may have been taught, like I have been taught, that there was one group called The Founding Fathers, and that one group created a Republic, and that Republic was enabled into being by the founding document called: The Constitution, but I'm here to allow you to know that you were taught a big lie. There were two major Founding Father groups, and to figure that out, you may have to teach yourself a thing or two, and avoid dependence upon liars for your information, to do so you also have to avoid depending upon parrots of liars as the liars do manage to get "believers" believing in the lies that the liars manufacture and propagate over time. Resource A: http://www.amazon.com/Other-Founders-Anti-Federalism-Dissenting-Tradition/dp/0807847860 You can read that, judge for yourself, and perhaps, you can be more powerful, and less likely to be victimized by the one group crowd, the nationalists, the despots, the elite, the whatever label you are allowed to call them these days. In history they were called The Federalists, and they were not Federalists, they were Nationalists, they were legal criminals. They wanted, and they seized, dictatorial political power, and their opponents where Federalists, Democrats, Republicans, and people, of the type, who preferred a competition to see who could run government better, so as to know the measure of better government, rather than having government rammed down the throats of the victims, as if government were a synonym for crime. They said as much. Resource B: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. The Country can be understood as a synonym for Society; which can be realized to be, and defined as, the honest productive people of America - or any place in the Universe where honest productive people create more than they consume, creating measures of surplus wealth, prosperity, as they pursue whatever version of happiness they pursue, so long as no innocent victims are made, by deceit, or by threats of violence, or by examples of violence, to pay the bills, for said "happiness". Torture and mass murder, or aggressive wars for profit, exemplify someone's pursuit of happiness that is defined as joy, or fun, or profit, gained at the expense of the innocent victims, as the victims scream, and die miserable deaths en masse, while the perpetrators smile with glee. Pursuit of happiness, sure, with some reservations: not at the expense of the innocent. Liberty How does one get there from here? Back to the inspirational sentence: “One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.." What prevents one in five people from forming a group who then presume to have the power to be the country, not break away from it, and these 1 in 5 group merely compete with the other 4 of 5, to see which group manages to govern themselves better, and do so without resort to deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence upon the innocent people? Does The Country stop the 1 in 5 from offering a more perfect union up for consideration? The answer is no, since The Country is the many, not the few, as The Country is the set of people, not any one person, The Country is the viewpoint by which one person will appraise all the people at once, as if all the people were treated as one person, as if all the people were treated equally, without exception. If there is an exceptional one, then there would be The Country, constituted as all those who are not excepted, and then there would be the one that was excepted. Is the excepted one excepted for a reason, and who excepted the excepted one, from The Country; how did that one break away from The Country? Who is being blamed for what? Do you see a familiar theme? “One-in-five Americans believe individual States have the right to break away from the country,.." Criminals are apt to blame the victims, or anything but themselves, since blaming themselves amounts to a confession. Torture is a prime example. A criminal will torture a victim so as to get the victim to confess to some nebulous wrongdoing while the criminal does one of the worst wrongdoings. The torturing criminal may get a confession, and then move onto the next torture victim, along a serial path, or even a parallel path, if there are many serial torturing criminals doing the same things, at the same time. So the criminals, who have exempted themselves from the laws they enforce, with their interpretations of their Constitution, blame their victims for the crime of breaking away from the country, as the victims seek to avoid victimization, and do so peacefully, and do so without deceit, and do so without threats of aggressive violence. That leaves one option. Defensive violence. I do not support unarmed marches in protest of criminal governments - I believe that the facts prove that doing so is counter productive when the thing intended to be produced is liberty. If those people, in those states, those 1 in 5, will avoid victimization, they will do so because they gain the power to do so, and then they avoid victimization. Calling what they do, by some less than accurate wording, such as "breaking away from the country", or "succeeding from the union", or tax evasion, or nullification, is falling down into the mire of falsehood, a trap that has been set, since at least 1788. Why call crime: good? Why call good, crime? Whose interest does it serve to call crime: good, or to call good, crime - The National Interest, or just those who except themselves from the laws they enforce upon every one else - the modern day Nationalists, the one world government groups, all competing for your power, as you create it, and as they continue to relentlessly steal it? Calling crime: good, serves the criminals, empowers them, as inaccurate wording, or The Big Lie, weakens the power of the victims, on purpose, for the criminals exclusive profit, at the victims expense. Neat and complete, when the victims are led to believe that they are investing in their own security, as they finance their own victimization - in other words. Why did the Nationalists, working toward gaining their power to control the many, those few Nationalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, call themselves Federalists? Answer and know why - if you dare. Why call themselves Federalists when their actions were actions perpetrated by Nationalists; seeking a one, single, monopoly, exclusive, exceptional, consolidated, dictatorial, criminal, government; and why did those Nationalists, hiding behind the false front of Federalism, call their opponents Anti-Federalists, when the opponents to Nationalism were Federalists, republicans, democrats, and those whose actions defined themselves as the people who champion the spirit of liberty? Why would anyone claim that victims who have had enough of victimization, and who then endeavor to avoid further victimization, peacefully, and without resort to deceit, and without resort to threats of aggressive violence, and without resort to aggressive violence, why would anyone call those actions, driven by those thoughts, by such a label as "breaking away from the country"? To what purpose is that wording authorized into publication? What is the measure of the big lie? 1 in 5 people know better; while 4 of 5 people think that supporting a dictatorial criminal power is in their own best interest? A dictatorial power, by definition, is one power, not two. How many dictators are there in a dictatorship? Who is holding the stuff that is supposed to be in the bag? Who is holding the empty bag? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Who borrowed what from who, and who owes who what?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 11:29 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Prison Planet | Top |
