| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Prison Planet | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 02:02 pm |
|
41st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
zengirl, I think Alex is working at this very thing, it seems to me anyway, that he is obviously trying to tone down the interruptions. There is also a consideration that has to do with LIVE discussions whereby something that is obvious to Alex may not be obvious to the listener, something having to do with the subject matter, something said by the caller, something that triggers a thought by Alex that is specific to the subject, and specific to the words spoken by the caller, but not something detected by the radio listener, as if for example, but not the only example, the caller pushes one of Alex's buttons, and not necessarily a willful intent upon the caller, to push Alex's buttons. Alex may have just read something, or heard something, about the topic, and the urge to interrupt is momentarily overwhelming, for Alex, despite, what seems obvious to me, a huge effort on Alex's part to avoid interrupting. Suppose, for example, that Alex was invited to a political debate, and the smooth talking politicians, and the smooth talking presstitutes work the tactic of pushing Alex's buttons to make him react emotionally, and suppose that this happens so as to see why it is not the best idea to interrupt people, not because it is bad to be emotional, but because the effect is tyrannical, or dictatorial, as if what Alex has to say is more important, to Alex, than what the caller has to say. People, or sheeple, are afraid of emotional people who may threaten their slumber, and the Legal Criminals know this, and they use this, and they have a lot of science behind this, as the Legal Criminals manipulate their victims. Alex Jones, as far as I can tell, doesn't speak to the sheeple, why bother? If he ran for office, and the slimy presstitutes tried pushing his buttons, who would be afraid of Alex Jones if Alex Jones fought back, with emotion? See what I mean? On a very basic level there are two types of people. A. Those who are victims and criminals, one is the other, and they need someone telling them what to think and what to do, and once they have their orders they can then follow those orders, and they can be belligerent about following those orders if they are told to be belligerent. Might makes right, that is their creed. Something for nothing is their slogan. Falsehood is their staple diet. They live, eat, breath, and drink one way communication, dictatorship, absolute unquestioned obedience, and lies. B. Those who seek something better, higher quality, and lower cost, and we know that our own perspective is weak without competition from other viewpoints, standing on the shoulders of giants, so as to find the best viewpoint sooner, and therefore we listen, and if we speak we do so because our viewpoint challenges what may, or many not be, an inferior viewpoint, no matter who speaks the competitive viewpoint up for consideration by all who will listen. Few people spell these things out as well as I do, so far as I know, as yet. I stopped reading from the script awhile ago. You can offer a competitive viewpoint, and I will listen. Who won't? Who tells you that you are wrong? Who demands that you confess your error? Who imposes their superior viewpoint upon you? The slimey people, the master/slave types, use lies to confuse the two types above, and that works well to accomplish two things as follows: The master/slave types appear to be better by close confusion with the liberated types, since the shine of the liberated types, by that confusion, makes the master/slave types look better. That is why, for example, the slimy Rick Perry is parroting the things spoken by Ron Paul. The shiny illumination of truth expressed by Ron Paul is stolen by the lies regurgitated by Rick Perry, and that confusion adds power to Rick Perry, if the viewer confuses the two, or is victim to the lie. That is one of the two things accomplished by confusing the two groups. The other goal is to make the liberated group ugly by close association with the master slave group, to make the two seem like one, by confusion, weakens the liberated group, as the mud sticks, so to speak. An example of this is the offering of a supposed situation whereby Alex Jones is running for office and the slimy master/slave types push his buttons in a televised "live" debate, where they get to edit the final product of that broadcast. They push his buttons, Alex responds in kind, exposing the lies, and even being emotional about it, and that tactic does not work on the liberate group, but that tactic can work on people who are as yet not firmly in one group or the other, and that tactic is used to reinforce the lies that are firmly held as truth by the master/slave group sheeple. They can call Alex Jones: Hitler, and what happens? A. The sheeple get the message, and now they call Alex Jones: Hitler, on command, and until they are told to call Alex Jones: Jesus, at which time that is the lie they will pretend to believe, or make believe. B. Those on the fence are presented with a choice, to move closer into the false master/slave closed loop group or move further away, and therefore closer into the liberated group, by their own power of accurate perception, and their own power of will to judge the evidence presented to them, at that time, so far as they still have command of that power. C. Those in the liberated group fully understand what is going on, as the master/slave group use lies to accomplish their goals of destroying all that is good in life. Try not to be afraid to speak your mind, and try not to apologize in advance for doing so, because all that is part of the false world constructed by the Legal Criminals, or, if you wish, do as you please. I try not to read from the script. You, as far as I am concerned, are as welcome to do so, at your liberty. It is obvious to me that you are not someone who threatens liberty, and therefore, as far as I can tell, you are on the side of liberty.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 02:44 pm |
|
42nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I'm still not buying LVT personally. If we ever were systematically change the way property rights are addressed I feel that allodial titles should be most prevalent. I am not for anyone being able to lay any form of taxation on land. If you can be taxed on any form of property, you simply DO NOT own it. You have the illusion of ownership. If your idea of "participating" in this topic means blabbing ad nauseam about things that have little or nothing to do with this topic (just to hear yourself talk), then yes. Anyone, There are two quotes above. They are diametric opposites. One is a welcome, challenging, and a competitive viewpoint, and the other is false, and dictatorial. Having returned to face the wrath of the dictatorial oppressor, libeler, in an effort compete with a competitive viewpoint, I can see, and I can know better, as to the cost of doing so, as time goes by. To address the competitive viewpoint, and hopefully avoid the dictatorial one, I can offer agreement, instead of argument. What is the goal? If the goal is to control all the people, then tax the land where all the people live, and make the tax involuntary, whereby those who are taxed must pay, or failure to pay results in swift and brutal punishment. That is the dictators choice. I prefer to call them Legal Criminals, since they are not mere criminals, they are the hi-bred criminal types who access the rule of law, so as to make crime legal. Call that babbling if you want to censor such things. Shoot the messenger. A curious thing happened some time ago, whereby the social connection between those who tax and those who are taxed changed from a dictatorial, or involuntary, association, to one that was not, and measurably not involuntary. How did they tax, then? I'm speaking about the time between the involuntary association between The British Dictatorship, or Monarchy, taxing the people in The Colonies, that later became known as The United State; that time period. What was the method of taxing in New Jersey during those days under The Articles of Confederation, compared competitively, with the method of taxation in Pennsylvania, in that same time period, and what was the method of taxation between The Federal government, under The Articles of Confederation, and the Separate and Sovereign States? Will the answer to my questions be welcome, competitive, and lend toward an improved overall perspective, or will the dictator punish me again? How do you know when a Legal Criminal is lying? They resort to libel to censor a competitive viewpoint?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 05:52 pm |
|
43rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1029.htmlThe phrase "sovereign debt" has become popular. I used Google to search for "sovereign debt" and got over six million hits. Yet I cannot recall hearing the phrase as recently as 2007. If I ever did hear it, I did not pay attention to it. It was called "government debt" back then. Gary North has switched gears from the topic of 911 back to what he obviously knows best, which is political economy, only I know better than Gary North, as far as I know so far, among those vocal few who profess such authority. The quoted words above address the political aspect of political economy, of which Gary North is almost always spot on, accurate, and rarely expresses a false, or misleading viewpoint. To those words quoted above I can offer a response, before reading the rest of the latest offering from Gary North. http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/15.1/ Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century Please use your own brain for awhile. Consider a jury. You are on that jury. You have been picked randomly, as Trial by Jury was initially intended to work. The power of law is focused on the presumption of innocence; however there is a claim made by someone, lawfully, that someone else is guilty of some very serious crime, and that person stands before you, faced with this accusation. You, by the power of law afforded to you, as a jury, have the power to veto any claim of guilty upon that person. That is the extent of your sovereign, individual, power. You also have a collective power, as a 12th part in judging the meaning of law in this case. You represent one 12th part in unleashing the power of law if you agree with 11 other people as to the guilt of the person who you presume to be innocent, until you are satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt, and you, as a part of a whole, a 12th part, 1 of 12, you, collectively, can open the bottle, and let the genie out. Consider please: a lie is powerless once the intended victims of the lie gain the inside information required to expose the lie, as a lie, and once the intended victim gains the power of accurate perception, in regards to the lie, the victim gains the power of knowledge, and the victim is no longer powerless in the face of the lie. That power to know better requires the power of good judgement, which is a consequence of a working moral conscience. Look at the words: Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws. — Mayer Amsched Rothchild, a prominent European banker in the eighteenth century You are on a jury. You have the single, sovereign, lawful, individual, exclusive, only, one, power to acquit the accused, and set the presumed to be innocent person free, to liberate him, or her, and that is your legal power just like everyone else, who share that same absolute power alone, as your single, exclusive, solitary lawful power. If you want to punish, after reviewing the evidence, to your satisfaction, your individual power of judgement, then you have to get 11 other people to agree, and absent that process, no one, ever, has to face the wrath of our government. You can be fooled. You can be told lies, and then you can make believe that the lies are true, and you can then be disarmed, and you can then be rendered powerless, or you can know better. If the people return to common sense, and return to voluntary association, and return to liberty, and return to due process of law, and return to Trial by Jury, and return to a competitive Democratic Federated Republican form of government, the money we create will be competitive, it will be higher in quality, and it will be lower in cost compared to any other monetary product, and people like Mayer Amsched Rothchild, or his predecessors, will care. They will have to care enough to produce something that other people want, or they will have to make everything they consume alone, or they will eat their fellow criminals, or they will be accused, tried, and very likely found guilty, and punishment will rain down upon them as their victims access due process, in favor of vengeance, and instead of retribution hiding behind a thin veil, false front, of pretend justice. Just US Back to Gary North. In the seventeenth century, the phrase "divine right of kings" referred to the king as immune to lawsuits. The theory insisted that there was no court which could lawfully impose sanctions on the king, other than God's court. As an agent of God, the theory asserted, the king was supreme in matters political. Please consider reading the following: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html From that you may gain a higher quality and lower cost (to you) perspective on the history of political economy. When a group of people hit bottom, a large group of networked people had had enough, they decided to express their own power, and the result was something called Magna Carta, and it included Trial by Jury. Trial by Jury was an offer, that was not to be refused, offered to a king. The king, who had driven everyone in that social network to that condition of having hit bottom, complained about the offer, that he could not refuse, because Trial by Jury, as the complaint went, gave every free man as much power as the king. Every single freeman in England was given the power to veto any law, and thereby render any law powerless, and each individual person, each sovereign citizen, had that power from that day onward, at least until Trial by Jury was corrupted by those among us who are good at corrupting all that is good. Good is in the eye of the beholder. You have two, I have one good one, the other one is lazy, and not so good. No one but you can overpower the power of lies, and until you can gain that power, you will continue to be the victim of lies. Back to Gary North. Then came the American Revolution. That ended Parliamentary sovereignty in North America. The colonials established a higher court. Know, please, that the time between Parliamentary sovereignty and the enforcement of The Constitution of the United States of American was a time when The Articles of Confederation worked as the law of the land. Under those Articles a former colony, or State, such as Pennsylvania, or Massachusetts, could be a part of the voluntary union or part from it, as a rule, and that rule was changed. Note too, please, that under those Articles, between the time when people were legal slaves to the British Monarchy, and the time when The Constitution was enacted, and enforced, in that time period in between those rules of law, The People were legally afforded the legal power to throw out a criminal government, or rebel, or proceed with insurrection, as was the case in Massachusetts during the events that became known as Shays's Rebellion. Time line: A. Master/Slave rule by the British Monarchy upon the targeted victims living in The 13 Colonies. B. Voluntary association, Democratic Federated Republican form of government experiment, in active rebellion, processing insurrection, and defeating the invading mercenary war profiteers sent by the Monarchy leadership, with help from the French. C. Return to involuntary servitude as the supporters of Monarchy, such as Alexander Hamilton, perpetrated the fraud that became known as The Constitution, as those criminals, including Robert Morris, sold a lie to the sovereign people of America, and revoked, with that fraud, that Constitution, the power of Trial by Jury, and the power of competition among separate and sovereign States, and the power to rebel against a criminal government. Please note these facts, and if you have any doubt, and reasonable doubt at all, or even a shadow of doubt, as the the accuracy of the words you are reading, ask those vital questions, and get the accurate answers, and settle for no less. Stop, please, settling for lies. They are not good enough. While atheism is a legally recognized option, lack of citizens' faith in a nation's sovereignty – faith in the right of revolution – is allowed only in theory. To deny in public that the national government is beyond the sanctions imposed by a higher institutional authority is heresy. When exercised in wartime, it is treason. I do not have access to Gary North, so I may never know what he means with those words. I would like to know, and I can try harder, as I try to make sense of those words. Those words appear to be interesting, and worth the effort to understand. I can use help with those words. Anyone? Right now I will take a break and get some lunch, no time to edit.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 10:52 pm |
|
44th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Stimulus Bill,First we must develop a positive vision of the USA we want to live in. Without that, we will not know what we are struggling FOR -- we will only know what we are struggling AGAINST. And that is precisely how the enemy has usurped our electoral process. They've divided us into red and blue teams, told us what we're supposed to object to, and funded both sets of candidates so that whoever wins will represent THEIR interests. When human life is understood as a power struggle, it can then be understood that the goal is to use the power available to make more power available, and that can be understood also as a goal of increasing the quality of life while reducing the cost of life at the same time. That as a goal avoids crime entirely, no need to fight crime, crime no longer pays. 1) The government "OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People" must facilitate the economic freedom of ALL its People. If banks provide the cash-flow that serves as the life-blood of the economy, those banks must be federalized and provide interest-free loans to borrowers who will be required to invest that money in America's economy and eventually pay it back. The current infinite growth paradigm in our fiat monetary system (dictated by Central Banks that loan money into existence at interest) is on a collision course with the reality of a planet with finite resources. The enemy, the people I call Legal Criminals, make power scarce on purpose, so as to cause people to do anything they are told to do, so as to then receive the power they need, begging for power made scarce, and in order to accomplish that goal the Legal Criminals have to gain power over all sources of power, so as to monopolize the production of power, and in order to do that they have to destroy all competition, and among the methods they employ to reach and then maintain those goals, are deceit, threats of violence, and aggressive violence against the innocent, and incorporation of competitors into their exclusive cartel. If you do not understand that then you won't see the problems associated with your first item on the list of discussion points. You use the term "federalized" and I wonder if you understand the meaning of that term. What is the difference between a "federalized", single, one and only legal bank, and a Central Bank? The cause of such things as the business cycle is only possible when the victims are led to believe that they have no choice but the one choice for their currency, credit, and capital needs, or in other words their power to purchase. The obvious solution to the monopoly legal money problem is legal money competition. When legal money competition is allowed to exist, when it is not against the law, on a National level, the obvious result will be a steady increase in the quality of the money being offered by the competitors, as the cost of the money being offered by the competitors are forced down too, and the result is improvement, lower costs of living, and higher quality of life, as power is used to make more power, because the power to purchase increases by the force of competition, as better, and better, and better forms of currency are invented, produced, and utilized. If the Nation here in America wasn't a Nation State, if it were constructed, and then maintained, as a Federation, then competition in all good things would be possible, by design, as each separate and sovereign state would be competing with the others for market share, which would be tax paying voters, who would vote with their feet, when the other methods of expressing their individual political and economic powers failed to cause the desired result. When you make the statement that the banks must be federalized it sounds to me like you are saying that a central bank must be created, and then you claim that it is the central bank which dictates the issue of money, or some other such wording, and that can be an obvious contradiction. What do you actually mean? Ron Paul has a good plan to shackle the Nation State with a gold standard, and if I understand his plan, he would also repeal the legal tender laws, which as far as I understand that plan, there would no longer be agents hired by the Nation State so as to enforce a single money issue, and that would fix the problem on both ends, as each separate and sovereign State, such as California, and New York, would be free to offer their own competitive currencies, and they would have to enforce their own monopolies if those government employees had that bright idea, and then the voters could walk to greener pastures, from California, if that State enforced a legal money monopoly, and they could move to New York if that State copied the Nation State example of using gold, or gold and silver, as legal currency. That would turn the Nation state back into something resembling a Democratic Federated Republic, or a Federation, or a Republic, which this Nation State we live under is not, and it was not designed to be one, it was designed to be a Consolidated Government, or Nation State. 2) Federal, State and Local governments should ONLY be allowed to expand their powers by Public Referendum. We the People must be allowed to decide which services we will pay for. We the People have been duped since Alexander Hamilton and the other monarchists, mercantilists, slave traders, banking monopolists, and nationalists, legal criminals to use one word, perpetrated the fraud that became known as The Constitution. Patrick Henry, among many others, were not duped, and they offered fair warning. The Bill of Rights was a last ditch effort to fight the usurpation of The Constitution, but virtually all the things Patrick Henry, and others, warned about, concerning the intentions of the people behind The Constitution, have come true. Read your history, or be condemned to repeat it. This is not a Federal system, it is a National system, a monopoly power, a consolidated government, a Nation State, and that is what it was designed to be, it was designed to be a dictatorship, and the dictatorship was enabled by The Constitution, because The Constitution was intended to be plausibly deniable, or constructively interpreted, as warned by Patrick Henry and others, during the process that can be accurately described as a fraud, or criminal regime change, or usurpation, or coup d'état. Who is legally authorized to say what this supposed Federal government can or cannot do? You? Me? Us? How many people refer to the Bill of Rights when they dare to question the power of those hired employees, those governors, presidents, congressmen, judges, tax collectors, and those people who are authorized to interpret The Constitution? You don't have to take my word on this, you can read the warnings offered by the people who blew the whistle on The Constitution when that fraud was being perpetrated by the Legal Criminals who invented it, produced it, and are maintaining it to this day. If the idea of liberty once again gains currency, among the victims who were once liberated by their own power of accurate perception, and their own power to employ the power available to make power abundant, then the Legal Criminals will eventually die on the fraudulent vines that currently sustain them, since The People will quickly learn how to stop feeding the legal criminals through those roots leading to those vines, we can cut those connections like cutting a credit card. We can produce our own supplies of power, and the sooner we learn that, the sooner we return on the road of liberty. We can produce our own competitive currency, our own money, our own credit, and we certainly don't need to pay criminals to make these things for our own good. They lie, and they are hired by people who hire them to lie. 3) A democracy cannot function without public trust. False or misleading statements for political or financial gain should be prosecuted as acts of Treason. IMO, this should be mandated via a Constitutional Amendment. There are many competitive angles by which The People can begin working to sever the connections to the Legal Criminals, like lighting a match, blowing out the match, and then bringing the hot match end close to the tic buried into the skin. One person picking off one tic is one step in the right direction. Everyone picking off every tic all at once is a huge step in the right direction. Whichever method works best can be copied by people who do come around, finally, and begin to seek methods to get off this despicable path, and turn back to Liberty. The Constitutional amendment is one way, but if you look into it, you may find, as I did, that it is a wrong turn. Not hiring liars to lie for you, is a good start. Prevention is worth a pound of cure. An actual Federal government is designed to have no connection to the individual (sovereign) people, other than to have in place a ready method by which to defend against foreign Nation States who conduct aggressive wars for profit, when we, in this Federation, are the targets. A single separate and sovereign State government within the Federation may have employees who are liars, whereby the liars who hire them in that state keep hiring liars in that state, for reasons that become painfully obvious to the victims, who are tax payers, and within the Federation those victims have options, freedom, and there may be a competitive state that isn't filled with liars hiring liars to run their State government, and so what happens, by design, in that Federation? The people who have had enough of the liars hiring liars into office move to a place, within the Federation, where the people are honest, and where the honest people hire honest people to run their State governments. Which State will flourish? Which State will die on the vine? That is the use of competition to avoid the use of monopoly government, by design, and it has proven to be workable. Do you understand the thinking behind a Federation? Do you need more authority on this subject than my feeble words? 5) What to do about lobbyists? Maybe if we get everything else right, the current fiasco will simply fade away. A Nation State, by design, is one single, and absolute, authority, and it cannot be questioned, by law. Questioning the single monopoly legal fiction is against the law. Do you understand how that works, by design? Do you need more proof than my powerless words to know these facts? 6) If corporations are to have all of the rights of people under the law, they must also have all the responsibilities of people under the law. And corporate officers must be held criminally accountable for the actions of the corporations they control. We must therefore change their charter. Currently, corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits for their shareholders --even if that means destroying the environment to externalize costs of production, or cannibalizing their own consumer market by moving jobs to cheaper labor markets. And they are not legally accountable for very much else. Translation: Our legislature has mandated that all corporate CEOs act like psychopaths -- under penalty of law. The single, monopoly, Nation State is a corporation, by any other name it smells as bad, the accurate English term is legal fiction. The tactic is as old as dirt. The idea is to create a false entity and then use the false entity as a cover for things done that no one would ever tolerate without the false cover, and when people begin to use their power to stop those things being done by the people hidden behind the false front, the guilty people blame the false front, and the victims expend their power fighting something that doesn't exist, while the guilty simply change the title they use as a false front. How often do you here someone blaming Wall Street, or government, or The State, for the bad things done by people? People are responsible, and therefore people can be held accountable, not States, not governments, not guns, not pointed sticks, not tools, not lies, but people, actual people, with names, addresses, phone numbers, people do bad things, and people do one bad thing that works, and they lie, and the lie they create is a false front, or a legal fiction, so as to divert the focus of defensive power upon the legal fiction, so as to weaken the victims, and render the victims powerless in defense against all the bad things done by very bad people - people I call Legal Criminals. OK, I think you get the idea. The solution to the problem can't be the continued support of the problem. Do you understand how that works? If the problem is a number of people, about 5 or 10 percent of the population, more or less, employing deceit, threats of violence, and aggressive violence upon every competitor who doesn't join in on the effort, and do as they are told, then the solution to that problem can't be to join in on that effort, doing as told. Do you see your own contradiction? You quote from a document that expresses the Spirit of 1776, which may have been a misdirected spirit of Liberty, leading to war, unfortunately. Do you understand how that worked? A bunch of people decided to combine their power in defense against a monopoly government power, a Monarchy power, whereby a few, about 5 or 10 percent of the population, more or less, employed all manner of bad things to subjugate the rest of the population into a master/slave association, or involuntary association, and when the targeted victims declared their independence, the leadership of the monopoly government power ordered an aggressive war for profit, an invasion, and occupation, rape, murder, and enslavement; but the friends of liberty prevailed under an Experimental Democratic Federated Republican form of government: The Articles of Confederation. That is the context of The Declaration of Independence. What happened after the British were driven out? There was an attempt by the governors of Massachusetts to conduct aggressive wars for profit up north, to seize control of land in Canada, and their wars failed, and they had to pay the bills accrued from that waste of criminal power, and then those governors began printing fraudulent money so as to steal the wealth from their own tax payers. The tax payers included many former soldiers who fought and won the battle against the British for doing the same thing, so when their own home grown dictators tried the same trick, the ex-revolutionary war veterans rebelled, so as to do exactly the same thing they did before, to defend their own liberty, and to "alter or to abolish" the criminal regime within one of the separate and sovereign States within the Federated government under The Articles of Confederation. Why do you think George Washington, who promised to avoid political office, took office? He turned his coat. Once he defended the spirit of liberty and then he crushed it. You won't trust my words, of course, and I'm not going to waste my time proving this to you, what would be the point? When the loop is closed, when a belief in falsehood is defended vehemently, there is only one way out: from within. If you ask questions, if you want proof, I'll point you to it. The Declaration of Independence is a report that announces the facts of liberty, including a power by which people can, if they will, abolish a criminal government. The Constitution makes defense against a criminal government illegal, it can't be any clearer, but words are not deeds, and meaning does not exist in words, people invent, produce, and maintain meaning - individually. Good luck with your efforts. It may work to accomplish something, and if it accomplishes legalized monetary competition, that will be enough, we will have then the power to avoid being victims of Legal Crime.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 6th, 2011 05:22 pm |
|
45th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I've already explained (earlier in this thread) why the payment of land rent is compulsory regardless of whether it's collected publicly or privately. And just as I expected, you completely ignored that explanation, because the perceived validity of your anti-LVT argument depends entirely upon people buying into the right-wing fantasy that it's compulsory only when collected publicly. Anyone, My goal is to converse with the competitive, welcome, reasonable viewpoint, but the dictatorial viewpoint appears to be overpowering. Appearances can be deceiving. Taxes can be voluntary, to say otherwise is dictatorial. A tax can be as simple as an insurance policy. The concept is easy to understand. A person decides to buy into an investment with a promise of a return, so long as the recipient of the transfer of purchasing power remains solvent, and does as promised. If the transfer of purchasing power does not pan out as promised, the effect is the same effect published as a warning by Thomas Paine as such: 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. Person A fears something, anything, and inspired by that fear the person seeks an equitable method by which those fears can be addressed. How about the fear of being tortured by people currently running the thing that people call The Federal Government? Suppose such fears grew in one person, then many more, than a whole lot of people, and that large number of people eventually constitutes something similar to the 20 million people murdered by the thing that people called Stalin's Bolshevik version of Dictatorship, or whatever term you find appropriate. What can be done? Tax the land, send that money to Stalin, and see what happens? Suppose the fearful one's, those 20 million, buy into an insurance policy, and if one of them is taken, sent to the gulag, tortured, and murdered, the rest of the 20 million allow their pool of funds to aid the survivors in that family. Suppose the entire family is sent to the gulag, even while they are forced to pay their land taxes, as told, by Stalin, or the latest dictator, Stalin's successor to be, right here in this forum, what happens then? What happens if one of the policy holders, who voluntarily bought into the scheme to insure each other against the dictators, past, present, and future, when their entire family is wiped out by the dictators? How about a closer look? Each potential victim fearing the latest dictatorial regime, as the dictators collect land tax, or as they collect families, involuntarily, each volunteer volunteers to add a portion of their own surplus power to a central location, a voluntary insurance policy, and from that voluntary insurance policy a payment will be sent to a policy holder if the policy holder is abducted by the dictators, and that is a simple arrangement. What happens if the policy holder's whole family is abducted by the current dictators who enforce this method of having the victims supply the means by which the victims suffer, with the involuntary land tax, the thing that has to exist, and cannot not exist, according to that false, misleading, and destructive lie? More for everyone else? Is there more for everyone else if the fund that is produced specifically to aid the policy holders, against loss by dictators, runs into the problem of having an entire family tortured to death by the dictators, what happend in that case, who is paid in that case? Is there then more for everyone else, as a number of policy holders are bulldozed into a ditch, so as to please the dictators with their lies about the impossibility of avoiding involuntary taxes? That question is aimed at reasonable people, not the dictator running this despotism, here, where a welcome forum member is verbally abused by the regime, for the crime of offering a competitive viewpoint. Can there be a better example of what can go wrong inside someone's brain? Naturally I disagree, for reasons already given. Now can we agree to disagree, or are you going to insist we go around in endless circles? The endless circle, sounds a lot like a situation whereby an involuntary tax is enforced, whereby the taxed people are then forced to provide the means by which they suffer at the hands of the people doing the taxing. The reason why it is endless is understandable from the dictators viewpoint; since killing off all the victims will result in the need to actually do productive work, so the dictators, with their involuntary taxes, such as the land tax fraud, must keep the productive one's alive, and reproducing, so as to have enough good things to steal, that way, perpetually. As to what the forum dictator refers to I can look to find out, and quote the exchange as it was published by the dictator ruining this show, or running it, whichever viewpoint you choose as your own. The dictator libeler quotes my words and then responds with the reference to an "endless circle". My words: That is the dictators choice. I prefer to call them Legal Criminals, since they are not mere criminals, they are the hi-bred criminal types who access the rule of law, so as to make crime legal. I'm at a loss as to how my words turned out to be an "endless circle". I can guess. When the dictator constructs a false reality, whereby there must be an involuntary tax enforced by the tax collecting group, upon the tax paying group, such as this land tax scam, then that lie must be defended with another lie, and then two more, and then four more, and that may be the "endless circle" being foisted up and slung at me, to see if that lie will stick, this time. I don't see that lie sticking to me. I'm not buying into the inevitability of the involuntary tax, not the land tax, and not the income tax, and if there must be, on the road to liberty, a tax between a Federal government and separate, competitive, State governments, then I would look into that tax as that tax was collected under The Articles of Confederation, to see how well, or how poorly, that tax worked. Did the Federal governors, those congress people, charge a land tax upon each set of State governors during the time when The Articles of Confederation were working? The design of a Democratic Federated Republican experimental, competitive, form of government is such that the Federal governors tax the State Governors, not The People in each State, and if in one State the governors collect land taxes, and the people don't like it, they can move to another State, where The People prefer not to be paying land taxes, and that is how that is supposed to work, by that design, and that is expressly not an involuntary land tax, unless all the States are collecting land taxes, and then The People are, by that definition, providing the means by which they suffer, when they are left without a choice: pay the land tax nation wide, or get out. Unless, unless, there is an option, unless there is another federation somewhere, where honest productive people are welcome, and where the hired governors don't enforce a land tax, then the people can vote with their feet that way. There are solutions to the supposed involuntary land tax frauds, and their invented problems, as they, by their dictates, and their lies, and their threats, and their violence, enforce no alternatives. The victims may have to invent options, since the dictators make sure that options are not options. They like to invent arguments that go on, and on, without resolution. That is their business, and they are good at their work, from their viewpoint. From my viewpoint a lie, to the victim, is not good. From my viewpoint an involuntary tax, land or otherwise calculated, is not good for the victim. From my viewpoint libel, to the victim, is not good. From my viewpoint a forum, with forum rules, where the forum operators rise themselves above the rules is not good for those who still obey the rules. Call my disagreeing with you censorship if your ego is that fragile. Libel is verbal abuse, and the obvious inspiration to resort to libel, as this person has done, is a case of shooting the messenger, which is merely censorship, and my ego, or my person, or my personality has nothing to do with the message I offer. Turning a discussion into a personal attack is an old tactic, recognizable as the nose on my face. The concept is easy to understand as the perpetrator of libel resorts to other means, other than factual transfers of information. This coming from someone who all but accused me of being the anti-Christ. That is a mixture of tactics, including the tactic of creating a Man of Straw. The idea is to create this false being, and then the creator of the false being speaks for the false being, and then the creator of the false being associates his target, which is me in this case, with his own creation, and the audience is supposed to belief that I said the words spoken by the creator of the false being. The believers in the falsehood, created by the dictator, can search for my words, and find, if they want to question their blind belief in the falsehood created by the dictator, and what they will find is someone publishing the words that have been attributed to me, and I will not have published those words, those words are published by the creator of the false being, the Man of Straw. The dictator is factually a dictator, measurably so, as the dictator dictates, one way, his way. I don't take dictation, so what is the point? I see a possible, obvious motive: censorship. So far my work on this forum has been removed, not deleted, but removed from the topic that my work had been published into, which was a thread that was created by the dictator, if I recall, and then the dictator dictated the title of the new thread where he placed my work, which is another measurable example of what a dictator does, when a dictator dictates. Will Josf ever get to the friggin point? I think I have, competitively, gotten the point. The dictator claims that involuntary taxes are inevitable, the involuntary taxes must be collected, there is no other choice, and therefore involuntary land tax, according to this dictator, must be the only solution to some manufactured problem. My point is the point at which the victims have had enough of those manufactured problems, whereby the dictators claim that the only solution to the problem is the cause of the problem, but not in those words, the dictators fabricate nice clothes to place on their manufactured problems and their use of their manufactured problems as the solution to their manufactured problems are hidden behind those false fronts. I think my point is competitive. You may not. Calling me a "dictator" over and over again is not contributing anything of substance to this topic, but is merely flamebaiting, and flamebaiting is against forum rules. So if you don't like being "punished" for violating forum rules, then, instead of whining like a spoiled child when those rules are enforced, simply stop violating them. As with many cases, such as who fired the first shot when the ATF agents tortured and mass murdered all those innocent babies in Waco, I can use the same forum that everyone uses, to quote the first shot: If your idea of "participating" in this topic means blabbing ad nauseam about things that have little or nothing to do with this topic (just to hear yourself talk), then yes. Actual facts mean nothing to dictators who have stolen the power to injure innocent people, so my guess as to what happens next is that the dictator here will censor the message he doesn't like in more ways than just libel. I could be wrong. Is anyone willing to wager, at what odds? This accusatory, off-topic troll post of yours has convinced me that you're incapable of rational discussion, so I hereby propose once again that we agree to disagree. Will you be a mature adult and accept this offer, or do you have a personal obsession with me now? I think an apology is in order. But absent that, I can make a deal. If you wish to enforce your land tax, be my guest, that is fair, and I'll protest against it. How is that for a deal? If you resort to deceit, so as to enforce your land tax, let's be fair, and I'll call you on it. Example: This accusatory, off-topic troll post of yours has convinced me that you're incapable of rational discussion, so I hereby propose once again that we agree to disagree. Will you be a mature adult and accept this offer, or do you have a personal obsession with me now? That is libel. You are being called on that libel. If you resort to threats, let's be fair, I'll call you on it - OK? Calling me a "dictator" over and over again is not contributing anything of substance to this topic, but is merely flamebaiting, and flamebaiting is against forum rules. So if you don't like being "punished" for violating forum rules, then, instead of whining like a spoiled child when those rules are enforced, simply stop violating them. That is a threat. Violence may be your last resort, to enforce your land tax, but you have a lot of help in that department, but I think your helpers have bigger fish to fry than me. Good luck.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 6th, 2011 06:29 pm |
|
46th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am not at all encouraged by what I've seen here. Anyone, Courage, or encouragement, can be there, and missed. From my view the better future will be obvious, and it will be inventive, and honest, and productive, and while I've been looking I see that happening, because I look. At the same time there has been an accelerate rate of increase in the supply of lies, threats, and violence upon the innocent, as if a defining moment has been building, as the productive, liberating force is no longer able to be contained by the oppressive dictatorial force, where a time will occur, and that time will pass by, and that time will be known in history, and the winners will remember that time for as long a they survive. If the oppressive force wins, the winners will not last much longer, it seems to me, and the human species will end soon. If the productive force wins the winners will last much longer, it seems to me, much longer than the Earth provides the power to sustain life - perhaps.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 11:07 am |
|
47th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Stimulus Bill, or anyone, Along the lines of what American 2.0 can look like I can pass on one of the indicators that appear to offer a positive measure. The link has to do with something called The Dictators Dilemma. http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD127/sec2.html#fnB4 Google was not helping me find that link, and the chart that was originally attached to that web page. Here is the chart:  I had saved that on my own web forum: http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=398&forum_id=4&page=11 A quote from the link may offer some positive data: The technology of communication has changed and with it, corresponding political biases have shifted. In a broader historical context, advancements in the means of communication have profoundly influenced characteristics within and interactions between societies since the time when language was invented. Writing created permanence; the printing press widened distribution; the telegraph conquered distance; the telephone facilitated interactivity; and television mastered visual images. Now, asynchronous electronic telecommunication networks likewise represent another fundamental, substantial, and discontinuous improvement in the ability to communicate. Modern communication innovations differ from previous technologies in fundamental ways that relatively favor sovereign individuals over sovereign governments. (Wriston, 1993). "If we look for historical precedents for this diffusion of power through information away from the elites, the Renaissance comes to mind" (Builder, 1993: 159). If that does not offer some measure of positive perspective, the following may, as this source had gone through hell, as we all do, relatively speaking, and onto the other side the source offers a usable perspective. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/nobel-lit1970.htm We will be told: What can literature do against the pitiless onslaught of naked violence? Let us not forget that violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with LYING. Between them there is the closest, the most profound and natural bond: nothing screens violence except lies, and the only way lies can hold out is by violence. Whoever has once announced violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose lying as his PRINCIPLE. At birth, violence behaves openly and even proudly. But as soon as it becomes stronger and firmly established, it senses the thinning of the air around it and cannot go on without befogging itself in lies, coating itself with lying's sugary oratory. It does not always or necessarily go straight for the gullet; usually it demands of its victims only allegiance to the lie, only complicity in the lie.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 7th, 2011 07:41 pm |
|
48th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Why isn't Ron Paul or Alex Jones here? Why isn't anyone else here? Stimulus Bill, I like very much the way you think, having a use for math, and a healthy respect for any challenge to all conclusions. The results do not look good, certainly, and that is almost ubiquitous, no matter how you calculate things out, excepting a few methods. I found one. My exception, the measure that appears to offer positive conclusions, suffers the test you accurately identify. Why are those people who profess to know so much, so remote, and unaffected by exceptions to the rule of pending doom? I will now see if you can test my exception, and I will use math. You are in the same spot as Alex Jones, Ron Paul, or anyone else, as you view the data I'm going to present to you. Suppose one other person, other than me, can see what I am about to tell you, and then that one other person begins to realize how things can be, and how things can be very soon, almost over night. I have yet to find that one other person. I've looked, and it makes no sense to me, as to why no one else can see this. I have to start and build up to this from a few angles, and I've done this so many times, I know it backwards and forwards. What if? You wake up tomorrow and you find other people waking up and seeing the same thing, and what they see, you see, and I see, and it is an official Federal license to sell you, me, and anyone, two new monetary products that could be called, simply, Product 1, and Product 2. These products represent a new federally licensed monetary product, or legal unit of legal money, and this will be a money that competes directly with every other legal money Globally, including the fraudulent Federal Reserve notes, or dollars, which are National, not Federal, and not Private, as some people advertise. You, and every other American, or anyone on Earth, who has access to a computer, and the internet, can see this new web page, and can start navigating, and find Product 1 first, then I can move onto Product 2. Product 1 is new home mortgage loan, denominated in the new legal money unit, call it Dollar2, or LM2, the name matters, but not yet, the idea matters now. I'll use LMC2 for now, Legal Money Competitor 2. The idea is to disconnect every home and every business owner from this: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Product 1 offers a peaceful, productive, legal, way out. You, me, anyone, logs onto the computer, and we do everything anyone already does to get a loan, our credit rating is checked, and if we qualify, based upon an improved credit rating system, or even, for now, the existing credit rating system, for now, and we get a no interest home loan, and a no interest business property loan, we get new denomination legal money, we pay off our existing mortgages, or we buy new. Before you begin working on that I have to run some numbers by you. Suppose that there are 100 million honest productive Americans currently paying twice the price for their homes and suppose that the average price is 100 thousand dollars for each home. They buy one home to get one home, and they pay one extra home, a home that does not exist, in interest to the operators of The Federal Reserve System of Extortion, and you probably know how that works as well as I do, whereby the average bank employee is not getting the gravy, the gravy goes to the top. Please consider challenging anything I have to say but hear me out first, and look at the numbers. 100 million people pay 100 thousand dollars for one home and 100 thousand dollars in interest goes to the top of the top of the banking fraud. 100,000,000 people 100,000 units of legal money flowing to the top of the top of the banking fraud Counting zeros 10,000,000,000,000 Product 1 cuts that out. Will it sell? In whose interest is it to stop this from selling? You wake up. I wake up. I can turn in my dollars and get a new loan denominated in a new competitive money unit, a new legal money unit, LMC2, pay off my mortgage, and effectively cut my monthly payments in half, since I no longer pay interest on that loan, and I can do the same thing for a new business property loan, buying new, or paying off an existing mortgage, cutting that monthly payment in half, paying no interest. That can be seen by anyone. Anyone can look, see, believe, know, understand, they pay half of their largest monthly bill, or so, more or less, a big leap toward liberty from the banking cartel. The big leap is seen as big for each individual. The big leap can even be tallied on the web page. How many new loans occur in how much time? All of them, all those 100 million people, how much is that worth, to whom? One and 13 zeros worth? That is product 1, and among the obvious questions, that you can help me uncover, is the question about who pays for the costs of all those loans, including the costs of processing the loans, enforcing payments, repossessions, in case of default, etc. How much does it cost, first, and who can hazard an accurate guess, if the legal loan business is an internet program? How much does it cost to run Pay Pal, or E-Bay, or Amazon.com? Product 2 intends to pay the loan processors their piece of the action, to allow the processors of the loans to gain a profit, and do so legally, in the competitive money business. Product 2 is a power loan, or a loan offered to the same people who qualify for Product 1, and the loan is available for purchases that are currently, and officially, by some accurate measure, capable of producing more than they cost, such as a Solar Panel. A Solar Panel is just one of many examples of what can be a purchase purchased by a Product 2 loan, and only so long as they continue to calculate out as a productive investment. Product 2 loans allow the processor to collect 1% interest on those loans sold and processed. A bidding process is used to license Product 1 and Product 2 loan processors. PayPal can bid, who would not? How much can someone make if someone can sell legal money at 1% interest? How much would it cost someone to process Product 1 and Product 2 loans, and how many people would take advantage of a loan that allowed a person to buy something that earns them a profit at the same time the purchase earns the money processor 1% interest on the loan processed? How about another type of thing that could be a Product 2 loan? Modular Vertical Farming Units; where the purchaser can begin to make their own food at home, higher quality food, at a lower cost, and sell surplus food, to make ends meet, so long as the purchase does calculate out as a productive purchase with a net "cash flow". Product 1 works like giving away the razor, to sell the razor blades. Americans are trained to speak money, but they are trained, from birth, to only speak one money, and they are trained to have a knee jerk reaction to anyone's effort to question the dominance of that one money, and that is all crashing down around us, on schedule. It will soon be the right time to invent, produce, and maintain our own currency rather than do without our own currency as those who can destroy the dollar do destroy the dollar on their schedule, so as to usher in something even worse for us and something even better for them. While we are on track to do without powerful currency, we will be in the best position to seize back our control over our own legal money. Americans are trained to speak money. Wake up, see the web page, you can click, click, click, and reduce your home mortgage in half, so long as, by some measure, preferably a more accurate measure over a less accurate measure, you have earned good faith and credit. Wake up, see the web page, click, click, click, your current business mortgage is cut in half, or you can start your own business, since your employer, for the last 25 years, just went to Asia. What will you make at your new business? Wake up, see the web page, click, click, click, there is a list of all the things people now want with their new Product 2 loans. Start making that stuff. What stuff? Stuff that costs this much power, and when done there is this much more power, thereby qualifying it as a Product 2 loan purchase. Well, that is the tip of the ice berg. You are in their seat now. Ignore it. Be challenged by it. What say you?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 8th, 2011 08:52 am |
|
49th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
09-08-2011 Listening to Alex Jones rebroadcast, it is early am for me. Alex points to a Global money monopoly as American, European, and Asian money competitors merge into one, or some such expectation; creating SDRs, or something. I do not see this. There will always be a pretend competition, so as to keep the targeted victims divided and fighting each other, which sounds confusing but only when the viewpoint is duplicitous. Think in terms of the lessons offered by the book 1984. 3 is a significant number, so as to keep people on a false schedule, today we are good, tomorrow we are bad, next day we are on deck, then we are good again. Duplicity requires a short memory, and if there is only one thing that the victims focus on then there is no way to forget the one thing, it is always there, but with 3 things the fake competition can trick people into a false belief in one being the winner, the good guys, until those good guys become so obviously horrible, they are then exposed as being bad, while the actual power shifts to the new false front, from Eastasia, to Eurasia, then to Oceania, and by the time Oceania is know to be really, really, bad, the victims forgot how bad Eastasia was, the actual Legal Criminals move operations back to the new good guys. Anyone caught remembering is left without a leg to stand on, since all evidence is censored down into the memory hole. That tactic happens right here on this forum; for example the GeoLlibertarian member finds a competitive perspective challenging his lies, so what does he do, he erases history, but I keep my own records, so his tactic doesn't work. There is no real competition, on purpose, but there is a false competition propped up so as to keep the targeted victims thinking that there are reasons for their steadily increasing costs of living, and their steadily declining standards of living, since the false competitors are doing what they can, but the competition is so much better, or the competition is so bad, the competition is criminal, it is the competition that cause our trouble, and if only we could copy what the competition is doing, etc., on and on, but to no avail, for some strange reason things are not working, when in reality the force of competition does not exist, as each of the three leadership groups are in on the joke, each of the three false competitors are in on the gag, and the actual Legal Criminals hire puppets to run each fake competitor, where the fake competitors can have someone who believes in their sides competitive power up to a point, and if that point is exceeded, a lone gunman appears out of nowhere. What would happen if one of the three competitors invented, produced, and maintained a steadily improving legal money system? Even going back to gold as money is a huge improvement compared to the best legal money on the planet at this time. Why, please answer the question, why are the legal currencies that are worst for the honest productive people the same legal currencies that dominate the global markets? How is this not as obvious as the nose on your face? You have no choice as to which money you are paid, because you have no choice as to which money you must have to pay taxes. If it was not true, if there is true competition, then the quality of money will increase, by the force of competition, and the cost of money will decrease, yet, obviously, and measurably, the fake competitors are actually cooperating to keep the quality of money low, and the cost of money high, as money is used, in each of the fake competitor "nations", to move the surplus value from those who create it to those who steal it, with their money monopolies that work as monopolies withing their own boarders. The three major competitors work as one cartel, and if the victims knew it, they would see only one enemy, not three. 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. Henry Ford Are you still confused? How about another angle of view? What would happen if this place, this thing we are told is U.S.A., became a working Democratic Federated Republic, instead of one Nation State? What would happen if one, and then two, and then three, of the State governments decide to use any of the many currencies made throughout the world instead of just one money? Is that too tough to imagine? Pick one State to start with, and then work it out. I'll pick California because I live here, and then I'll pick New Jersey since I lived there when young. First California decides to allow competition in money markets and the people hired to run California change the laws so that anyone can pay taxes in whatever currency they find to be the most powerful currency at the lowest cost. How does that work from your own viewpoint? Any of the tax payers in California can begin to demand payments, for what they are selling, in Euros, or Yuan, or dollars, or gold, or silver, or whatever they think is the best money, and then they pay their taxes in the worst money they know to be worst, and everyone is thereby working in currency speculation. You go to work and you are paid, by your decision, in gold, say, or silver, or whatever today is the best money, today, and you go home with that money, you earn that money. You keep piling up your best money, and you have to pay for things you want with the best money demanded by those who sell you stuff, but when you pay taxes, you exchange your best money for the worst money that you know to be the worst money on the day you pay taxes. I, you, your neighbor, and soon everyone in California, then New Jersey demands payment in gold, or silver, or whichever money I, you, or your neighbor thinks is the best money, and that is the income you get, when you trade what you sell for money, and then before you pay California tax payments, you sell your gold, or silver, or whatever you think is the best money, for units of the worst money, that worst money you know to be worst, and that is the money you use to pay tax debt in California, or later in New Jersey when the people hired to run New Jersey change their laws too. Since it is now a working Democratic Federated Republic and no longer a single Nation State, the people running the Federation no longer tax The People directly, instead the people hired to run the Federation can only get their tax payments from each State in the Federation. California, being smartly run by their hired governors, pay the people running the Federation in Federal Reserve notes, as they too work on currency speculation, as they get whatever currency that The People send to them as tax payments, and they then take those currencies and buy dollars to pay the Federation what the Federation wants as payment. Right now the supposed Federal government demand dollars. Got that? You demand the best money to be paid to you for what you produce. You then buy the worst money to pay your State taxes, and you have no Federal tax payments, because now we live in a Federation, not a Nation State. The people you hire to run your State take the worst money they send you and they buy dollars, because dollars are demanded by the people hired to run the Federation. How does that work for you? Why don't the people running the Nation State demand gold as payment for tax debt instead of dollars printed by The Federal Reserve System of Extortion? Is that not a self-evident truth? The answer is that the pyramid scheme won't work if there is competition, such as gold, which is a very competitive, powerful, money, when compared to the fraudulent stuff. A one world currency won't work, the victims will no longer volunteer to provide the means by which they suffer, they will be clued in when the lie is one lie, the one lie will be too obvious. Work on it some, you may get it, before it is too late. Please.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 8th, 2011 10:01 pm |
|
50th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Buck_Nekkid, Why not make our own money so that we can stop using the fraudulent stuff, and then be in a powerful position to avoid being victims instead of being weakened every time the Legal Criminals want us weak on their schedule? Along the lines of this: 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. Henry Ford If you want more specifics how about the following example: http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm Not playing their games, without our own powerful connecting medium in place and working for us, can be like union workers going on strike. Problem: Not enough income and too much expense. Solution: Stop generating an income. The problem isn't solved by more of the problem. The problem is solved by using the power available to make more power. As for Ron Paul, if you care hear another perspective, I can offer my decades of experience keeping track of Ron Paul. Sure, he is right leaning, or capitalist leaning, but at some point it may be a good idea to find out where the people who lean to socialism, to the left, share ideals with the people who lean to capitalism on the right, and there may be a whole lot more in common than what is covered up by all the lies. In particular, it may interest you to know, that I know where Ron Paul and Alex Jones are wrong, where their ideas lead to despotism, and I know where their ideas lead to liberty. Where their ideas lead to liberty, their ideas are almost the same ideas as the socialists, and where the socialists harbor notions that lead to despotism, those notions are remarkably the same notions shared by the right leaning capitalists. In simple terms: Ideas that move toward more, and more, voluntary associations (also known as anarchy) move toward liberty. Ideas the move toward more, and more, involuntary associations (also known as crime) move away from liberty. Competition in avoiding crime may be one obvious idea shared by those on the right and left as they seek to move closer to liberty, and there are ways to move that way, step by step; where competitors offer higher quality methods, at lower costs, and eventually the methods improve beyond any yet known to mankind. If one person moves that way, that is good. If everyone moves that way, at once, except for the incorrigible criminals (with or without badges), what happens? 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. Henry Ford
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 10:41 am |
|
51st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Well said. And this is why, with every passing year, I start leaning more and more toward feeling like an anarchist more than anything. Ron Paul, Alex Jones, ANYone that would assume himself to be a leader, aspire to be one, while a populous backs him up, will knowingly or unknowingly create an autocracy. Thousands of years of history, and always the same result. Buck_Nekkid, There are exceptions, and if my viewpoint is not as accurate as the viewpoint your words appear to me, to be false, then it may be a good idea to know better. A. Thousands of years of history, and always the same result. B. There are exceptions If A is true, why waste any time looking into B? If B is true, is it worth the effort to know better?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 11:07 am |
|
52nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/a-presidential-declaration-of-independence-from-wall-street Stimulus Bill, I saw that in my morning perusal of news and I see a need to post that here, and a need to comment on a very specific distinction between that message and the viewpoint I see. The road to liberty will not be dictatorial and monopolistic, it will be open, honest, welcome, and therefore it will be competitive; which is the opposite of dictatorial and monopolistic. I saw that link and I went as straight as I could to the part where that viewpoint deals with the legal money supply, and as far as I can tell that proposed solution is more of the same legal monopoly money supply enforced problem that poses as a solution to the very problem it creates, and therefore it may work to help move closer to liberty, but only if those who seize control of that legal monopoly money supply use that power to create an abundance of power, which is to say that they use that power to allow people to create an abundance of power with that power, which is to say that once those dictators seize that dictatorial power they become benevolent after having proven themselves to be dictators (legal criminals). If that does not make sense to you, I can work on solving that, if you see that as a problem. What can I say? I don't read from the script. If the assumption is that the dictators will be benevolent, and it turns out that they are, how will that be known, when that happens? If the idea is to avoid such assumptions, then the legal money supply will be a legal competition, and then the force of competition will continuously force the power of money, which is the quality of money, higher, and that same force of legal competition will force the cost of money, which is interest, lower. If that does not make sense, then the fact that it does not make sense is very interesting - to me. I know that the Legal Criminals are fully aware of the things I know to be true - as my words intend to convey, on this road to liberty.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 11:46 am |
|
53rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Honest Productive Americans, I call upon you today to inform you of something that has just crossed my desk, and I am right now in the process of picking through this data to see if there are things worth knowing within the stream of data. You can judge this as a test upon your future President of The U.S.A., whomever you get in that office. Test them. Test me. Test yourself. The link is a link to a network of people who are on a similar path as the path I choose to be on, which is the path that claims to be working toward liberty, and it will be a path that can be measured accurately as the people on that path progress along that chosen path. There is in that data, from that link, a proposed Presidential Address, which can work as a competitive example. Here is that link: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/a-presidential-declaration-of-independence-from-wall-street The title is a good one, since the thing that goes by the name Wall Street is the same thing that I call Legal Crime. I can offer as evidence to the accusation that the thing known as Legal Crime is the same thing as the thing known as Wall Street by offering two links. The next two links help identify the perpetrators of the crime that became known as World War II, and this is important, because the same Legal Crime organization, if not the same leaders of that organization, are now repeating these crimes as they work toward causing World War III. Let know one be fooled into being less than aware of the full measure of the danger ahead. Two links: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/ http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/ The same organized legal crime cartel, which is accurately measurable as a legal banking monopoly, a Dollar Hegemony, have, in the past, caused World War II, and they, those people who make up Wall Street, are fixin' to do a number on us, in the form of World War III, and that is well underway, in a big way, even if you refuse to see it. So that offers a clue, or two, as to the significance of someone offering a competitive Presidential Address that proposes to go after Wall Street head-on, by disconnecting from Wall Street, which is almost the same tactic shared by me, and Ron Paul. Ron Paul's solution, and my solution, is to replace the Wall Street legal money monopoly with legal competition, for reasons that can be made clear to anyone with a working brain, whereby the brain has the capacity for sound, honest, moral judgment. Moving from that competitive Presidential Address this effort can move to the true nature of the proposed solution, looking for either monopoly (criminal) power or legal competition (liberty) power. A quote from the competitive Presidential Address: I have instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to take immediate action to assume control of the Federal Reserve and restructure it to function as an independent, but publicly transparent, federal agency accountable to the president and the Congress. The new federalized Federal Reserve will have a mandate to stabilize the money supply, contain housing and stock market bubbles, discourage speculation, and assure the availability of credit on fair and affordable terms to eligible Main Street borrowers. As President I would not say that, my proposition is spelled out as Product 1 and Product 2, which can be elaborated in great detail, but not here and now. That competitive Presidential Address addresses the Wall Street legal banking monopoly problem by retaking control of the legal banking monopoly, as far as I can tell. Further investigation may uncover useful information. Next link: http://neweconomyworkinggroup.org/visions/living-wealth-money-system That is a detailed description of money. Money is the power to purchase, to me, and if the power to purchase increases, then the quality of money increases. What is the highest quality money? Where is it? Who makes it? Can I copy it? Can we copy it? Why can't we make it? Why can't we copy the highest quality of money? Use your own brain, please. The cost of money is interest. When competition drives the quality of money up, the same force of competition drives the cost of money down, and this is easy to understand capitalist truth. Don't be fooled by the capitalist liars. Why not allow the force of competition to force the quality of money up (which is the power to purchase) while allowing the force of competition to force the cost of money down? Is that not simple? Is that not something a 3rd grader can know, and know well enough to use that vital information? Why are we cherishing our stupidity? I've looked in the mirror, you may want to do so too, before answering that vital question. The next link leads to the area that I have yet to peruse. I'll comment after that investigation. Here is the link (competitive solutions to pressing problems): http://neweconomyworkinggroup.org/visions/living-wealth-money-system/money-system-design-options Should official money originate as bank debt or direct government issue? Wow, there are a lot of vital questions, and I'm going to go directly to the last one on that list, and I can cut and paste the answer offered (once clicking on the link) - then I can offer comments. The shape and function of the money system will depend in large measure on whether it is subject to appropriate public regulation to limit the size of individual institutions, place a ceiling on interest rates, prevent fraud and deception, and support locally rooted, preferably cooperative, ownership in the social enterprise model. The results of a reckless social engineering experiment with financial system deregulation provide an unambiguous demonstration of the consequences of that path. To help the reader know the stakes here, better, I'm going to explain something, and then lead the reader to my next question: What will the best money look like once the best money is produced by whomever it is produced, and then what will the better money look like once the new money takes away market share from the best money that is no longer the best? The best money can be known, by way of explaining the worst money. Here is a very good measure, as explanation, of the worst money: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Honest productive people send their earnings to liars who use that money to make the honest productive people suffer. Thomas Paine offers an explanation of that transfer of power here: 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. What is the money proposed by the people who constitute the link to that network of people who offer a competitive Presidential Address, and presumably a competitive method of disconnecting The People from Wall Street, and presumably offer a competitive money, a money that is better for The People compared to The Dollar Hegemony money? What is the money? Show me the money. I am looking. How about this:
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Sep 9th, 2011 12:44 pm |
|
54th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Wow! The quote at the beginning has me on the edge of my seat. The instinct to command others, in its primitive essence, is a carnivorous, altogether bestial and savage instinct. Under the influence of the mental development of man, it takes on a somewhat more ideal form and becomes somewhat ennobled, presenting itself as the instrument of reason and the devoted servant of that abstraction, or political fiction, which is called the public good. But in its essence it remains just as baneful, and it becomes even more so when, with the application of science, it extends its scope and intensifies the power of its action. If there is a devil in history, it is this power principle. http://www.todayinsci.com/B/Bakunin_Mikhail/BakuninMikhail-Quotations.htm That is the full quote (from one source), not the quote at the start of the media titled: Human Resources. Bukunin, as far as I know, was one of the people thrown out of The First International, and I think that Stephen Pearl Andrews was similarly censored - but my historical understanding may be far off of the truth here.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 10th, 2011 03:36 pm |
|
55th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, Whenever I read these reports of how one side is against the other for this reason or that reason I'm reminded of how a Federation is supposed to work, and how a Nation State is specifically not a Federation. A Federation is not supposed to replace the State governments, or the county government, or the city governments, or the corporation governments, or the military governments, or the financial governments, or the family governments, or the religious governments, or even the individual governments, the Federation legal license is awarded for the purposes of keeping the State government demands placed on the Federal government supplied to the State governments. The States (actually the people hired to run The States) make demands upon the Federal government, to which the people hired to run the Federal government are taxed with the job of supplying those demands. A Federation is not supposed to be directly connected to the people, such as the case with direct taxes, including the fraudulent "inflation" tax. What was the form of tax placed upon each of the Separate and Sovereign State governments under The Articles of Confederation as funds to run the Federal government were transferred from the accounts of The States to the account of the Federal government? It was not a case of having a Federal agent reaching into your pocket to take whatever he, or she, wanted at any given moment, while you were asleep. The idea behind the Federation is to access the force of competition, which is the same idea as the idea behind regulating the force of monopoly; since monopoly cannot exist where competition exists, so the willful invention, production, and use of competition does, in fact, end monopoly force, such as the monopoly force that is commonly known as a Nation State, or a State Bank, or a Central Bank, or whatever name is embroidered on the napkins as the Legal Criminals eat the lives of their victims. The Nation State enforces a monopoly on taxing the people directly within a government designed to be a Nation State - for example. A Democratic Federated Republic, idea, employs the force of competition, when each State within the Republic experiments with various types of plans by which the hired governors tax the people who hire the governors, which adds a feature of Democracy to the Federation idea, since The People hire the few people who run their State governments within their Federated Republic and thereby the thing invented, and used, is a Democratic Federated Republic. The Republic is the word used to describe the combination of all the States and the Federal government into one thing, which is the Republic. The People hire people to run Separate and Sovereign States, and the hired governors hire people to run the Federal government, and a tax structure is used to connect The People to the State, to connect accounts of surplus wealth earned by The People, held in their own personal accounts, and then power flows from The People to accounts opened for the expenses of State government purchases, directly or indirectly, depending upon how The People demand such things to be done, and depending upon how the hired employees running the State governments implement the demands of the people. The people running the State governments are then taxed by the Federal government and power flows from the State accounts to the Federal accounts, and there is no direct connection between the Federal account and the accounts of The People. That is done by design. That is done that way so as to preserve, rather than destroy, competition. That is done that way so as to preserve competition and in so doing the force of monopoly power is regulated right out of business, as the force of competition is held by each individual person who then has the power to veto any State governments abuse of the power they are given, which amounts to be a power stolen when that power is abused. That competitive feature, designed into a Democratic Federated Republican form of government ends the practice whereby the people end up providing the means by which they suffer. That design feature is the enemy of monopolists, despots, and Legal Criminals. The Republic is the thing that includes the Federal government, which is hired by the State governments, and The People hire the few people they hire to run each of their State governments, making that idea, that plan, that government what it is by design, and it is democratic, that is that feature, whereby The People recognize their part in the whole idea, whereby The People are the employers of their own government. Despots, monopolists, and Legal Criminals despise the idea of democracy when democracy is defined by The People as The People hire specialists to run their democratic governments, or fire them, at will. The competition part of the Democratic Federated Republican form of government, or the competition part within the whole thing, the thing called a Republic, is the part where The People can move from one State to another State when one State becomes despotic, and that will cause the despotic State to grow weak, as the power of taxation grows weak, as the tax payers walk. Hired governors of each State are forced to supply what The People want, or The People walk. That is a design feature within a Democratic Federated Republican form of government. Despots, monopolists, and Legal Criminals hate that plan, because that plan ends their plan, killing their plan, dropping their plan dead cold in it's tracks. One State within the Republic may try a combination of socialism, capitalism, fascism, and communism whereby the people who hire the people who run that State lose control of their employees and their employees begin to enforce that unwelcome, involuntary, combination of socialism, capitalism, fascism, and communism, leaving the employers only one option, as the people they hire begin to say "love it or leave it". When the despots who pop up now and again within a Democratic Federated Republic say "love it or leave it" to The People, the design feature is a good place to go, a better place to go, a higher quality place to go, and a lower cost place to go, where The People then go, and love that place, and leave the place where the despots pop up, now and again, within the Democratic Federated Republic. Each State within a Democratic Federated Republic isn't part of one Cartel, where all the hired employees have joined forces against The People, in the work of exploiting The People, that is the opposite of a Democratic Federated Republic, because each State is the same as each other State, as all the governors in each State agree to exploit all The People the same way. The former employers within the formerly voluntary State are taxed with the need to move to another State in a working Democratic Federated Republic, where the employers, or The People, still hold their employees to account, and where the association is still voluntary, and in so doing the employees in the higher quality, and lower cost State, supply what The People demand, and not the other way around. The despotic State forces The People out, and that State grows weak, having no more victims to exploit. The People move to a better State, and the better State grows stronger, as more powerful people move in, and as more powerful people are able to make even more power since they are no longer providing the means by which they suffer. That is a force that forces the employees to supply only what The People demand. That is the force of competition. Despots have no income when competition is in force, so they hate competition, and they may even work to convince their victims to hate competition too. The force of competition, by that Democratic Federated Republican design of government, is such that The People are allowed to express their power of will, their power of choice, their power called Liberty, within the Republic, as one State may become more, and more, draconian, more, and more, despotic, more, and more criminal, for whatever reason, it does not matter, in a Democratic Federated Republic, as far as The People are concerned, they can walk in Liberty. As they walk from the more despotic States to the less despotic States, within the Republic, the people hired to run the Federal Government may be encouraged by their employers to do one of two things as The People tend to walk from the low quality and high cost States to the high quality and low cost States. 1. Forbid the slaves to take refuge in one State as the refugees escape the despotic State, and expend their power to return the runaway slaves to the States they left behind. The hired governors may decide to choose that routine, at which point they define Legal Crime by those specific actions. 2. Protect the State that accepts the refugees as the refugees escape the despotic State. The people hired to run The Federal part of the Democratic Federated Republic do what they are hired to do, by using the power entrusted in the Federal government, to defend the State accepting Liberated people, who seek refuge, in cases where the State that claims the refugees to be property of that State, from attack, as the despotic State conducts an aggressive war for profit against the State where the refugees seek refuge. When one State goes bad the Federal government is taxed with the job of helping any States attacked by the State gone bad - foreign or domestic. All of that is of no consequence within a Consolidated government or Nation State, whereby the National government owns The People directly, at which point The People who don't love such things are given a choice, so far: 1. Love it 2. Leave it behind and seek refuge in a place where the employees who are hired to run the government are not criminals. So far only Democratic Federated Republics are such places. All of that is of no consequence within a fraudulent Democratic Federated Republic where the name of the government is one thing and the actual fact of what the government is, is the opposite thing (depends upon what is is), and whereby the victims are stupefied by the fraud that enslaves them; whereupon there are two choices. 1. Unconditional obedience to falsehood 2. Wise up before you are on of them without reservation or moral conscience.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 10th, 2011 04:31 pm |
|
56th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Milton Friedman made this line famous: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Anyone, That is a quote from the link offered in the last post. The concept of inflation can include the following: Many people work as part of a network of workers where each worker performs a specific specialized task, some people carry things, some people hammer things, some people repair things, some people encourage people, some people make people laugh, some people make food, some people process food, some people serve food, some people build houses, some people build tools, and the network can be seen as a human body, where one specialist is like a red blood cell, and another specialist is a white blood cell, and another specialist is a fat cell, and another specialist is a muscle cell, nerve cell, lung cell, toe nail cell, etc. Inflation is when each cell is ordered to do the job that isn't that cells specialty. A red blood cell is told to do the muscle cells job, and a lung cell is ordered to do a fat cells job. What happens? Inflation. You are not supposed to know this, too bad for you. The whole thing works as each thing does it's job. Call the time when everything works normal life, and call that time of life a time before inflation occurs, and then consider what happens during inflation while still using the human body analogy as the network of people continue to be connected, but then something other than normal life happens. What happens? Don't answer the question accurately, make up a bunch of lies instead. We can know that one of the specialists, or one of the cells, is part of a process in the network of people where inflation occurs. Here again: Milton Friedman made this line famous: "Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Gary North agrees. I don't. What actually happens? Is there too much of something, or is there not enough of something? If the answer is such that the thing called inflation is "a monetary phenomenon" then there is too much of something, and that is where I strongly disagree with Gary North and that Milton Friedman dude. There is not enough of the power that is available being used to make more power, and that is "inflation", and it isn't necessarily a monetary phenomenon, it is a legal monopoly monetary problem, but that is fixing the case, that is a circular argument, or an argument for the sake of argument, or that is a case of begging the question. Blood, food, oxygen, electricity, and many additional chemicals, elements, and currents of stuff work as currency in the human body, not just one monopoly, fix all, currency, and that may be the best lesson that can be learned by the analogy between political economy and the human body. When there is too much oxygen what happens in the human body? When there is too much food what happens in the human body? When the human being focuses attention only on conditions when there is too much of something, they fail to see the opposite occurrence, which is not enough of something. When there is too much oxygen there is not enough intelligent allocation of power whereby the use of the available power is used to make more power. Ron Paul uses the term Malinvestment. When there is too much malinvenstment, there isn't enough non-mal-investment. That can help a human being focus attention on the process known as investment, and here is a point of illumination, and here is a point at which the reader can know something worth knowing. Power used to make more power results in more power. Starting out with less power. Power is then used to make more power. Ending up with more power. What happens? You are not allowed to know, but I can let you know, even though you are not allowed to know, it is against the law to know, but I'm telling you anyway, and you will probably refuse to know, since you don't want to be punished for knowing. Don't read the answer if you refuse to know. What happens when power is invested and more power is produced? Deflation. Don't know that, because knowing that is against the law, you can't know that, don't know it. Remain stupefied. You are allowed to remain stupefied. By all means, remain stupefied. You have permission to remain stupefied. Obey. Do not disobey. Don't know what you are told not to know. Have a nice day.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 11th, 2011 12:28 pm |
|
57th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Change MUST come from the "powerless" because those in power will always want to retain and expand their power. Stimulus Bill, You have touched upon a few contentious things and my first response has to do with a contention I have with the above viewpoint. I have pointed out to you, and anyone having the power to listen, that there is an easy way out of this march to hell on earth and all that is needed is for those who have the power to use their power, instead of those having their power stolen, and then used against those who have power. I don't like the use of the word "change" since it is an amoral word used by people who are measurably immoral and they use the word to cover up their immorality by using a word that is often used by people who use the same word to convey moral things. Why not choose a word that does not leave so much room for falsehood to find it's way in? I don't like seeing language used in ways that allow so much falsehood to creep into the effort to fight against it. Those who steal power from the honest productive people who make power are those among us who have reached a consensus and their consensus has to do with an agreement to form a cartel, or organized crime ring, where the criminals in that agreement polarize their power to steal, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by vicious, horrible, and terrifying destructive violence, to steal more, and more, and more. Why would anyone ignore a viable way out? What is the point of ignoring a very powerful method of improving the path traveled by the honest productive people, so as to incrementally, or all at once, stop sending productive power to a small group of criminals who then use that power to destroy? That is my most pressing interest in this thread, at this time, but there is more that I see as contention, and contention must be divorced from the false cover story used by the criminals. Contention is not argument for the sake of argument. Contention is a process of discovering higher quality and lower cost measures of reality, by comparison with lower quality and higher cost measures of reality, so as to improve, not change, the viewpoint viewed. When one viewpoint is diametrically opposite the other viewpoint, the viewer is placed in a position to do the impossible, which is to know that both opposite viewpoints are true, at the same time, like two cars trying to exist in the same place at the same time when both cars reach each other from opposite headings, going fast, in a head-on collision. Seeking a consensus answer to that question is the purpose of this thread. How can there be a consensus answer if answers are ignored? Either the solution isn't consensus, which may very well be worth knowing, or the actual problem is consensus, again please consider the fact that many people have reached a consensus to join in on the Legal Crime business, to use law for the purposes of targeting and exploiting innocent victims. Another possible problem with consensus may be that the path to consensus is not known, and therefore the first step must be to build the path to consensus - such as making a willful decision to find at least one thing to offer as a conclusive first step on that road. Such as: Stop sending power to the legal criminals. We grow weaker, and they grow stronger. Legal criminals have obviously progressed (changed) well past disorganized, powerless, chaotic, disorder, and have reached well past the step of forming consensus. If you can't beat em' Join em' - many have. Might makes right - many work to prove that this is a fact, just ask one. Do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you - and then send them the bill (see The Constitution Amendment 14 for the bill collecting bill). All men are bad, it take one exceptional person... to prove it by example. - see The Prince by Nicoli Machiavelli They deserve to be punished, I'm teaching them a valuable lesson. Obey [For the record, I have received 27 times as much radiation exposure since March 11th as the legal annual limit for X-ray technicians in this country. You probably have too, but you wouldn't know it unless you have your own monitoring equipment like I do.] All I have is this: http://www.power-independence.com/view_topic.php?id=677&forum_id=6 No where to run, no where to hide? Do you know the truth about Peak Oil? I've looked into that and once I first heard of that I began a second run for Congress in my district, but the facts I uncovered led me to improve my course (change course) from a false belief in "Peal Oil" to a reasonable understanding of the forces involved in that charade. I came up with this: Power produced into a condition of abundance reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production. I call that Joe's Law, and from that I can explain such things as inflation. From that discovery of that political/economic law I am more able to separate the falsehoods from the facts concerning these things with these labels on them whereby the obvious tactic is brain washing, or behavior modification, or response conditioning, or whatever word works best to convey accurate meaning - instead of reinforcing falsehood. Crimes are crimes, and placing misleading labels on crimes cover up the crimes, and that is a contention I have with "Peak Oil". I have a similar contention with "Global Warming". Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less? I no longer believe in falsehoods such as those words convey to me. I don't read from that script. I've shed the false language. The use of false language renders the users weaker. I rewrite words I read when the words I read are written in false language. Example: Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less? I re-write that, for my own understanding, I translate that into a meaningful question: How many people are led to believe in the legitimacy of criminals hiding behind a false front of voluntary government; when the actual nature of the connection is of a group of criminals to their targeted victims? There are two types of possible answers: A. True B. False A person who answers either question (your version or mine) will answer either truthfully or they will willfully lie. There are two subsets of answers possible: A. True A1. Inaccurate A2. Accurate B. False B1. Inaccurate B2. Accurate A person who does believe in the legitimacy of an organized crime group may say so, and their answer is true in that case, they believe in the lie. A person who says that he, or she, does not believe in the legitimacy of an organized crime group, posing as a group of people providing security, while actually victimizing the victims measurably, willfully, on purpose, for profit, but, the person does believe in the legitimacy of an organize crime group - whereby the person is unaware of his own beliefs, and the proof is provided by actions, not words. Your version of the question, to me, leads no where. Do you believe that this government is making your future more safe and secure or less? What is this thing you call government? There are so many possible definitions, how is anyone supposed to know what you mean? Is that the point? Is the point such that the idea is to make words so ambiguous as to be meaningless, on purpose, for fun, or profit? The word government is supposed to mean only one thing, the thing you say it is, and/or the thing the person reading the word thinks it is, at that moment? How can there ever be consensus if language is ambiguous to a point of meaningless? Isn't that what you're supposed to be getting for the taxes you pay? I rewrite that in my own head, so as to understand that question, as I see it. Your question: Isn't that what you're supposed to be getting for the taxes you pay? My version: Do you hire people to make you suffer, so long as other people suffer even more, or, if that isn't your willful intent, and having an opposite goal in mind, do you pay the extortion fee so as to forestall your own inevitable demise at the hands of those criminals who extort fees from you, where you care nothing about those whose injuries you do finance with the payments of your extortion fees? See? A person may actually desire other people's suffering, for a supposed satisfaction of vengeance planted in their conscious thought process, so they pay to see other people suffer, even if they know they will also have to suffer, eventually, or a little suffering at the moment. That scenario is quite different from, or opposite, a person who pays the extortion fee so as to avoid going to jail, and any thoughts of what happens to anyone else as a result of that transfer of that power to those criminals is willfully ignored, not to be acknowledged, beyond the realm of caring. A Voluntary association (you voluntarily pay for your own suffering, so long as other people suffer more than you do), the person hires extortionists to do what they do best. B. Involuntary association (as far as you know there is no choice but to pay the extortion fee), failing to pay on time will result in even greater injury, there are no other options - ever, pay, and get back to work. That brings me back to my greatest contention. If there is an obvious alternative, why go on pretending that there is no obvious alternative? C. Stop paying the extortion fees, since the extortion cabal grows stronger, and the victims grow weaker, do so on a schedule, step by step. How? How about Product 1 and Product 2, it isn't rocket science, and a 5 year old could understand the forces involved, and make a clear decision as to the workability of that solution. How deep down the road to hell have we fallen, so far? Much has been said about the prices others once paid for our liberty. That sounds like a long way down, since most of those cases are people who have had their behavior so modified as to murder people to save them. I am reminded of a phrase offered by someone else; whose name I don't remember, and I'm going to edit the phrase to fit the occasion. Raping your victims back to virginity. Much has been said about the prices others once paid for our liberty. What did they do, exactly, as they paid those prices for "our" liberty? I'm curious. Did they stop transferring their power to people who then make us suffer with that power transferred to them by those people who have paid those prices for "our" liberty? How deep does it go? Why not simply stop transferring the power you have made to those people who then use that power to make us suffer? Answer: Why not, because we need the power of voluntary connectivity, we can't just cut that link, that won't work, we have to keep our links connected while severing the link to the Legal Criminals. We need purchasing power, a medium of exchange, of some minimal standard of value, some minimal capacity to purchase, without which we can no longer benefit from cooperative effort, which is an exponential increase in the output of our individual powers resulting from that cooperative effort. That is the half true part of the "Peak Oil" scam. Division of labor Specialization Economies of scale Competition (driving quality up and cost down, not to be confuse with crime, competition is not crime, crime is crime, competition is competition, why confuse the two?) Honest productivity Trust Agreement Consensus (to avoid sending power to people who use power to make us suffer) Consensus (to work in concert for our mutual benefit, also known as equitable commerce) Accurate powerful competitive exchange mediums (being accurate is being able to avoid exploitation by those who would be criminals among us) Food Water Oxygen Fuel Law Money Language Which of the above laundry list can be left out of the voluntary social network and then, absent that vital ingredient, voluntary social network still works expediently, efficiently, and productively, to supply all that the honest productive people demand, including security of person and property, liberty, productive employment, progress toward higher quality of life, for all, and lower cost of life, for all but those who prefer crime, as victims or otherwise? Did I miss something?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 11th, 2011 01:10 pm |
|
58th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29091.htm Anyone, On both sides are people who speak for their opponents so as to create a weak opponent. Hi, I'm here to show you why that guy is so stupid. According to me he said this, and see, see, see how stupid that guy is? Keynesian economic policies help stabilize the economy because peoples’ lack of purchasing power can be cured by government investments, which in turn creates employment and income. What does the writer mean when the writer chooses the word government? Who can know? If asked, would the person confess the truth, or would the person dodge the questions asked? I've tried. I do know that both sides, Austrian, and Keynesian, have things they prefer not to confess, or acknowledge. Austrians won't answer questions such as: What would the Free Market produce as the highest quality and lowest cost money, if the Free Market allowed anyone to produce and offer money; where the consumers pick the highest quality over the lowest quality money, and the consumers pick the lowest cost over the highest cost money being produced in that Free Market. That goes right to the Austrians Special Interest in using the power of law to make money scarce, so as to hike up the price of money, so they won't touch that question with a ten foot pole. Keynesian economists, as far as I can tell, are Straw Men, there are none, all there are are people who point to these men of straw. Where is one? I see none. If I find one I'll ask: Is it a necessity that a few people make a lot of people pay taxes, or else everyone is doomed to suffer anarchy; so taking those taxes must happen, even if the people who pay the taxes decide that they must not pay those taxes since they know that paying those taxes amount to the tax payers providing the means by which the tax payers suffer, and the tax collectors, like you, maintain this false belief in the absolute necessity to keep collecting those taxes, that, just so happens, to make your kind very, very, very powerful? That is the loaded question. The unloaded question looks more like this: Do you support, in any way, materially, or psychologically, involuntary associations? I remind readers, assuming that there are any, that a Democratic Federated Republican form of competitive government experiment, by trial and error, and while accessing the force of competition is, as far as lawful governments go, a voluntary association, and as another reminder, an involuntary association is crime by another name, smells just as bad to the victims, and just as sweat to the criminals.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 14th, 2011 09:16 am |
|
59th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Oh how I crave for a blank slate. Freeski, Why not buy one? I can offer a few comments other than the quick sound bite reply. One comment is to support your point with a study, an invention, and an experiment along the lines of your point, and the experiment was a success, and there are people today still using the idea by some measure. The invention became known as Equitable Commerce and the inventor recorded the work that, again, still manages to work in some places. http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf If you have not yet inherited a fortune, and if you are not yet in command of enough things of value stored up in places where you can readily use that stored power, and if you are fully capable of producing much more out of much less, but you don't yet have legal monetary credit, and you don't even want to borrow things to get started since the lenders charge too much for borrowing, or no one is yet loaning you things to get started at any price, then the invention is such that the inventor becomes his own source of good faith and credit, and if the inventor can't make ends meet, all the costs of failure are charged to the person who fails, in a reasonable way, leaving no room for ambiguity, or misguided defense against injury which turns out to be punishment for the sake of punishment. In other words: anyone can print their own money, sell it, and that invention is as good, or as bad, as the person doing the printing, in keeping a promise to pay the holder of the money. Example: Someone moves into town, broke, penniless, and instead of begging on the corner the person begins to sell his own good faith and credit, by promising to pay people in the future for things purchased today, such as wood, and glue, and a hammer, and nails, as the inventor of competitive money sells coupons that are redeemable in chairs, or tables and chairs, and later in book shelves, and dressers, bed frames, and other things of value. Someone else moves into town selling promises to pay in the future for things purchased today as the person doing the promising, selling his good faith and credit, buys seeds, and well drilling, a well pump, shovels, and other things needed for farming, and the promise to pay is worth an amount of food. Someone else moves into town, someone who needs a place to stay, not wanting to beg, and willing to provide medical services, having no money, since money was taken out of circulation by the law power, the doctor prints up promises to pay treatments, based upon some finite measure of cost to the doctor. One hour of treatment, or a promise to stitch 10 stitches. Someone else moves into town less skilled but certainly capable of supplying whatever the people in the town need since everyone in the town, so far, still needs something, or wants something, since everyone isn't quite yet absolutely satisfied to a point of needing, or wanting, nothing more, ever. Where does someone go to find out what other people may want, so as to find out what someone can do, so as to be gainfully employed? For lack of accurate forms of currency, an individual is powerless in the work that is necessary to communicate productively with other people, and the more people that are connected to each other accurately, the less time and energy is wasted as people work toward producing things no one wants. Call all the forms of accurate currency by one word, call it money. Then explain to me why there is only one legal money. I think that the reason why there is only one legal money is as obvious as the reason why a person does not stick their hand in a fire, or stare at the sun. There is only one legal money because that is how honest productive people are made to provide the means by which we suffer. There is only one legal money because that is how criminals connect to victims so as to transfer the power produced by the victims as that power flows to the criminals. A visual illustration helps convey the point: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Those are my comments that intend to agree with your point. It really is that simple but we have developed this supposed "civil society" and brainwashed the people to believe it's a good thing, that "someone" needs to organize it... rather than just letting it be and seeing what happens. Who says our lives should be structured? I do not agree with that viewpoint. Voluntary structures can be understood as forms of life. A human body for example. Cells within the human body are structured within the human body. The structure is such that all the cells function harmoniously so long as the human body lives. Involuntary structures can be understood as structures that destroy life. Cancer is a structure, for example, that destroys a human body. Each cancer cell is structured to reproduce another cancer cell, feeding from the living cells, and reaching a point where the cancer cells kill the living being, and its own source of power. Which structures work to sustain life? Which structures work to destroy life? Why confuse the structures that work to sustain life with the structures that destroy life? When structures that work to sustain life are confused with structures that destroy life there are two obvious consequences that can result from that confusion. A. Structures that work to sustain life can be misunderstood as they are confused with structures that work to destroy life, and the confusion may then weaken the power of those structures that work to sustain life. B. Structures that work to destroy life can be misunderstood as they are confused with structures that work to sustain life, and the confusion may then strengthen the power of those structures that work to destroy life. Accurate perception can be understood as structure that can empower someone with the power to sustain life. That same power of accurate perception can be used by a cancerous type of person as a cancerous type of person uses that power to accurately target potential victims, to attack a potential victim, and consume a potential victim, even to a point where the victim is destroyed, and therefore the source of power flowing to the cancerous type of person is gone. Inaccurate perception can be understood as a structure that can weaken someone infected by that condition of inaccurate perception especially when that type of structure is produced by someone who knows better, as the deceptive structure is invented, produced, and forced upon the targeted victims, causing inaccurate perception upon the targeted, exploited, people within that involuntary structure that has been made involuntary by that use of deceit. So, that leads back to my comment that does not agree with that point, and the question of why would anyone confuse a voluntary structure with an involuntary structure, or why would anyone confuse a life sustaining structure with a life destroying structure, as if all structures are guilty of doing bad things because of the things done by the bad ones? Or If some money, such as Legal Monopoly Extortion and Fraud Money, are bad, are all forms of money bad, even the accurate, powerful, and low cost, productive, and non-criminal, non-deceptive, non-threatening, and non-violent money forms? Why throw out the baby with the bath water? And If some structures, such as involuntary associations, are bad, on purpose, for profit, as those involuntary structures are designed to make the victims provide the means by which they suffer, are all structures bad, including voluntary structures such as reproductive mating (the opposite of rape), families, companies, cities, counties, even States, and even Democratic Federated Republics, so long as they are, in fact, structured as voluntary associations? Why throw out the baby with the bath water? And Why torture and murder the babies, and nurture the bath water instead? Or Isn't it time for good people to unite and work together to use the power we have to make life quality higher, and make the cost of life lower, instead of sending all the surplus power we can ever make to people who then use that power to make us suffer? Or How can the cart pull the horse? We can't overpower our oppressors until we gain the power to do so, and that can't happen while all our surplus power flows to the people who oppress us. Or Meet the enemy, it is US.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 14th, 2011 10:01 am |
|
60th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
southernmissouri2007, I think that it is much easier to understand the message from a much simpler viewpoint. Instead of signing onto the idea of equality, think in terms of power. If a person has more power than anther person: will that power be used to exploit or not exploit the weaker person? That is much easier to understand than having to begin conceptualizing equality. There is no such thing as equality, until someone begins to invent equality, and then someone works to produce equality, and how much effort must be spent, how much power is used up, in maintaining equality? Here is the relevant quote: "all animals are equal" Why? Who says so? Why does someone say such a thing? Is that true? If it is not true, but someone is led to believe that it is true, then someone is being lied to, and someone is the victim of a lie, which is different from someone inventing that idea, or that perception, or that viewpoint that is not true. Is it true? If it is true, it can be measured as true. So why spend any time, if it isn't true, and if it can't be measured as true, on it? If it isn't true, why does it exist? Who invented that deceptive invention? Why would someone create something that is not true, that thing that is not true in particular, what is the point of inventing a false claim that all animals, or all people, are equal? To me the lesson offered by George Orwell is Orwellian; or hidden, as an opposite meaning. If you are left with the idea that it is good to know that all people are equal, if that is what you are made to believe after reading Animal Farm, then I think you are being set-up to be even less able to avoid an even more destructive lie. In effect, if that is true, then George Orwell is one of the pigs; he is Squealer. Does that make sense?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 06:47 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Prison Planet | Top |
