| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page: 1 2   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Prison Planet Forum | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11th, 2011 04:00 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Hi, I am Joe Kelley, Josf, and it has been some time since I first tried to get on this forum. I didn't try hard enough, having only sent the request, and waiting for the reply, finally, years later, I sent the request to join a Prison Planet article comment, or Blog, and then was accepted, and then, having the door open, I resent a request to the forum. I have some news to offer, and I plan on conveying this news here, as I have worked other forums, have been censored from other forums, and even resorting to producing my own forum. The news I have is contained within my political economy LAW, which has my name on it, for lack of any previous mention of this political economy LAW. Joe's Law: Power produced into oversupply (abundant power) reduces the price of power (oxygen is power, what is the price of oxygen?), while purchasing power increases (deflation, or, more bang for the buck) because power (productive power: knowledge, food, oxygen, transportation fuel, electricity, human labor, etc.) reduces the cost of production. What, you may say, has that sentence, that Joe's Law, got to do with the current situation? I want to answer that question by offering a possible, easy to understand, future reality, whereby the illustrated future reality explains, in detail, how Joe's Law works, and how the opposite of Joe's Law works, by contrast. The opposite of Joe's Law can be illustrated by a future reality whereby food production is governed into a state of scarcity, transportation fuel is governed down to a state of scarcity, and most certainly knowledge is governed down into a state of scarcity, and what happens as a result. Joe's Law (food) Food (power) produced into a state of scarcity (purposefully making food scarce) increases the price of food (high demand and many people bidding the price up) while purchasing power decreases (inflation, or less bang for the buck) because a lack of power increases the cost of production. Everyone must have food, it is a cost of living, it is a cost of production, and therefore food governed down into a state of scarcity causes inflation. Joe's Law (Oil) Oil (power) produced into a state of scarcity (purposefully making oil scarce) increases the price of oil (high demand and many people bidding the price up) while purchasing power decreases (inflation, or less bang for the buck) because a lack of transportation power increases the cost of production. Everyone knows what happens when gasoline prices go up, I am showing, by way of Joe's Law, how that works, simply. Knowledge overpowers ignorance, and it also reduces the cost of production, and it is also made scarce, on purpose, for some reason, by some people, and the result is monetary inflation. Before the reader dismisses my angle of view as irrelevant, or having no power, I now offer an illustrated example of how political economy can be adjusted, simply, so as to expose anyone who has any doubt as to how easy it would be to turn the whole financial economy, the whole political economy, right side up, instead of up-side-down. The reader may get done with the following illustration and be empowered to ask questions. I can only hope so. What do you think would be the result of a change in political policy, on the subject of finances, whereby the legal powers, and the financial powers offer two new financial instruments as follows: Product 1 (One part of a two part illustration that explains Political Economy by way of illustration) No interest loans to anyone wanting to use legal money for the purpose of buying a home, or paying off an existing (interest bearing) loan, or for the purpose of buying one business property. It may be necessary, to help the reader understand the power of this illustration, the power this illustration has in the work of explaining political economy, by explaining a few things about Product 1. Interest, for product one, can be determined by market forces, and in order for market forces to work, there must be competition. Having no competition forcing quality up, and price down, is a situation called a monopoly, or cabal, or consortium, or whatever word points to a single supplier and no competitive suppliers, where the consumers have only one choice, where all the other choices are forced out of business, and the consumer has only one choice. When competitors are competing the result will be higher quality, at lower costs, and failure to produce higher quality, at lower cost, while a competitor competes with higher quality, at lower cost, results in more, and more, consumers choosing higher quality, and lower cost, and that sends more power to the producer of higher quality and lower cost, and that results in less power going to the producer of lower quality and higher cost, and that is the force that forces quality up and cost down. What would be the free market interest rate? That is one of the questions, that this illustration intends to help lead the reader to the answer. I offer to the reader an illustrated politically economic product that could be offered by the law makers and the financial product business people (in competition with other financial product business people) at a minimum price, not negative (dumping, giveaway, giving away the razor so as to sell the blades), and not positive (cost recuperation, or profit), and so the illustration, for now, is zero percent interest. Product 1 is zero percent interest, or free market forced interest rate, and Product 1 is intended to help the reader see more than one simple facet of political economy at once. Sit yourself down at the bank where Product 1 is being sold, in America, or anywhere on the planet, and think, use your own brain. Example: You: "You are saying that I can get this product and I can use this product to pay off my current home mortgage?" Bank employee: "Yes, Mr. Kelley... Me: "Call me Joe. I don't like titles, we are just people, to me." Bank employee: "Joe, look at the brochure, yes, and you qualify, you are above the minimum FICO score, you have earned a no interest home mortgage, and with this loan your total home purchase price is cut in half, roughly, and you no longer have to pay the bank for two homes, when you get only one, and if you want you can now cut your monthly payments in half, starting this month. Does that sound too good to be true?" You: "How do you make any money?" Bank employee: "Look at the brochure, we now have the competitive legal franchise to offer Product 1 and Product 2, and we will make a ton of cash on Product 2, just look at the numbers, and how many people do you think will be buying both products from us, we intend to corner the market, we will be offering the highest quality at the lowest cost, to you, don't worry, look at the numbers, we will be making money hand over fist too." You: "Sounds like a Pyramid, or Ponzi Scheme" Bank Employee: "The old banking monopoly was a Ponzi Scheme, sir, this is legal competition in money markets, we are offering 2 products, if you prefer to pay a higher interest rate on your mortgage, be my quest." So, to you the reader, I try to get you looking at this with a more inquisitive mind, my intention is not to brain wash you, my intention is to communicate the knowledge I have earned up to this point. A "socialist" or "government" financial loan, if it were non-profit, would be no charge. The "service" of offering loans would be no different than offering 911 police, ambulance, fire, national defense, or road construction services. Please consider getting past the socialism versus capitalism dog and pony show. Look at some of the numbers involved in the enforcement of the current monopoly banking system concerning only home mortgage loans. Rough numbers can be derived from the 3 hundred million population of America, taking only 1 hundred million from that number to represent a rough number of home owners, a rough number of people paying mortgage interest rates. Take a rough average home mortgage to be 1 hundred thousand dollars, and then know that a rough 30 year period of time transfers 1 hundred million times 1 hundred thousand dollars worth of EARNINGS from those who EARN to those who run banking monopolies. 100,000,000 times 100,000 = 10,000,000,000,000 Product 1 illustrates the opposite of what is, and it quantifies what is, and it shows what can be, and it quantifies what can be, and it does so simply, and it does so in a way that the viewer of the illustration can begin to ask pertinent questions, and get vital accurate answers. Instead of 10,000,000,000,000 going from those who earn purchasing power to those who steal it (by making fraud legal), over 30 years, the opposite happens. 10,000,000,000,000 units of purchasing power remains in control of those who earn that purchasing power, the people who create that power to purchase keep that power they created. That is only product 1. Please also know that the 10,000,000,000,000 units of purchasing power that does transfer from those who earn it to those who steal it is then used to keep that power to steal going, and going, and going. The legal criminals use the power they steal to maintain their power to steal, and in order to maintain their power to steal, they must consume that power in the work of eliminating competition, even it they think they have to torture, and even if they think they have to mass murder, even if they thing they have to lie, and even if they think they have to take everyone to the brink of extinction, so as to keep their power over us. 10,000,000,000,000 is not chicken feed. What would you do with the money you save each month if you have no more mortgage interest payments flowing from you to the legal banking monopoly? What happens to your personal economy? What happens if almost everyone chooses Product 1, not just you? Moving onto product 2, as an illustration for your consideration, exposing what is, and leading to that which can be, I can explain how the competitive banking business earns their profits, as they sell Product 2, along with Product 1. Product 2 is a 1 percent interest loan to anyone buying Product 1, who also wants to use the purchasing power they earn in the work of using power to make more power, and this loan is only used to buy specific things, such as Solar Panels, or Electric cars, or Modular Vertical Farming units, or anything that is proven to be a net power producer, whereby the money loaned does, in fact, create more power by that specific use of that money. Go back, if you will, to you (or me), at the Bank, talking to the Bank employee (or even done on-line), where you are thinking about joining everyone else, and you are choosing to use your power to create more power. You: "OK, so, suppose I do buy into this product 1..." Bank employee: "And cut your current monthly mortgage payment in half." You: "Yes, I got that, I saw the numbers, and I'm not convinced that it isn't a scam, but suppose I do that, and then suppose I go and get those three things you say I can get with another loan, I go into more debt, why would I do that?" Bank employee: "Solar power is now cheaper than the cost of buying electricity from the Central Power Monopoly, yes or no?" You: "I don't know." Bank employee: "You can now call someone up and they will guarantee a lower electric bill if you would let them install Solar Panels on your home, did you know that?" You: "I heard rumors." Bank employee: "Assume as much, and know that once you have the Solar Panels, and the low monthly loan payment (less than your electric payment per month), your costs are fixed, except if you adjust for inflation, which is now deflation, deflation because of Product 1 and Product 2, but the point here is, that the Central Power Company price is going up. You, by this loan, become independent from that cost of living increase. You get out from under that monopoly power, with this loan, and that has not even begun to touch upon the savings you get with the Electric car and/or the home food power product, and, you may not yet know, the home food power product can also make gasoline out of algae, at competitive prices, if you want to keep a gasoline powered car, or if you want to sell gasoline for extra income." You "I already have a job, I don't need extra income, my work consumes all my free time, I like my free time, so does my wife, she works too, and my son works too, we all work, and we don't need profit making enterprises at home." Bank employee: "If food prices go up, and if gasoline prices go up, and if electric prices go up, you can get Product 2 now, and you can eliminate that cost of living increase, become independent from it, now, or later, or never, this isn't an enforced cost of living, this is the opposite, it is your choice."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2011 07:29 am |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
As to being active on forums: Here is my own: http://www.power-independence.com/ If I Google Power Independence my forum is on the top of the list. http://therealnews.com/t2/interact/forum/ That is the Real News Network forum. I just started posting in that forum. http://anarchism.net/forum/index.php That is the Anarchism.net Forum. The moderator is very good at defending his site from aggressive types, types that are obviously bent on nothing but destruction. I was active on The Austrian Economic forum. I do not see that forum on the WEB, my link is broken to it. I was active on the Fully Informed Jury Association forum. The people policing that forum edited all my work on it, and blocked my I.P. number, all they had to do was ask me to stop posting. I know the power a forum operator has, and even if I could remain on a forum where they ask for discussion, but punish people for discussion, I see no point in using that power. Once the forum operator decides that I am no longer welcome on his, or her, public forum, then it isn't a public forum anymore, as far as I am concerned. If it is a private forum then it should advertise as one, and the rules should state, the truth, and the rules should state such things as: "If I don't like what you say, for any reason, you are not welcome, you will be removed, no exceptions." I had also posted on the following forum; but the forum operators deleted my longest running, mostly one-sided, discussion - effort, and they did so without notice. It was an up-to-date running commentary, my typical offerings for discussion, that lasted for years, racking up many page views, and then it was gone. http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?action=search2 That thread was the first thread I started. It was immediately moved from the front page to miscellaneous, off-topic, and on the off-topic page it grew to the size it grew, and then I started a new topic titled Joe's law, on the off-topic page, to save anyone the cost of moving it. My Joe's Law topic ran for years, but recently it disappeared. I could ask the moderators if a mistake was made, but the point of my posting is to find people willing to discuss controversial topics, and avoid resorting to deceit and political games, and in that effort the Free State Project forum wasn't bearing much fruit. I did get some help, and some credit, from a few members, but for the most part, I think, the readership wanted something for nothing. My Fully Informed Jury Association experience convinced me of the need to mirror my efforts on new forums, so I can keep a record of what happens if the forum operators decide to resort to abject censorship - for the crime of posting unwelcome words. I can also add that I spent a lot of time, and effort, on the Austrian Economics Forum, but, coincidentally or not, when I began an effort to question the 911 inside job, my membership ended. The strange part of that experience is such that the Austrian Economics Forum operators kept a public record of their abuse of their power on their forum for years. I suppose it was left on as a example, to others, as to what happens if someone doesn't read from the script. It was no surprise, to me, to read from various places that some people actually hire people to troll forums, where now there are professional forum assassins. To have imagined such a thing would have confessed lunacy, on my part, but to confirm that suspicion, by way of actual confessions from those people in that business, is altogether different. I'm not saying there are professional forum trolls, character assassins, I'm saying that I've seen evidence suggesting that such a market has evolved, and that it isn't a surprise to me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2011 01:39 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-audio-blog-april-12-2011.html On the subject of competition. A base from which to proceed: Goals 1. Individual self-preservation 2. Species preservation Methods to arrive at goals: I. Voluntary association (mutual agreement) 1. Law (mutual agreement) a. Profit (at the expense of others) b. Equity (no net profit at the expense of others) c. Charity (expend self in service of others) 1. Defense a. Accurate identification of criminals, their plans, their history, their actions past, present, and possible future b. Avoidance of contact and injury by criminals c. Use of defensive deceit and violence when criminals are too powerful to be avoided in time and place 2. Economy a. Division of labor, specialization, economies of scale b. Invention, adaptation c. Competition (non-criminal), higher quality, lower cost, expanding the power supply (surplus wealth) reaching for abundance II. Involuntary association (crime) 1. Despotism (Law used as a power to subject victims and exempt criminals) a. Deceit, falsehood, aggression b. Monopoly, cabal, consortium, organized crime, conspiracy fact (not theory) 2. Offense a. Target markets for exploitation, including co-conspirators b. Behavioral modification, brain washing, corrupt language, response conditioning c. Threats of violence, examples of violence 3. Economy a. Destroy competition, ensure that power remains scarce, and therefore controllable b. Select, indoctrinate, and accumulate, expand, criminal powers, higher quality, lower cost criminals (criminal competition) Note: Crime does not work toward Species Preservation since crime actively, and willingly, consumes surplus wealth; failing to reach for abundance, and in fact, there is a willful effort to maintain power scarcity (see oil - for example). From that base I can say that it is vitally important to get rid of all the double speak, as much as is expedient, so as to regain control of language. When I refer to the Globalist, or The Establishment, or The Elite, I use the simple, and accurate term: Legal Criminals. It is vital for any power to gain the power of numbers and in that work it is vital to gain the power of accurate discrimination. to learn, expediently, and precisely, with minimum error, friend from foe. A Legal Criminal defines his (or her) state of being by willfully (premeditation) planning the injury of an innocent victim and then executing that plan, or hiring, or deceiving, or forcing, other people to plan, and execute the measurable injury of innocent victims, and does so under the protection of The Color of Law (Legal Crime). Confusion concerning the process of competition, ignorance, and falsehood, clouds, covers-up, hides, adds smoke and mirrors, false fronts, facades, and consumes power, removes power, and renders powerless, the force of non-criminal competition, as non-criminal competitors seek accurate knowledge concerning the goal of accurate discrimination between friends or foes. Confusion empowers criminals at the expense of their victims. A legal criminal, volunteering to be a legal criminal, by active, and willful, support for plans that aim to injure innocent people, and follow through with accurately measurable injuries to innocent victims, will seek fellow criminals, fellow conspirators, and increase the power of 1 single solitary criminal, and subsequently, with even greater numbers, increase the power of a single individual criminal group. In other words: Crime is competitive as criminals compete for a limited number of victims. Criminals cooperate to form more powerful criminal groups and these criminal groups compete against other criminal groups, turf battles, over the limited number of victims. Crime groups compete with other crime groups. Crime groups compete with legal crime groups. Legal crime groups compete with legal crime groups. And finally: Criminals, legal or otherwise, compete for limited power that is produced by the only one's who can produce power, the productive population. Where the thin blue line is crossed, and where the grey area leads to much confusion, is the area where the productive population rejects voluntary association and incorporates legal crime as a means of gaining power over the competition. Example: The use of fraud, or "false advertisement" to gain market share. The use of behavioral modification routines, response conditioning, subliminal, unconscious brain washing, as a means of gaining market share. The use of threats of violence and the use of actual violence as a means of gaining market share. In other words: It is, and always will be, a power struggle. The non-criminals are the group that has the power to produce surplus wealth, and surplus wealth is the measure of human power, and transfers of surplus wealth from those who create it, to those who steal it by way of legal crime, leaves a paper trail, recorded as legal monopoly money, and therefore there can be a method by which the non-criminals can accomplish the first necessary step to gain the power required in avoidance, and defense against the criminal competitors who are competing for exclusive control over surplus wealth. The power struggle is between the innocent (the innocent are those who are accurately measurable as perpetrating less, or no, willful plans, and executions of plans, to injure innocent people), the power struggle is between the innocent power producers and the criminals, legal or otherwise, and that power struggle is first, and foremost, a struggle for accurate knowledge, for both criminals and non-criminals alike. Who get's the credit for producing surplus wealth? Group A Who takes the credit for producing surplus wealth by criminal means? Group B Group B already knows who their foes are, which is simple, their foes are everyone, kill or be killed, Machiavellian sub-human mutations born without moral conscious, capable of willfully planning and executing the worst cases of mass torture, mass murder, and worse crimes, including the ultimate crime of lowering the power the human species must have in the work of perpetuating the species. Group A must gain the power of accurate discrimination between friend and foe, and then expend a minimum amount of power dealing with, by avoidance if possible (clearly it is possible with enough power in numbers), or by confrontation if necessary and then only when at a level of power that makes crime unprofitable according to the judgment of the criminals. In other words a force must be put in place that deters crime, ends it, without blood shed, or, we become them in the effort to beat them. Therefore there are two major competitive forces and there are sub competitions within those groups, and confusing the two major competitive forces, as if they are one, empowers the criminal group at the expense of the non-criminal group. A. Crime B. Non crime Both groups are in competition over the power known as surplus wealth. Competition from the A group consumes surplus wealth and destroys competition as a rule, as a necessity, since too much power, abundant power, empowers the victims who no longer are victims when they gain power sufficient to accomplish the work of avoiding victimization. Within the A group the method by which competition is conducted is, as a rule, agreement between criminals to stop fighting over the limited number of victims, and to increase their criminal power over their victims by accessing division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, and gain sufficient power by those economic means to arrive at a level of power sufficient to over power the targeted victims, and defend against other criminal groups; legal or otherwise. Withing the B group the method by which competition is conducted is, by mutual agreement among non-criminals, to avoid resorting to crime (crime already defined as willful acts against innocent victims) in the work of using power to make more power, to be productive, to increase the supply of surplus wealth, and in so doing the quality of life increases, and the cost of life decreases, so long as a sufficient amount of power is employed in the work of avoiding victimization, effectively, and not sent to those who make us suffer, and enough is left over to invest surplus wealth where more surplus wealth is the result of such productive investments. Higher quality at lower cost is forced into being by (productive) competition. As non-criminals work toward satisfying the non-criminal demands of everyone, or anyone, else, they are inspired to produce the highest quality product and exchange it for the lowest cost to the consumer, or, failing that goal, someone else will succeed at that goal, and therefore the loser is inspired to work better, or find a better job where quality is a specialty for that person, at that job, and where work is more enjoyable for that person at a better job, and therefore the cost of working is less for that producer, that producer who has found the job he, or she, can do where their product is the best, and their product is sold at the lowest cost to the consumer, the winner of that competition. Criminal competition, can be confused with non-criminal competition, to the benefit of the criminals, and at the expense of the victims, innocent or otherwise, and criminal competition includes every conceivable method, not limited to torture, and not limited to mass murder, and not even limited to the end of the human species, as the method of choice, the most competitive method, by which a criminal is the best criminal, at the lowest cost to the best criminal, and the best criminal passes on all costs to the consumers. Non-criminal competition produces competition, encourages it, empowers it, welcomes it, agrees with it, uses it, and is forced by it, to move production, and life, toward higher quality, non-criminal life, and lower cost, non-criminal life, at the expense of no one. Non-criminal competition increases, exponentially, the supply of surplus wealth, the same supply that can feed the criminal group, if the supply of surplus wealth is allowed to flow to, and finance, the criminal group, legal or otherwise. Power invested in productive use is inversely proportional to power wasted in destructive, or criminal, use; naturally, and as a matter of fact. If the surplus wealth supply is decreasing, it is due to crime, and the ineffective use of power to avoid crime, or the reverse, where productive power is sent to criminals, legal or otherwise. Power can be abundant, power is abundant, without criminals sucking up all the power, power can be even more abundant, and the criminals are then left with two major choices: A. Charity B. Find a competitive, productive, non-criminal job (I can speak of this in great detail) Criminal competition decreases surplus wealth, consumes it, and adds to the work load as the non-criminals expend power, and waste power if power is stolen under the color of law, in the work of defending against crime, and criminal competition must, by necessity, destroy all competition where ever and when ever competition arises. Criminal competition is a monopoly power, it is crime, and each criminal must kill or be killed in that competition, and any momentary alliance, within a criminal power structure, must be the same criminal code of conduct, where the weak are eliminated, or used up, and the strong vie for control over each other, lying, cheating, stealing, from each other, in the work of rendering their competition power-less. Non-criminal competition does not seek to render the competition powerless, by definition, an employment of power used in the willful work required to render a competitor power-less, is a willful act, perpetrated, so as to injure the intended victim, innocent or otherwise, and to gain power at the expense of the target. Non-criminal competition seeks to gain power, and the result of gaining power (not willfully gaining power at the expense of a targeted victim - competitor) will be an increase in power over the competition, to gain the power to produce higher quality, and to gain the power to produce lower cost, which appears to be, at the expense of, a competitor, but, think, please, what is the competitor inspired to do, if the competitor is non-criminal, once a competitor out produces and out sells the loser? Be more competitive. The criminal solution is the same old tired one, in their own words, The Final Solution, eliminate competition. Who wants to be inspired by competition to produce higher quality at lower cost? Who prefers something for nothing (relatively speaking)? In order to reinforce the above understanding of competition I will add that in a Federated Republic, as opposed to a Nation State, the idea is to force competition among separate and sovereign State governments, within the protection of the voluntary union, as opposed to an involuntary union, and thereby empower the producers of wealth (those who are capable of financing government other than a government that is financed by crimes such as successful aggressive wars for profit), empower the "tax payers" with the power of a veto on a low quality, high cost, oppressive separate and sovereign State, within the voluntary union, by voting with their feet, and moving from the more oppressive State, to the less oppressive State, to move from the low quality government to the high quality government, thereby forcing the governing group to satisfy the demands of the productive group. Failure to satisfy the demands of the productive group within a Federated Republic leads to a lower and lower market share, as the unsatisfied productive people group their productive behinds in the less oppressive State. Suppose, for example, that the current government in America was a working Federated Republic, rather than a Nation State (see Patric Henry for greater details on that accurate discrimination), and suppose that Massachusetts was the one State, in the voluntary union, that began, and perpetuated, aggressive wars for profit, and failed repeatedly in succeeding to take the profits from the targeted country, say Canada, and then suppose, that some of the citizens in Massachusetts decided to move to Vermont, rather than continue to pay taxes to a criminal government bent on conducting treacherous, and treasonous, aggressive wars for profit; what then would the people running the Federated Republic do, in such a case? Would the people running the Federated Republic make a law that enforced the return of a tax evader from one separate and sovereign state to another? If the people retain their power to avoid oppression by moving freely from one separate and sovereign state to another, then state governments would be forced, by competition, to improve quality, and lower cost. The world government, a single monopoly, with one single criminal power over all other criminal powers, and over all productive people, is the obvious goal of any organized crime structure - as easy to see as sunlight on a warm summer day. If the power producers, the one's who are the only ones who can finance anything, governments, businesses, whatever, even criminal governments, and even criminal businesses, if those power producers want their government to keep up the good work, invading more and more, profiting more and more, on aggressive wars for profit, then that is what they are, and it may be difficult to accurately discriminate them from any other criminal, on principle, if not body count, or the volume of screams emitted by the tortured innocent victims. In short, it may be a good idea to avoid confusing competition with crime. One is not the other, and confusing the two leads to more crime, and less power for the victims.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2011 05:23 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-audio-blog-april-12-2011.html# 2 of 4 On the subject of being accused of fear mongering. Fear mongering, is what I call The Doom Day Parade, whereby the message is all bad, and the target audience is conditioned to respond with a specific response, such as help-less-ness, power-less-ness, ignorance, apathy, or even violence. 1. A deer in the headlights 2. Flight (into an escape mechanism, depression, etc.) 3. Fight (create a thesis to the antithesis, seeking synthesis) 4, Willingness to be manipulated, even welcoming manipulation, even begging for manipulation, even to a point where a person asks for more torture, please - what is the limit on that scale? The message can be all bad, and the message can include a false solution to the bad news, so as to condition the target audience to respond, predictably, on a path that is ineffective from the perspective of the victim, and productive, or effective, from the perspective of the legal criminal. Just like the U.S. Debt Clock, think man, men, women, that clock documents a measure of control by a few destructive people over many productive people. From the viewpoint of the productive people the Debt is not good, but from the view of the destructive people, that is Credit, that is power flowing, potentially, and actually, in real time, from one group, to another group. The worst cases of The Doom Day Parade include such things as Peal Oil (propaganda) and Over-population. I won't even go into Global Warming, because that is sticky with half truths, whereby actual damage is actually being done by actual people to the so called "environment", two cases in point, the gulf oil spill, and the current "warming" of the globe with plutonium from Japan. Having just finished Alex Jones's second of four audio blog entries, streams of consciousness, I can relate, very well, as my mind has been at this for over 3 decades now, I go to be with it, and it works in my sleep, and I awake with new experiments to test new angles of view, for validity, in the absence of, the scarcity of, competitive angles of view from other people. Alex Jones's competitive viewpoints, seeking higher quality, at lower cost, are among the best I've found so far, including my favorites listed in loose order: Josiah Warren Stephen Pearl Andrews Alexandr I Solzhenitsyn Howard Bloom Eric Fromm Robert Linder Patrick Henry Thomas Jefferson Thomas Paine Norm Chomsky Gore Vidal James Madison (after he saw the light, not before) Karl Hess Ludwig Von Misses Benjamin Franklin and I may add more in the same light The point being, in one sentence: For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it. Blaming the victim for the bad news is a tactic, shooting the messenger, for delivering the bad news. Example: The messenger comes riding and yelling "The Legal Criminals (British in one example) are coming, in fact they are here!", and the response is either: A. Shoot that guy, assassinate his character, do anything to shut him up, so as not to have to acknowledge, let alone deal with, the message. B. Consider the message expediently, judge it for validity, appraise the message accurately, deal with the message, the messenger can be your own damn curiosity; having clicked a symbol on a computer screen, seeking information to challenge your own limits of perception. The news is heavy stuff, and a person having to get from under the spell of brainwashing to self-control, has to undergo a process, and in my case the process was not easy, the process was terrifying, traumatic, difficult, hard, costly, and worth doing, despite the personal cost. The benefit is akin to moving from a state of fear, abject fear, unconscious fear, through terror, and into objective concern. Objective concern is the only path to effective remedy, neither of which are on the paths dictated to us by our victimizers' (possessive); and all one has to do to find those evil men, those conspirators, the legal criminals, for anyone reaching objective concern, is to follow the fraudulent legal money trail back to the source. The solution is as simple as a store owner receiving an I.O.U. from a known deadbeat, refusing the worthless paper, and offering work to the deadbeat, if the deadbeat truly wanted to exchange something for something instead of something for nothing. Case in point: http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/ Case 2: http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904 Case 3: http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904 Case 4: http://lysanderspooner.org/node/40 Case 5: http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm And how to get from A to B: http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html The point being, for anyone to judge, armed with objective concern, is competition for solutions. Let the best solution win, the one highest in quality, and lowest in cost, forced into existence by the force of competition, as the competitors seek to produce the best, at the lowest cost, or someone else will. The bad news is what it is, and it is a monopoly power, a criminal power, crime is a power that seeks monopoly control, kill or be killed, survival of the most deceitful, survival of the most immoral, survival of the most violent, so don't expect to get anything but bad news from that power structure, if you put money into it, what do you expect to get out of it: targets? Don't be surprised that you become the target, if you bet your life on that criminal power struggle. The most you can hope for, is to be in a position to move weaker victims into the meat grinder, before the legal criminals get to you, once you have been placed, or once you volunteer to place yourself, on that hamster wheel, failing to do the necessary work to get off of it. So, don't feel too bad about getting on the horse, or the soap box, and telling other people the competitive viewpoint you own, just, please, entertain the possibility, however remote, that your viewpoint may yet be flawed, at a level that you are not yet able to see.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 12th, 2011 06:46 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-audio-blog-april-12-2011.html#Where are the men? 3 of 4 Roughly half of them are women. Where are the productive, honest, hard working, competitive, powerful people, the one's that constitute the power that will overcome the legal criminal powers? Friend or Foe? It may be helpful to employ something called a bell curve. On one extreme end is the worst of the worst legal criminal, the person who makes the worst plans, destroying the most, causing the absolute worst, the top worst evil human waste, on the top of the tip of the worst human immorality there is, or ever was, and that person is one person. And that person probably has two contenders to that throne more than ready to stab each other in the back, to get the top spot, such is the nature of crime, among criminals, as understand that to be, and I may be wrong - of course. At the other extreme end of the bell curve is the one most productive, most powerful single person, and the two lesser powerful productive people are ready, willing, and able, to out produce, with greater quality, and lower cost, that best of the best, at the slightest error, the slightest weakness in quality, efficiency, productive ability, economy, and measurable productivity, measurable as surplus wealth. In the middle are the average people. At what point do you think the moral scale, the supposed thin blue line, appears on that bell curve? I suggest that on the moral scale the friends of morality, the friends of equity, those who may not be charitable, but those who are at least not willfully criminal, number less than 90 percent of the total population. Criminal and victims, master and slaves, is a relationship, a marriage, a co-dependency, and a bond, a connection that requires active willful thoughts and actions that cement, and perpetuate the bond, and the point at which the victims become the victims and the criminals become the criminals is the point at which, or can be seen as the point at which, each person willfully gains, by force of will, at the unmistakable expense of the known, and measurably known, and accurately measurably known victim in clear view, beyond a shadow of doubt by the criminal committing the crime, even if the victim is unaware of such crime. The ratio of criminal to victims, master to slaves, has to be a very low ratio, heavy on the victims, light in the criminals, or production goes negative, quality plummets, wealth is consumed, and the cost of living skyrockets. The human mind, being able to perceive an imaginary reality, is therefore a mind that can believe in falsehood, and proceed to think and act immorally while being convinced that their thoughts and actions are moral, but under such a condition of false perception, and here is the point, would such a person be productive, or would such a person be destructive by any accurate measure of power, psychological or physical, political or economic? The glut of people, the majority, produce more than they consume, and the proof is knowable, accurately measurable, as a steady rising standard of living, up to the point at which that measure moves in the other direction. Who will be in a position to continue cooperating, despite such things as forced reduction in the supply of oil, leading to higher oil prices, forced reductions in the supply of food, and forced expenses accounting for, dealing with, avoiding, and defending against, a criminal government? The person eying you, at the department store, staring you down, may be one of the willful destroyers of humanity, or he may be a future associate during even tougher conditions of enforced scarcity, enforced power-less-ness, when moral people must adapt better, and must invent better methods by which productive cooperation, productive division of labor, and productive economies of scale are maintained, and productive competition continues to work to force higher quality and lower cost. "Why are you staring at me?" Asked at a more appropriate moment if the opportunity arises? Accurate discrimination between friend or foe, and innocent until proven guilty? I have yet to listen to the last part of Alex Jones's Audio blog part 3 of 4, and I have one more comment to add before proceeding. During my own awakening I had to wrestle with much fear. For example, during the events in Waco Texas, when I saw, on live T.V., tanks crushing and burning a church full of innocent victims down, and as the "Authorities" on the T.V. were claiming that "they were killing themselves", I knew, then, that I could be next, why not, and what happens if I start to sing like a bird? Let me throw this out to you people, and this angle of view is an experiment for you to try on, a competitive viewpoint; if you will. Suppose that there was an insurance company and this insurance company sold Anti-Despotism Insurance. A policy holder pays a premium, and in case of a raid by the ATF, FBI, or CIA, or any government agency of any kind, where the policy holder is injured, the insurance benefit is a measure of money, for compensation for the injury. What my premium would be before I started singing like a bird, like a canary in the coal mine, chocking out my last breaths, warning, warning, look out people, the British are here, my Anti-Despotism Insurance policy before I began to sing, would have been X, or a number, an amount, a monthly payment into the insurance fund, and then, after I began to sing, that premium would skyrocket. Imagine that you are the person at the Anti Legal Crime Insurance Company, and you are the actuary, the accountant, the person responsible with crunching the numbers, and you have to come up with the monthly payment for Alex Jones, or you were the one to have to come up with the monthly premium for Martin Luther King, or Jesus, or Andrew Jackson, or John and Robert Kennedy, or how about some of the latest whistle blowing song birds like John Perkins, or Jesse Ventura? How much do you charge them compared to how much you charge one of the boot licking sycophants who never fail to jump as high as they are told by anyone telling them to jump? What are the bets? How much money do you bet if you have to bet on the chances of person A or person B being targeted by the legal criminals, the despots in official looking clothes, with, or without badges? Don't kid yourselves, I didn't, I don't, the most destructive to the power of the legal criminals move higher up their hit list and this isn't debatable, this is a matter of measurable fact. The fence is an allusion. There is no fence upon which fence sitters sit. The illusory fence, in reality, is a conscious, or a semi-conscious, effort to move weaker victims ahead of you in the line toward destruction, and that is a very painful thing to realize as a person, a moral person with more than a powerless conscience, contemplates the right path to choose; from one moment to the next moment. A. Stave off movement up the list of victims by moving weaker people ahead of you in line. B. Begin to work up in line, inevitably, as you begin to awaken yourself and others to the truth. The line is constructed by the legal criminals, it is their construction, it exists, and there are lists, and there are priorities, and it is a power struggle, and you are either working, producing, to aid, and abet, and become an accessory to those crimes, or you are willfully working against those criminals, to lessen their power. If their power lessens, the line will be deconstructed, the victims will become fewer, and victimization will slow down, and stop, and at that point law will return to its true color, defensive, voluntary, for the productive people, by the productive people, for the honest people, by the honest people, and law will no longer be a method by which crime is made legal. Failing to work, the least little bit, in the work of deconstructing that line, failure to realize that there is no fence to sit on, failure to slow down your willingness to lick the boots of your masters, accomplishes something destructive, keep at it, and you get what you pay for, you reap what you sow, you sleep with the fishes, later than those who are weaker than you, and you will have to lie more, and you will have to destroy more, and more, and more, on that path. There is a thing called objective concern, and it does replace the thing called fear, and there are reasons why, even the weak, gain power in knowledge, accurate knowledge, because that is the stuff of life. I'm going back to the Audio Blog. That was the end of part 3 of 4.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 13th, 2011 12:42 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/alex-jones-audio-blog-april-12-2011.html 4 of 4 A. Common Sense is less common? B. I don't want to be subjected to unwanted, undesirable, and unwelcome, contact with legal criminals? C. It is never ending now. I return to my Joe's Law, power struggle, politically (psychological, or perceptive, reality) economic (physical, or scientifically measurable reality) base of operations, a starting point, a ruler, a calculator, a standard of value, or a reference point by which to begin relative perception, to relate other things to that point of reference, and thereby have a known, and knowable, repeatable, and reinforced understanding of the new things; by relative measure. A. Common Sense is less common? The Power Struggle includes the power by which human beings, as a species, gain the required power needed to perpetuate the species. Ask your children questions. Does the next generation have the capacity to reproduce, and does the next generation have the power to reproduce, to win the power struggle, do they have the common sense needed to reproduce? Do they have the power to live well enough to want to perpetuate life? Common Sense example: [url]http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm [/url] 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. Some, not all, a measurable some, of the current and past generations know the truth of the above measure of common sense. Does the next generation include some, certainly not all, of the people in that generation who know that measure of commons sense, or a measure of common sense similar to that measure of commons sense, that can, and will, lead thoughts and actions that will result in a sufficient use of power invested to gain the required power to perpetuate the species, one more generation? Free Market Capitalist dogma includes a term called a market correction, and if that dogma teaches anything, anything of value, it seems to me, it teaches the certain understanding that things that cannot be afforded won't be afforded, or things that cost too much, can't be purchased. Common sense will become more common, and I think it is a function of actual life, the power struggle, because ignorance, and apathy, and even stupidity, leads to a miserable death, nothing much to live for, and therefore those who survive must have, at some point, managed to make sense of things, accurate, understandable, reasonable, sense. B. I don't want to be subjected to unwanted, undesirable, and unwelcome, contact with legal criminals? I think that there is a whole lot of sense to that method of operation. If the idea is to defend against the injury of innocent people, to defend against the willful thoughts and actions of criminals, legal or otherwise, then the most effective, least costly, least damaging, and most expedient path is to avoid contact with them, once they are accurately known, as possible. That viewpoint, exactly that viewpoint, led me to reinforce the understanding of the need to disconnect all the points of contact, that can be disconnected, between the honest, productive people, and the criminals, the legal ones in particular, since one very obvious connection is the connection that actually documents the flow of power being stolen by the legal criminals and from the honest, working, productive people; which is: the legal money monopoly. There is a very serious problem associated with severing the connection that links honest, working, productive people together with criminals and legal criminals, and that problem concerns the necessity of maintaining a connection between the honest, working, productive people. How can the criminals and the legal criminals be disconnected from the honest, working, productive people, without isolating each individual person? See this? Money connects everyone, as does the internet, as does the supply of oxygen. Take away oxygen, so as to disconnect the honest working people from the legal criminals and everyone suffocates, which is a poor solution - that would be a Final Solution - and the legal criminals win. Bad idea. The game changer, the turning point, is here, do you see it? I am almost certain that Ron Paul knows that this is the fix, this point of connection, and the willful replacement of legal fraud money with open monetary competition, to find, and then use, a connecting medium that manages to empower the power producers while avoiding the cost of transferring power to the legal criminals. Game over for the legal criminals, in one fell swoop, like flipping a switch. Listen to Henry Ford: It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html#ixzz1JQBxMio8 One day the legal criminals appear to be winning, before tomorrow morning they have lost. The legal criminals are then begging for charity, or finding productive work, or starving - powerless. C. It is never ending now. The worst of it, wherever, and whenever, the worst of it is, is, and then what happens? The power struggle is not over, and that is the point.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 13th, 2011 02:50 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north967.html Anyone, Above is one of a few reports of advice concerning the concept of investment. There is a competitive viewpoint to that plan and action. The point I wish to make, mainly, is the point that points out that the value of one investment plan over another investment plan isn't the point, rather, the point is that competition is the point, the more competition there is, the more powerful competition will be, and this is due to the fact that more power is better than less power. Illustrated: 1 (and only 1): Everyone, everywhere, transfers all the power they earn into one form and that form is the one monopoly currency, also known as The World Reserve Currency. To be specific, rather than ambiguous, the measure of power earned, in this viewpoint, is the power that exceeds the power consumed, by each individual. This measure of power can also be known as surplus wealth. Each productive individual produces an amount and each individual consumes an amount, and in every case where an individual produces more than they consume, there is a positive increase in the total amount of surplus wealth on Earth. The illustrated point ONE, here, is to point out that a monopoly power is, in fact, a power that collects all the surplus wealth produced by everyone on the planet Earth, and then that monopoly power, by that process, has the power, or the control, of that surplus wealth, to spend it, to use it, to consume it, to purchase things with it, to hire employees with it, to set in motion actions with it, to build things with it, to invest it, to abuse it, to destroy with it, anything imaginable, but all within the exclusive control of the one monopoly power, and no control, at all, no power whatsoever, held by anyone other than the one monopoly power exists, if the monopoly power manages to create and maintain monopoly power by willfully, actively, and effectively destroying all competition where ever, and when ever, competition arises. 1. The monopoly world reserve currency power where all surplus wealth from every producer on the planet Earth flows. That already exists, in part, it is not an absolute monopoly power, not by a wide margin, but the measure if it is as precise as it needs to be, and anyone, who has in interest in knowing the accurate measure of it, can find that accurate measure, and I can offer one, of many, examples of that accurate measure of that monopoly power: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ There is competition. That isn't the absolute end result of power seeking monopoly control, because power seeking absolute monopoly control can get much worse than that, but that can suffice to hint at where monopoly control will go, if it is allowed to go, if competition is completely eliminated, that Debt Clock becomes much worse. 1. Monopoly That is the only choice. There is no choice. That is where all surplus wealth flows, every watt of power above consumption, from every source on Earth, it all flows from the producers of surplus wealth to that one monopoly power. Now, with that in view, look at the next illustration, and I am not saying that one competitor is absolutely better than another competitor, what I am saying is that the opposite of a monopoly power, the power that opposes the monopoly power, is choice, is a second choice, and a third choice, and a fourth choice, and at least one other choice, so that the monopoly power is challenged, and the challenger will weigh, measure, and leave the monopoly power wanting; wanting higher quality, and wanting lower cost. 1. Monopoly 2. Gold 3. No interest home and business mortgages, low interest electric car, solar panel, and modular vertical farming unit loans at 1 percent interest, and therefore surplus wealth purchasing lower home ownership costs, lower business real estate costs, lower transportation power costs, lower utility costs, lower food costs 4. Silver 5. Other productive and competitive investments to choose from if someone does still have control over the surplus wealth they earn
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 13th, 2011 10:14 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27881.htm Anyone, For your consideration, in the hope of improving the accuracy of perception, awareness, understanding, knowledge, power, control, ability, capacity, I offer that link which helps me lead into an angle of view that can be improved. I have yet to read the article. Here is the title: Libya All About Oil, Or Central Banking? I've heard Lindsey Williams say that it is all about control. I can assert that those who seek control, or power, over other people, are apt to discover the benefits, to them, of employing the power they have in the work of making power scarce. Failure to make power scarce will inevitably result in a change in the power ratio. The legal criminals, elites, globalist, whatever, if their power is greater by this much today and the power of their targeted victims is less by this much today, what happens to the ratio if there is much more power up for grabs tomorrow? Example: The total Power supply is 100. They have control of 99. Their victims have control of 1. The ratio is 99 to 1. Consider adding a reverence of time to that hypothetical situation, say 100 years time, and now you have a historical context from which to measure a sudden change in the total power supply. Suppose, for example, that 100 years before the discovery of oil, the total power supply was controlled by a few people and their ratio of control was maintained at 99 to 1, where, before oil, the powerful group had control of 99% of the power, and their targeted victims had control over 1% of the power, ongoing for 100 years, and then suddenly a new power source began to flow through the social structure whereby the total power supply was, before oil, a total amount of power at 100, the powerful controlling 99%, and the victims controlling 1% of that total amount of power, before oil, and then suddenly the total power supply increases dramatically, power flows everywhere, many victims become more powerful. What happens to the ratio of power between the few very powerful and the many victims? Suppose that oil power increased total power by adding one more zero. Suddenly there is now 1000 power units up for grabs. The powerful people who had a ratio of 99 to 1 over their victims must then gain control over 891 units of new power just to keep their ratio of 99 to 1. They must control 990 total units and allow 10 units to fall into the control of their victims. What happens if the sudden increase in total power becomes a flood of many new sources of power where a majority of the population can easily gain control over large quantities of power? What happens to the ratio? That is a lead in to something I hope, beyond expectation, that someone in here can shed some light on what I am going to offer, as food for thought. Despite every effort, by the legal money monopoly power, the same power that must gain exclusive control over all legal money on the planet Earth, or face the force of competition, and fail to eliminate all competition, and they must then be subject to defeat in the face of higher quality money, at lower costs, despite every effort to gain exclusive control over the one legal money monopoly power, the legal monopoly money power fails. What happens? Which competitor brings down the one legal money monopoly power? Which competitors bring down the one legal money monopoly power, and in doing this, the force of competition begins to force money suppliers to either produce higher quality money, at lower costs, or go out of business for failing in the work of satisfying the consumers of money? Among the many competitors is one competitor that manages to remain well hidden, off the mainstream news networks, and even off most of the alternate news networks, and that competitor is called Islamic Banking. I am going to read the link at the top of the page and then select a quote from it, and then return to this effort, this effort that hopes, beyond expectation. to gain the power of a more accurate perception, by way of reasoned discussion (which appears to be against the law). Most countries don't have oil, but new technologies are being developed that could make non-oil-producing nations energy-independent, particularly if infrastructure costs are halved by borrowing from the nation's own publicly owned bank. Energy independence would free governments from the web of the international bankers, and of the need to shift production from domestic to foreign markets to service the loans. Well, there it is, and I am not alone in this thinking. The interesting part, for those who are interested, is the method by which credit prices are determined. Which method works best, for whom, for which group? If a person (who has recorded a very long history of paying back every cent borrowed) is being charged 79.9% interest, for borrowing money, then that method of determining that charge for credit can be known, because it exists, if it exists. What is that method? Islamic Banking, since it exists, also uses a method by which the price for credit is determined. What is that method? Which method is more competitive? Which method offers the highest quality credit, at the lowest price, and why, and why would one method resort to deceit and violence as a method of competing in money markets? This is a very controversial subject since it is on the thin blue line between socialism and capitalism. This area that is in between socialism and capitalism has been mined, booby trapped, and it is full of smoke and mirrors, please take care if you enter this zone.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 15th, 2011 02:12 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I am listening again. "Anti-Small Business" My comments intend to address the overall, comprehensive, principle and interest, to all honest productive people who do, willfully, knowingly, and consistently produce more wealth than the wealth they consume, the same group of people who earn the credit they deserve for moving civilization from abject misery to higher, and higher, quality of life, and lower, and lower costs associated with living. How about pretending with me, along the lines of having all these honest productive people suddenly waking up, this morning, and seeking methods by which their power to progress toward higher quality life, at lower costs, increases, instead of having their power siphoned off by legal crime, at greater and greater, and greater volumes of power flowing, and flowing, and flowing from them to those legal criminals. Suppose this group of people move their focus of defensive effort, all at once, like a laser beam, toward one expedient, effective, and economical expense, and then they get back to work doing what they do best, which is to produce more wealth and consume less wealth, so that the total supply of wealth increases by their capacity to do so, and the amount of power consumed in defense is spent wisely this time, instead of having the power invested toward defense used to perpetrate the crime of stealing that power. A. Productive people think that their earnings are being used to secure their power to earn from theft, but instead of consuming their defensive power in the work of defense their power flows to criminals who then use that power in the work that ensures the perpetual flow of power from those who create power to those who steal it. B. Productive people wise up, stop sending power to the criminals who steal it, and instead these honest productive people use that portion of their power to effectively deter crime, and therefore have more power to use in the work of creating more power. Path A has many names: 1. Legal Crime 2. The Dollar Hegemony 3. Enforced legal money monopoly 4. Extortion 5. Organized crime 6. Business as usual 7. Wall Street 8. The New World Order 9. The Business Cycle 10. Nationalism, Fascism, Despotism, Communism, Neo-Liberalism 11. Competition is against the law 12. Involuntary Government 13. Crime Path B has many names: 1. Freedom 2. Liberty 3. Justice 4. Equity 5. The Golden Rule 6. Universally applied Law and order 7. The Free Market 8. Federated Democratic Republicanism 9. Classical Liberalism 10. Voluntary government 11. Insurance 12. Effective employment of scarce power in the work required to deter crime while enough excess power remains to increase the power supply rather than consume it. Take any word that works for you and begin to target the one most effective first thing that the productive people can do so as to accomplish the goal of lowering the loss of power to the criminals, and thereby have more power to be used to increase the power supply that is used by productive people toward the work required to make productive people more powerful. A. Scarce power flows from those who produce it to those who use scarce power to make power scarce. B. Scarce power flowing to the legal criminals flows less to the legal criminals, by willful act, and therefore the productive people who produce power are more powerful, and the same willful act that begins to reduce the flow of power from the productive people to the legal criminals accelerates the effective reduction of power flowing to the legal criminals. What is that single effective thing that can turn the evil situation around and begin the process of causing power to once again become abundant instead of scarce? What is the one thing that can be done that turns on the light bulb, awaken all the productive people, and begins that reversal of the power struggle, causing less and less power flowing to the legal criminals, who use that power to make power scarce, and therefore more and more power remains within the control of the people who earn it, and therefore more and more power is used to create more and more power, and once again the quality of life increases and the cost of life decreases by that one change on policy? If you are at a loss, please consider that the answer can be known, and I'm going to add a space between this sentence and the next to simulate a "conversation" between the reader, and I, and offer a moment for you, the reader, to come up with a few possible answers. The question was: What is the one thing that can turn this bad situation around into a good situation? Here is my offering: 1. Legal monetary competition I'm not alone in this focus of attention by productive people on one thing that can be done, one focus of all the defensive power from all the honest productive people, focused like a laser beam, on one thing that can be done to turn this bad situation around into a good situation. Alex Jones says: "You know we are going into Tyranny." We will win, I hear Alex Jones say, if the good guys take action, and I agree, but what action can be taken? Hire people who have a solution, a good solution, a workable solution, and get those people to represent you, and turn this thing around by that plan, that workable plan, with that perfectly easy to attain goal. What plan do the other competitors offer? The plan that I know will work, and I'm almost certain that Ron Paul knows that this plan is the plan that will work, is the plan where the force of competition is lawful, in particular, the force of competition in money markets is made lawful, and therefore the enforcement of one, and only one, legal money is no longer enforced. The use of productive power in the work of enforcing a monopoly, enforcing monopolies of all kinds, is no longer lawful, and instead the use of productive power in the work of empowering competition is now lawful, and that is the plan, and it starts with competition in legal money. Once legal money is a competition, among competitors, the stuff that the productive people use to facilitate trade, becomes, by the force of competition, higher in quality, and lower in cost, reaching for the absolute best possible medium of exchange, and one obvious "quality" of this move from bad to good will be the ability of the currency to resist theft by parasitic legal criminals. Is this too simple? Is this too complicated?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Apr 15th, 2011 02:36 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
04-15-2011 The subject on the Alex Jones radio show turns to the threat by the Globalists (legal criminals) to bring the system crashing down. The response by Alex Jones and the guest speaker is to bring it on, but "we" will suffer, as the "economy" crashes, or some words describing this possible future situation. Why, please think, will there be any pain, or suffering, what-so-ever, if The Dollar Hegemony, or Wall Street, or "The Economy" crashes? What crashes? They are threatening to remove money from the social network, and they can, because "we" have been fooled into giving "them" total control over the one, and the only one, legal money; therefore they can take that money away, and therefore they can enforce that scarcity of money, because "we" let them punish us by allowing them to control our money, and when they want to let us have some, we have to pay them, and when they don't want us to have some (power), they don't let us have some (power), so why would anyone ever be surprised when they follow through with their threat to make us suffer, and we agree to suffer, because we have already agreed to be stupid, for not knowing the simple remedy. Why do we not have a competitive money to use when one of the money competitors threaten us with the threat of pulling their money off the market? Is this too simple for you? Is this too complicated for you? If The Federal Reserve System legal criminals do anything to lower the quality, or increase the cost, of the money they supply us with, and we have the wisdom to have at least one back up money, we simply say, "make my day, punk" and we stop using their higher cost, lower quality money, and they go out of business. They, the Federal Reserve System legal extortion racket operators, can take all their dollar debt with them. Why is this not understood? What is the problem? It seems to me that someone refusing to see the powerful advantage of having competition in money markets may very well be someone who supports the enforcement of a legal crime monopoly money extortion racket, by way of ignorance, or by way of willfully doing so, the fact remains the same, as power flows, and flows, and flows, from those who earn power, to those who steal it. If a nuclear power plant runs out of the power that must be available to cool the reactors there can be a back-up power source, and then that back up power source adds the power needed to pump the water through the system to keep the misery from flowing to everyone as a result of failing to be prepared for power shortages, those made by man, or those made by nature.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 19th, 2011 11:55 am |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, A lying, thieving, torturing, and mass murdering representative represents other lying, thieving, torturing, and mas murdering employers, who hire that lying, thieving, torturing, and mass murdering representative. That is a simple understanding, but it is only simple if the person understanding that simple understanding is not suffering from false belief, whereby simple understanding is rendered powerless, and the error of false belief leads to an exponential increase in confusion as each false step leads the infected person along a rapidly increasing mire of complexity as the web of lies grows, understandably, simply, as a exponential growth rate function. One lie fails to explain reality, leading to two lies failing to explain two of the best false explanations resulting from failure to arrive at a true explanation for reality, leading to four best false explanations for the two earlier failed best competitors working toward explaining reality, leading to eight, sixteen, more, and more, error, and leaving the viewpoint incapable of unraveling the complexity that starts with the first lie. That is the progress of error resulting from a person seeking explanations for reality, willfully working at explaining reality, but set on the wrong path by one lie, and failing to accurately identify the first error. That fails to explain the cause of the lie, as a willful effort by someone, to set someone else along a false path. The creator of the lie, however, can also illustrate the exponential increase in complexity, resulting from lies, willfully produced as a means of injuring someone else, or lies that subject someone to false belief in the lie, either way, the progression of the lie is exponential; leading to something called falsehood. The creator of the lie, the person subjecting other people to the lie, sets in motion an exponential demand for more lies to cover up each challenge to the first lie, and this can be seen, again, as a failure to explain reality. A. Reality B. False reality C. Hypothesis 1 (fails to explain reality) D. Hypothesis 2 (fails to explain reality) False reality is created, and since it is false reality it fails to explain reality, leading to many challenges to false reality, and competition among the many challengers, leading to the last two most plausible explanations, leading to one of two methods of resolving discrepancies as such: A. Reality B. False reality C. Hypothesis 1 D. Hypothesis 2 C. Employ false reality in the work of explaining discrepancies D. Challenge false reality (the first lie) instead of proceeding to explain reality based upon false reality The originator of the lie willfully chooses C. A lie must be created to misdirect efforts to support Hypothesis 1, the best of the best explanations for failure to explain why the false reality does not explain reality, and another lie must be created to misdirect efforts to support Hypothesis 2, the second best explanation for failure to explain why the false reality does not explain reality. The victim who is subject to the lie, not knowing that the lie is a willful lie, may, at some point, question the first lie, and if so, an awaking occurs, if the subject of the lie has been subjected to a long period of false belief in the lie, failing to explain reality, and following a false path, an ignorant path, moving from each new false explanation to the next false explanation, and failing to accurately identify the cause, until such time as, in the moment of awakening, the subject who is subjected to the lie, finds the original false reality, challenges the original false reality, and overcomes it, by replacing the original false reality with a demand for an accurate explanation of reality, one that works, at least until a challenge to the validity of a working explanation arises. If you have read any of my writing you can see, as I do, how my viewpoint works, and I can explain further, that this is a binary viewpoint, and logical, reasonable, such a math, such as simple math, one plus one equals two. If there are two best possible explanations for reality, any specific real thing that is as yet unexplained, one is of higher quality, at a lower cost, compared to the other, and this is the nature of competition, the force of competition, is based upon binary logic, one explanation becomes the obvious winner, and the other explanation becomes the obvious loser, until such time as a better competitor that explains reality more effectively is known. A false step leads to two more false steps which leads to four more false steps. Failure to challenge the first false step is an exponential increase is difficulty if the objective is to explain reality. Oh what a tangled web we weave, It may be a good idea to step back and adopt a new base from which to proceed from, whereby the people desiring a more accurate explanation for reality challenge the notion that the people hired to run the government are good people who are making mistakes as these good people try to do good things. A person who practices to deceive does so on purpose. Do you practice to deceive on purpose? If someone does practice to deceive on purpose they may be trying to deceive themselves on purpose, some people do this, this is a documented fact, but the base from which you may want to adopt, is a base from which you entertain the notion that the people who are hired to run the government are hired to deceive specific people, not themselves, and they are not hired to deceive the people who hire them. A. People who willfully deceive themselves (a self-preservation mechanism, to avoid knowing things that are too destructive to the person who cannot handle that specific reality) B. People who willfully deceive other people, while these people who willfully deceive other people are not deceived, not subject to the deception, themselves. C. People who hire people to deceive other people because the people hired to deceive other people are very effective at that practice, both employee and employer are not subject to the deceptions I wrote all that above as a lead in to a few things that my efforts have won a long battle to back track each supposed truth, challenge each one, so as to arrive at a higher quality explanation, having no better challenger to the higher quality explanation, and to offer the higher quality explanation up for any challenger anywhere, on specific things. All that above is introductory. What comes next is specific to current reality. I. The Constitution is not a document designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite. II. Capitalism is not a method of commerce designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite. III. Law is not based upon punishment, it is based upon the opposite. IV. Science is not based upon truth, it is based upon the opposite. V. Religion is not based upon belief, it is based upon the opposite. You may reach this point in reading and conclude that I do not represent you, and my viewpoint is false, and that is why I don't represent you, because you won't settle for false viewpoints, you prefer to know the truth instead. How can you know the truth if you do not challenge your perceptions of the truth? I can begin to challenge what I have earned as a more accurate viewpoint concerning specific things listed above. I've done my homework, you can ignore what I have to offer, as a competitive challenge to popular falsehoods, at your own cost. You can remain in a state of ignorance willfully, as you see fit, and I certainly do not represent you if that is your choice. I. The Constitution is not a document designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite. The process by which The Articles of Confederation were replaced by The Constitution is well documented by the people who went through that process, and the facts concerning why that process was willfully set upon is clearly explained by those who perpetrated that campaign of willful deceit by those criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Morris, upon their targeted victims, all the people who then became subject to those lies, from that point onward. If you are one of the people who are subject to the lies that moved the process by which The Articles of Confederation were replaced by The Constitution, then that is what you are, a subject to those lies, and if you fail to admit it, you deceive yourself. This is your notice, do with this as you please, at your own peril. you will be powerless from this point on, because you fail to know the facts. I can offer support for this challenge to that lie, and the next two things I offer represent a tip of the iceberg of support that challenges that lie, the lie that subjects the victim of the lie to a false perception that The Constitution is designed to perpetuate a state of liberty, it is not, it is designed to do the exact opposite. Evidence item 1: http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/index.htm That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, That is a document that is designed to perpetuate a state of liberty, and to do so by inspiring anyone who has command of the power of reason to continue challenging anyone who may employ the concept of government falsely so as to use government as a tool to help the employer of the tool to commit crimes. Evidence item 2: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; The first insurrection that set defenders of liberty against a new criminal government occurred in Massachusetts under The Articles of Confederation, when such challenges were still considered legal, and the criminals running money monopoly tax funded aggressive wars for profit up into Canada, the criminals running the legal crime ring in the Massachusetts government, encountered difficulty enforcing their tax payments, from their victims, in gold, since their worthless money products drove gold out of the criminal state, and their victims invented whiskey as currency to replace the scarce gold money supply, and the "rebels" had enough of that, so they rebelled, lost the rebellion, and fled to a better state, a state that wasn't as criminal, they fled to Vermont, the rebels lost the rebellion against the criminal Massachusetts government and they fled to a better example of a more perfect union in Vermont, and by that precedent, the Swiss model Democratic Federated Republic worked as it was intended to work, whereby competition in government markets forced the quality of government higher, at a lower cost to the consumer. That precedent bode badly for the legal criminals, who could not tolerate competition in money markets, and therefore they could not tolerate competition in government markets, so they set about to make examples of those who take it upon themselves to challenge omnipotent government dictators and their dictatorships. Back to this: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; That is the stuff that leads to this: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit; That is, again, the tip of the iceberg that unravels the lie that makes the victims believe that The Constitution was designed to perpetuate a sate of liberty, it was not, it was designed to help perpetuate a dictatorship; legal crime. II. Capitalism is not a method of commerce designed to help perpetuate a state of liberty, it is the opposite. This subject is difficult to unravel because the supporters of capitalism hide their secrets, they do not confess their true motives, they absolutely refuse to be led back to the source of their lies, so all efforts to uncover the truth require a measure of subjective assumption, but not much. I am not speaking of State Capitalists, I am speaking about free market capitalists, and the focus of attention that could lead anyone to the simple, base, truth of the design and purpose of capitalism, according to its supporters, is the focus of attention that focuses on two specific things concerning capitalism. A. The method of pricing B. The highest quality money, forced into production by free market forces, where the best money is produced and priced at the lowest cost. To put it mildly: all discussions between myself and anyone promoting capitalism has been, is, and will be interesting, and to get to the principles behind capitalism the process must get past all the lies first, and this has been a proven fact, a well documented fact, a repeatable fact, and I can only hope, beyond hope, that the same path won't be the path of choice again, where the supporters of capitalism choose the path of falsehood, so as to keep their secrets secret, and to cover up their true motives, and eliminate all competition to their dogma, where ever, and when ever it arises. A very good start, if I get to start the Challenge to capitalists who support capitalism is to offer a few examples of higher quality money, at a lower cost, and then challenge a supporter of capitalism to explain which money would be the better money that would be produced as a result of free market forces. These following forms of money have challenged other forms of money and they have proven themselves to be higher quality and lower priced money products: http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904 http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf http://www.libertydollar.org/ I've done my homework here too, so if you are prepared for a fair challenge, then let us get to it, we can all profit from such a challenge, at the expense of no one; excepting those people who make a living out of earning at the expense of their victims, who will no longer have the power to do so, once their victims are clued in. III. Law is not based upon punishment, it is based upon the opposite. Law is an agreement between individual people who choose to avoid the resort to crime as a means of earning a living. Punishment is what criminals do, it is their MO, and to be convinced that punishment is the basis of law, is to do what? I've done my homework here too, be ready for a challenge to your beliefs, and we can borrow from many sources, including religion, but when the rubber meets the road, you know, you really do known, that criminals don't obey laws, that is what they do, so making a law that applies to a criminal is missing the point. Criminals use law to control power, limit the supply of power to a manageable level, and use that stolen power to eliminate all competition where ever, and when ever competition arises, and the criminal function of punishment is for these goals exactly, to take power from those who create power, the only power source, to use that stolen power to govern the production of power to a manageable level of scarcity, and to eliminate all competition where ever and when ever competition arises. Punishment to a criminal is that which is done to the victims, and that which is not done to the criminals, because criminals do not obey laws, that is what they do, they construct and enforce laws that apply only to their targeted victims, which invariably happen to be the people who produce surplus wealth, and they are themselves exempt from those very same laws. To believe otherwise is a poor investment of brain power. These viewpoints I offer assume an agreement to employ language as a tool that intends to convey accurate meaning; and therefore it is important to resolve any contentions concerning worlds that may not be understood as having a common, agreeable, meaning; such as the word punishment. Example: If a voluntary association of people agree to cooperate with each other and avoid, pledge to avoid, promise to avoid, agree to avoid, resorting to crime as a means of earning a living, then the concept of punishment can be seen as an agreement to choose an agreeable path whenever one of the volunteers does resort to crime, by some momentary loss of control, and once the volunteer regains control of his, or her, good moral sense, then, at that point, the volunteer volunteers to abide by the agreeable laws, once again, after having suffered a momentary weakness, after having resorted to a temporary use of crime as a means of earning a living, the agreeable law followed includes willful actions that are designed to restore any damage that may have resulted from the momentary error in judgment whereby the volunteer did, in a moment of weakness, resort to crime as a means of earning a living, at the expense of the targeted victim or victims. A person can call that effort to restore any damage caused by a former law abiding, volunteer, in a voluntary association, as a punishment, a means of helping people to avoid those errors, and a person can then say, by that use of those words, that punishment deters crime; but why contort language to such a state of ineffectiveness? If the former law abiding person turns to crime and then returns to abiding by law, the person volunteers to restore the damage done, how can that be punishment? We can all agree that punishment, in that sense, is a means by which volunteers, reasonably, decide to restore any damages caused by a volunteer, if a volunteer does decide to be a criminal, momentarily, and then the volunteer decides to return to an agreeable association, and then agrees to suffer punishment. Why distort language so willfully? Punishment is a criminal invention, punishment is a synonym for crime, and punishment is what a criminal volunteers to do to an intended victim, the criminal intends to profit at the expense of the targeted victim, punish the victim, transfer power from the victim, to the criminal. That is crime. If you want to know how a system of governance becomes up-side-down, going from a design that intends to perpetuate a state of liberty and going into a tool used by criminals so that criminals gain control over the scarce supply of power, and then use that control over power to make sure the power remains scarce, so that they alone set the price on power, and they then jack up the price to whatever the monopoly market will bear, and they use that power to eliminate all competition where ever and when ever competition arises, well, you have a clue now. They distort language, and they make people believe in lies, and they make people think that crime is good, that punishment is good, that law is based upon the concept of punishment, and that law is not based upon the concept of reasonable agreement among volunteers who agree to avoid resorting to crime as a means of earning (stealing) a living. That depends upon what is is. People, not things, distort language, and it is a function of deception, and deception is a function of violence. An effective method of dealing with criminals is to gain more power than they have, and then use that power to avoid criminals, sever all contact with criminals, because contact with a criminal, by definition, is an expense to the victim, and a profit for the criminal. If you want to call avoidance of all contact with criminals punishment, then you do so from the criminal perspective; to the criminal it is a punishment to have his, or her, connections to his, or her, victims severed, to the victims, it seems to me, it is an effective, reasonable, and effective use of scarce power in defense against crime. Criminals volunteer to be criminals, it is a willful act to plan on injuring innocent victims, and it is also a willful act to execute, or hire someone, or trick someone, to execute the premeditated, aggressive, injury to an innocent victim, so if a criminal knows that such a willful act will, by design, transfer power from the targeted, and thereby injured, victim, then the criminal volunteers to be a criminal, as a willful choice. If a criminal is accurately identified by the victims, before or after the crime is executed, then the victims, and the potential victims, can choose to expend power toward the effective work of severing connections between the criminal and the victim, if that is done, then criminals know, beforehand, that crime won't pay, in the long term, and crime won't pay as much in the short term; when defense against crime moves toward effective plans and effective actions that are designed to avoid crime. When the victims use their power to profit at the expense of the criminals; they become that which they, supposedly, abhor, they are no longer innocent, they are slightly less criminal in principle - like screwing to regain virginity. Resorting to punishment, without twisting language into something that cannot communicate effectively, is the same thing as resorting to crime, as a means of making a living. The universally agreeable concept of law is not the same thing as the creation and employment of a defensive military force, but that is another subject. I can speak much more on this subject but for now I want to move back to my laundry list. IV. Science is not based upon truth, it is based upon the opposite. Science, as far as I know, can arrive at only one sure thing, and this sure thing, this one indisputable scientific fact, is proven even during any effort to disprove it, and, unfortunately, this one indisputable scientific fact renders the power humans have to discover any more indisputable facts impossible. Since this viewpoint I offer is so absolutely certain I'll leave it to those who are willing to challenge it, without too much effort on my part to support it in the face of potential challenges. V. Religion is not based upon belief, it is based upon the opposite. What I have to say here is akin to the last challenge, as my viewpoint is self evidently true. My viewpoint does not rely upon subjective interpretation. I deny subjective interpretation of religion. I do so as follows, and these are mere words, the meaning that intends to be transferred from me to the reader may not transfer well due to the limitations of human language. God is truth. Truth is God. They are one and the same thing. If you want to communicate something you know to someone else, from my viewpoint, you can interchange the word God with the word Truth, and the message will be the same message in either case. Example: I have decided to employ what life I have left in search of the truth. Again, the message here may not transfer well from me to you. I can work with this method of understanding religion. It works for me. I'm not going to say that God told me to see religion this way, because I don't know the truth. The best I can do is to employ what life I have left in search of the truth. I can guess. God doesn't have me on speed dial, not yet. I will keep looking, and I won't settle for less. I have declared war on falsehood awhile ago, and it works for me, so far, I represent only me. Those who hire liars, to lie, get what they pay for, and that may be closer to the truth than those who hire liars want to get.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 20th, 2011 09:41 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The office of The President of the United States, a legal fiction, and a legal sovereign limited liability corporation executor, has been referred to as a bully pulpit. Example: http://www.merriam-webster.com/word-of-the-day/2010/05/20/ "Bully pulpit" comes from the 26th U.S. President, Theodore Roosevelt, who observed that the White House was a bully pulpit. For Roosevelt, "bully" was an adjective meaning "excellent" or "first-rate" -- not the noun "bully" ("a blustering browbeating person") that's so common today. Roosevelt understood the modern presidency's power of persuasion and recognized that it gave the incumbent the opportunity to exhort, instruct, or inspire. He took full advantage of his bully pulpit, speaking out about the danger of monopolies, the nation's growing role as a world power, and other issues important to him. Since the 1970s, "bully pulpit" has been used as a term for an office -- especially a political office -- that provides one with the opportunity to share one's views. I can offer, as one entrusted in the opportunity to share one's views, examples of speeches that are designed to persuade, exhort, instruct, and inspire. A Presidential Address: I speak today, mainly, to the honest productive people in America, without whom there would be no wealth, there would not be any wealth, there would be no food, there would be no clothes, no shelter, there wouldn't even be any shoes to cover our feet if we suddenly wanted to be honest, and we then set about to produce something. To all the other people, the dishonest people, or the non-productive people, I urge you to listen too, be warned, I intend to wake up the honest productive people and set them on a course that disconnects them from the dishonest people. Once the honest productive people are disconnected from the dishonest people, they will be better able to care for the non-productive people, if the honest productive people care enough to be charitable. If not, then not, so this can be a warning, as well as a wake-up call, to both honest and dishonest, productive and non-productive, and I promise to address the destructive people near the end of this speech too. Because of you, the honest productive people in America, the human species now commands the power to step into a new and exiting age of unlimited prosperity, and begin earnestly reaching out and colonizing other planets, which is as significant a step as is the step from non-intelligent life to intelligent life. Intelligent life, once life gains that power, can know the difference between honest productive work and work that causes the extinction of life, and the proof of this will be recorded or not recorded depending entirely on the decisions we make right now, with our honest, and productive, intelligence. Failure is an option, and many among us are making that choice willfully, all one has to do is listen, listen and hear, to know, the screams of the innocent people being tortured, on your dime, and all one has to do is open the eyes God gave you, and see, and see all the mass murdered bodies piling up around the globe, and know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that your honest productive hard work has been stolen from you, and that power you once owned has been used to willfully accomplish those agonizing deaths of those innocent victims. It is well past time that the honest productive people in America, and you know who you are, and you know that it is your honest productive work that has, in fact, created a paradise on earth, if not for those few who have, and will, commit the worst inhuman deeds mankind has ever know, if you care to look, it is well past time, that the honest productive people in America regain control of the wealth, the power, that you alone create, and once you have that power, I strongly suggest, that you invest it toward two major goals that I will now spell out to you, without ambiguity. No fine print. No hidden messages. No lies. No falsehoods, no dirty tricks, no secret deals, no back stabbing, no need to read between the lines, no inventing hidden motives, no suspicions, everything laid right out on the table, for all to see, and to judge, and to know, and to proceed onward intelligently, if you command that power. If not, then not, and there is no hope for us, too bad for us. 1. Avoid, as much as possible, your connections with the destructive people, leave them to their self elected misery. If they no longer have you to victimize, they may wise up, and they may return seeking honest productive work, or they may beg for charity, and then you have the power to decide if you will be charitable, and you will decide if they are good enough, honest enough, and productive enough to join your ranks. 2. Use whatever power you have, in excess of the power you must use, to make more power. Do you understand the absolute necessity involved in these goals? If you do not, you are not yet awake to the actual conditions of human existence, and either you will seek help, or you will perish a miserable, torturous, and meaningless death, as God is my witness, it has come to this, and it may be too late. You have ignored past warnings, you have not addressed pressing concerns, effectively, and the evil destructive people among us now command near absolute control of the power you produce, and they are working toward your torturous murder. All you have to do to escape that miserable death is the see it coming and avoid it. I have already laid out for you two simple, unambiguous, legal financial products, previously enumerated, spelled out for you, that are the tools that you can use, if you choose to use them, in your honest productive work, that can work for you, so that you can avoid a torturous and miserable murderous death, at the hands of the worst human slime that ever polluted the Earth, and from those steps you can reach for the Universe and make it a human paradise too - if that is what you want to do once you are liberated. Please do not take this speech lightly, it is what it is, no more, no less.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 20th, 2011 04:20 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Listening to Alex Jones 04-20-2011 Anyone, A reference was made to Andrew Jackson, and I have some news on that President. During the build up to the Civil War, Madison and Jefferson began moving power from the consolidated government (Nationalism, or despotism) back to a Democratic Federated Republican form, by authoring The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which were quasi-legal statements claiming, or almost claiming, a legal power, held by a State, to veto laws that are written and then enforced by the National government people. Andrew Jackson decided to turn his coat, flip flop, go back on his word, break his campaign promises, and side with consolidation, or monopoly, power, and he then set in motion a military force that would be used to enforce a consolidated National government law, in this case a tax law, on the people in the States that intended to veto said law. That is the same president, Andrew Jackson, who did break up the national monopoly banking power, as promised, and I think he, Andrew Jackson, had it written on his tomb stone, I Killed the Bank. A monopoly power, by definition, is a power that exists when competition does not exist, and competition is a force, a collective power, a summation of many individual powers, that forces quality up and cost down. So, logically, what happens when a monopoly power exists, what happens in the absence of competition, and you can guess: quality goes down, and cost goes up, or, in other words: The average standard of living decreases, the supply of power decreases, surplus wealth decreases, but who pays the bills? The only ones who can. The honest working productive people pay the bills, no one else can, by definition. Nationalism, is monopoly power defining itself, as the few intend to, and then accomplish, the goal of gaining power over surplus wealth, then using that power to make sure that no one else has enough power to gain that power, and this is the same thing as crime. Crime is the same thing, whereby the criminal intends to, and then accomplishes, the goal of gaining power over a victim. A criminal does not ask another criminal if it is OK to steal from a victim, unless there are too many criminals, and not enough victims, which isn't good for criminals, because someone has to actually work, or there isn't any surplus wealth. So, criminals, must, as a rule, minimize the number of criminals feeding off the number of victims, so by that understanding, it is easy to see that the criminal club must be exclusive. There is one, and only one, absolute ruler, in the form of government called Nationalism, there cannot be two, two absolute rulers moves away from Nationalism, and two absolute rulers moves the form of government into the realm of Federated Republicanism. Moving absolute rule to more than two absolute rulers moves the government form even further away from Nationalism, through the Federated Republican form, and on into a Democratic form, and if all the people agree to all be absolute rulers, no one having more power over anyone else, what, with the knowledge you command, is that form of government? The point here, is to point out, if you want to know, that moving closer to Nationalism (despotism, organized crime, by any other name it is the same thing), moves absolute power closer to one exclusive power, closer to a monopoly, and further away from competition, and therefore power moves further away from the force of competition, whereby quality goes up, and cost goes down, which is possible, it is possible for power to move to increase the force of competition if the supply of power increases to a level of abundance, everyone has the power to compete, not just one, whereby everyone has more then enough power needed, and then even more power than that, where everyone has more power than they need, which isn't what the criminals, or the supporters of Nationalism want, because they want exclusive power to steal from those who create power. What do you think was meant by the phrase: The Pursuit of Happiness? A. I'm happy so long as I get something for nothing from me, no cost to me, something I get, at the expense of someone else. B. More than enough for everyone C. Torture and mass murder, and the end of the human species, as soon as humanly possible Does it depend upon who you ask? Listening to Alex Jones is very important to me. Few people, more people now than ever, that I know about, speak about current events, whereby the worst of the worst legal criminals are being accounted for, so as to provide the potential victims with the knowledge needed if the goal is to avoid becoming a victim, and even, if the goal in mind is to help other people avoid becoming victims. The Paul Revere effect - perhaps. Or more words from Patrick Henry apply, the bit about knowing the worst of it, etc. I now hear Alex Speaking about Magna Carta. I have two things for you on that subject. A. http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences B. http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/jimbellap.htm The first link is an exhaustive study on Trial by Jury, from which the reader may learn something about the original concept of Trial by Jury. Please do consider reading and learning those concepts. They include: 1. Each individual person is empowered with the legal power to veto any law. 2. Each individual person selected to be on a jury will be selected randomly, so as to remove any power that will Stack the Jury in favor of any interest associated with each case 3. The number 12 is merely a function of averages, 12 is enough people to speak for all of The People, whereby a large enough number is needed to represent all classes, and all interests, of the entire collective body of The People, and a small enough number is needed to ensure that trials will be expedient, and therefore capable of accomplishing the intended job and therefore not capable of working against the intended job. 4. The intended job is defined as a means by which The People subject to government defend themselves against oppression by The People who operate government. 5. Members of the Jury command absolute power over all judgment in each case, including the absolute power to judge the validity of the law, without exception, each juror is a legal sovereign power, each entrusted with the duty of nullifying oppressive laws according to each individual jurors own, exclusive, power of moral judgment, conversely, each is entrusted with the duty of accurately identifying the people who are guilty of perpetrating crimes, and the duty of prescribing a morally justifiable punishment, if any. I can tell you that such talk, because I've done my homework, inspired the people running the Fully Informed Jury Association Forum, to exile me, remove me from that forum, without even allowing me a proper defense. In that one person's view, I was presumed to be guilty, and there wasn't even a burden of proof, the presumption went right to punishment. Does that sound familiar? The second link addresses the meaning of the quote taken from the first link. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. Do you understand how such a thing would have worked in historical context? Did you read the essay by Jim Bell? Please note that Jim Bell, as far as I know, was arrested and is still doing time in prison. Can you imagine that? Jim Bell's essay can be known as a science fiction novel based upon historical fact. Do you know what a put option is, and how that works? A classic example of a put option is the example by which some people purchased legal financial paper whereby the buyer of the paper paid a price to get the paper and if American Airline stock plummets in value the person who bought the put option "makes a killing", or, in other words makes a profit, as the paper is thereby legally worth more money that it was worth when it was originally purchased. The concept is also called "futures". It is gambling, or speculating, and prior knowledge of impending disaster is a powerful thing, so powerful, as to inspire the future thing to happen, in some cases. You may be confused by my words here, and you may be less confused if you read the links. At some point the focus of attention by a whole lot of people, focusing attention at one thing, causes that one thing to happen, and it is a good idea, in my opinion, to be aware of how that works, and to be concerned about how that can work against many of us, cost us too much, and how that can work too well for a very few of us, as the very few profit, at our collective expense. I think that Jim Bell went to prison for a thought crime, so you may want to check out what Jim Bell thought up. Or not.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 21st, 2011 01:25 am |
|
14th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Kilgore Trout, I stepped out for dinner, and so, upon returning, I can work at connecting the concept of connectivity to my topic title, which is Joe's Law. Repeating Joe's Law: Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases, because power reduces the cost of production. Information is power. Information produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of information while purchasing power increases, because information reduces the cost of production. How about the invention of a new secret source of power, such as fire, in the past, or such as something as yet not invented today, and we can call this secret source of power a widget. A. Fire spreading like wildfire through human society in the past. B. The widget connecting each new user, not yet using one, to each old user, currently using one, of the widgets, if it is hypothetically invented today, right now. In the case of fire there may have been a few users who didn't want their knowledge falling into the wrong hands, or a few people wanted to sell the idea, patent it, collect royalties, and even pass on the patents, and the royalties to his, or her, decedents. Fire traveled, when human beings started using it, and human beings have undergone a process by which they didn't use it, and then they did use it, and the before and after, cause and effect, is a measurable increase in leverage, or economic capacity, or productivity, or more benefit for less cost, and at first there were the halves, and at first there were the halve-nots, and the haves, by some means, some connection, some medium, transferred the information to the have-nots, and the point here is to point out the physical properties of the medium. How fast or slowly does the information about fire travel through the entire human social structure, what explains, or quantifies, the resistance between each human being during the process by which the information about fire travels from the first fire user to everyone else? In the past the medium was time and distance, and not much more than human self propulsion, walking, and running. Society A gains the power today. Society B gains the power a century later, or even later, or sooner, depending upon how fast the information travels by human self propulsion, or by coincidental invention. The measure of resistance is great, difficult to imagine. There is another useful concept that can be borrowed from physics called the path of least resistance. Today a person may invent the widget, and suppose that the widget is remarkably powerful, a revolutionary power source, and we can quantify that for the purpose of gaining a relative measure of it - a hypothetical illustrative fabrication of fiction. Suppose the widget, once a person has the plans of it transferred to him, or her, costs an average weeks pay check to construct, at any average home, anywhere on earth, out of average materials, and then suppose, since the idea here is to invent an illustratively very powerful new thing, suppose that the weeks work of average work constructs something that produces an average rate of electricity consumption for an average home, and the widget keeps on working, and doesn't wear out, not yet, none yet have worn out, it is estimated to keep running for 20 years, conservatively, and the new user who begins using the widget at home, uses CO2 and sunlight as the fuel that is consumed during the process of producing electricity, and just for added effect, again to illustrate the point that I'm intending to point out, that the same device produces a large quantity of waste that can be used to replace the gasoline that is used to run modern motor vehicles, and we can quantify that waste product to be enough waste to fuel an average car, running an average total miles, for an average year, which is a rate of waste production, not a total quantity. Once built the thing keeps using CO2, using Sunlight, and it keeps on producing a significant rate of electric power, and a significant rate of waste that can be burned up in the process of moving cars over roads. So the person receiving the plans for the widget, spends a weeks worth of effort, and receives something that will generate and continue to generate enough electric power to run his home, and enough waste material that can be disposed of by burning all that waste material in the car by driving the car all over the place, or sell the waste to other people if too much waste piles up and the user of the new widget doesn't drive enough to get rid of all the waste piling up around the widget as it continues turning CO2 and Sunlight into electricity. 1. Cost = one average weeks pay. 2. Benefit = constant supply of electricity 3. Waste = constant supply of motor fuel disposed of in the process of burning the waste in cars driving all over the place, or selling the waste to people who burn it up in cars driving all over the place. So what can possibly explain the resistance, if there is any, between the first person who invents the widget, uses it, and the next person, and the next person, and the next? How is the resistance between the first and the last person to use the widget measured, what is the physical properties of the medium between the people who have and the people who do not have the widget during the process by which the plans, or the examples, of the widgets pass from the first person to all the rest of the people? What would you do with those plans? What keeps those plans from passing to the next person after you? What happens to the human species, as a whole, if the widget is invented today, and next week everyone has their widget up and running? What is the nature, the physical nature, of the medium in between each person who is connected by the widget invention, over time, and will anyone be seeking the path of least resistance if someone does not yet have one, but wants one? Does that manage to connect the topic title to the concept of a connecting medium, such as water, or air, or a network, or a legal fiction?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Apr 21st, 2011 12:48 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The socialism versus capitalism conflict serves those who support it, and it may be a good idea to employ limited power working on more productive projects. Then again, it may be a good idea, to resolve some of the destructive affects of that socialism versus capitalism conflict which serves those who support it. Resolve 1: Power flows to those who support that socialism versus capitalism conflict and that same power flows from the honest productive people who are the only ones who produce the power that flows to those who support that socialism versus capitalism conflict, and those who support the socialism versus capitalism conflict can be accurately known if the paper trail is accurately followed as the power flows from those who produce the power, to those who support, and perpetuate, the socialism versus capitalism conflict. Resolve 2: Socialism is one thing according to one type of socialist. Socialism is one thing according to a opposing type of socialist. Capitalism is one thing according to one type of capitalist. Capitalism is one thing according to a opposing type of socialist. There are at least 4 major groups involved in the socialism versus capitalism conflict, each group is specifically not each other group, there are 4 different groups, and among the socialists there are 2 diametrically opposed separate groups, and among the capitalists there are 2 diametrically opposed groups. I can show you the facts, written by the actual people claiming to be opposed to the opposing groups, but will refrain from that lengthy report for now. The voluntary socialism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary socialism group. The voluntary capitalism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary capitalism group. The involuntary socialism group is diametrically opposed to the involuntary capitalism group. The voluntary socialism group is fully supporting the voluntary capitalism group, in principle, if not in interests. Resolve 3: What group, if there is one, anywhere, does not resort to premeditated willful designs, plans, thoughts, that result in willful injuries to innocent victims, on purpose, for profit, among the 4 separate, and distinct groups in Resolve 2 above? Which group do you support? If the group that does not resort to willful injuries to innocent victims, by deceit, by threats of violence, and by willful acts of direct violence against innocent victims, exists, if that group exists, what do they call themselves? Raise your hand, please, and let me know where you stand, and from those resolves, I think the conflict can be understood to be what it is, instead of it being a tangle web of deceit.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Apr 24th, 2011 10:35 am |
|
16th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
There is your evidence, thanks for proving my point. Now anyways back to your original contentions: Anyone, Failing to communicate can be proven as a deliberate effort to falsify the facts. A question can be dodged, or a question can be answered. When a question is not answered, and instead the question is quoted and said to be an example of "proviing my point", then the question quoted is not answered, rather, the question quoted is dodged. The failure to communicate is willful. The person failing to answer the question willfully dodges the question, but that is not enough, the question asked is propped up, falsely, as a claim of some nebulous proof of some other false representation. What is the point? The point here is an obvious case of someone having an interest in maintaining a false perspective concerning a specific document, that was a deliberate usurpation by specific criminals who confess their crime in secret meetings, but their crimes were discovered, and reported, for anyone having an interest in knowing the truth, to know. Those who have an interest in not knowing the truth, tend to resort to character assassination, deceit, and other things, so as to preserve the abject belief is a false perspective. Dodging questions are par for the course, and misrepresentation such as the claim of "proof" of some earlier misrepresentation is also the default mode of operation on that path. There is your evidence, thanks for proving my point. Now anyways back to your original contentions: What is the point? If the point here is a defense of a belief in some nebulous good in The Constitution, would the defender need to resort to misrepresentation? If the point is to discuss the facts, why would someone choose to ignore the facts instead? As I said before a militia no longer exists so this is quite irrelevant but I will address it anyways. Saying something does not make something true. The militia may or may not exist, and diverting attention down that path dodges the point. The point being that The Constitution was designed to suppress rebellions such as Shays's Rebellion before the usurpation, and The Whiskey Rebellion after the usurpation. How does the topic manage to dodge the original point as if the original point never existed, what is the point of erasing history as if it never existed? Who does those things, and why do those people do those things? What is the point? The calling forth of a militia to execute the laws of the union is necessary. The warnings from the opponents of The Constitution included warnings about people who make up new meanings for the words written into The Constitution, meanings such as the version above, but that is another dodge, since the specific meaning of the original challenge I offered concerned "suppression of Insurrection" which must have sounded a whole lot like "suppression of rebellion" which was something that was quite fresh in the minds of the people who rebelled against the criminals who were executing the laws of the criminal British government, and fresh in the minds of those same veterans of that police action, who then rebelled against the tax collecting usurpers in the State of Massachusetts, and then fresh in the minds of the veterans who then rebelled against the tax collectors of the newly formed consolidated national police state enforcers. But to some people, obviously, those are irrelevant facts, as those facts fail to support the false belief. If 50% of the people decided to run around raping, murdering, and razing cities would you just sit by and twiddle your thumbs hoping it sorts itself out or call upon a militia? Anyone, This person is ratcheting up the personal attacks, to a much higher degree. After the legal criminals tortured and mass murdered the innocent victims, including pregnant mothers, in Waco Texas I worked, against my wife's pleas, with her having to raise or two children, with me being our only source of income, I worked to join the armed march on Washington that was offered by Linda Thomson as a workable response to those unspeakable crimes. Finding out that the effort was not powerful enough to deter violence, cooler heads prevailed. I then ran for congress, got on the ballot, still working over 60 hours a week, still the only source of income, still raising 2 children, getting on the ballot, but failing to buy the election. I ran on the "it isn't nice to legally torture pregnant women and burn babies alive" ticket. If this forum has moderators, let them moderate. If they find cause to censor me, which is most likely your plan, then so be it. I have personally talked to a person who claimed to have survived Waco, and she answered my question: "If you could go back in time, what would you do differently?" She said: "I would have gone back in the fire to help save someone else." It is your power that perpetuates legal torture, as more and more of your type add to the total power focused toward what you are doing right now. It is this abject refusal to know the facts, and this contorted disinformation campaign of willful production of falsehood that covers the true nature of the crimes, not limited to willful torture, not limited to willful mass murder, and reaching for the extinction of the human species. The same goes with an insurrection, if there was a small group of radical communists, Islamists, whatever-ists who decided to start murdering and destroying everything, who would suppress them? Anyone, Does anyone else see the dodge going on here? The twisting of facts? The willful distortions? The so called government, from day one, covered up their abuse of the law power with The Constitution. Today isn't any different, it is the same thing, what was then, is now, and it isn't a surprise. All the bad, of what is now, was reported to be what will be by the people who opposed The Constitution. This is what the thing was made to do, this is the result of the plan, as it was planned to occur. http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. The workable solution, proven to work is such examples as the Swiss Republic, and the Federated Democratic Republic that was working under The Articles of Confederation, is a government that preserves the force of competition between competing governments, where the competing governments are separate and sovereign legal entities, and the tax base, the people who support the operation of the various State governments, because they have the power to do so, the power to create surplus wealth, that tax base, are free to vote with their feet, and a lower quality State government will become weaker, and weaker, if it grows more and more oppressive, relative to a higher quality, and lower cost, State nearby. This is not news, but this may be unwelcome news for someone who willfully chooses ignorance, so as to maintain a false belief, or for whatever reason someone might dream up for willfully choosing ignorance.
That person appears to be arguing with his imagination. His words have nothing to do with me. His Constitution is foreign to me. It is false, it is a legal fiction, an organized crime agreement among fellow criminals, to be used, or not used, in the willful commissions of crimes upon the innocent, or anyone in their sights, anyone questioning their power to do as they please, when they please. What I will do is what is withing my power to do, and no more, and right now it is in my power to avoid having my name, my being, associated with false things by anyone, including this person who is having a one sided argument with his imaginary being.
Does anyone understand the concept of collective punishment? When a despotic power wishes, power is focused on punishment, that is what happens, and it isn't an accident, and it isn't a mistake, it is a willful employment of power, by which the use of power is meant to punish everyone, the excuses, or cover stories, vary, the purpose is to punish everyone, with few exceptions, but there are exceptions, of course, and those excepted, generally, also have to pay a price. What is that price? Blind obedience, or just a willful effort to be ignorant, for now? In quoting this are you attempting to say that the United States should be held responsible to pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States? So if the previously mentioned exemplar group of extremists runs around destroying cities and murdering thousands of people the people of the united states should shoulder the debt incurred by those damages? The price that may have to be paid, for acceptance into the club of those who are exceptional, those who are, at least for a time, not on the list, to be punished, collectively, the price for that exceptional treatment, may be a requirement, for the petitioner, to parrot the cover stories, to add to the power that employs collective punishment, perpetuating it. I was asking for a second opinion concerning what someone else thinks that the words in question mean. What do those words mean? Why twist that question that asks for a competitive interpretation of meaning, twisting that question into what appears to be a false advertisement campaign to recruit members to join the army of people ready, willing, and more than able to punish collectively, to punish all who are on that collective punishment list, and do so with a smile, with glee? Oh boy, lets all gather round and fabricate fictional enemies and beat each other up in the effort to defend against our own imaginary beings? That has nothing to do with me. I'm in the fact based community. Where are these bogey men, these terrorists lurking in the shadows, this impending doom being projected onto the minds of the targeted victims of those lies, those lies that are now being parroted right here in this forum? What does that have to do with me? What does that have to do with my report that transfers the message from those who uncovered the true motive behind the Constitution to anyone? That whole doom day parade, with those lurking fictional terrorists, is not in my world. I don't accept that legal fiction, because it is false, it is a false front, and I know what the false front covers up. A little bird didn't tell me, the criminals confessed, and fellow friends of liberty uncovered and reported those facts. Please do not associate me with the fictions reported by the other forum member, it has nothing to do with me. I made the mistake of connecting to someone who resorts to character assassination as a means of accomplishing whatever that person desires. There is a serious problem with the forum medium, as it does connect people, as it is not a one way medium, it is a multi-directional medium, a person may end up being connected to someone who lies, and does so on purpose, and does so despite pleas that are communicated in the effort to defend against being victimized in that way. There is a very serous advantage with the forum medium, as it does offer a micro-political illustration of how the macro-political network works.
My point is clear to me, and my point can be clear to anyone who has the power to know the truth, the point was abundantly clear even within the small sample of references offered. The point I offer was abundantly clear to those people who confessed their true motives, in secret, and those people who blew that whistle. I see no point in beating this dead horse, this has become a defense against willful character assassination by someone who is abusing the forum to accomplish that task. No longer is it a report of the facts. Nor is this an example of a discussion. The character assassin is following orders, as he has already confessed. There is no “birther” debate here, it is a debate between those who unquestioningly support the Constitution, and those who seek to subvert it. It says so right there in The Constitution, "shall not be questioned" and the lie above is a confession, a warning as to what will happen to someone who dares to question the Constitution. There can never be admission of the facts, no such thing can exist, either you are with us, or you are a terrorist. I can now read that loud and clear. I can't subvert the Constitution, I have nothing to do with it, it does not apply to me, I am not a criminal, I do not seek to punish everyone collectively, I do not seek to destroy competition, I will not resort to deceit, threats of violence, or acts of violence as a means of governing the power supply down to a scarce manageable level, a level that can keep the power flowing from those who create it to those who steal it. And if the assassin continues to work forward in this work he has chosen, so be it, and if the moderators choose to employ collective punishment, so be it, that is the nature of things, the default, the first resort, the knee jerk reaction, going with the flow, business a usual, and to be expected almost everywhere, perhaps here too.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Apr 25th, 2011 10:00 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Anyone, The reason why I keep asking the forum character assassin to state his purpose is to get a confession. Absent the confession all that exists is the evidence that leads to the two best possible explanations of the true purpose, and then by way of competition, the most likely purpose of those last two best possible explanations - absent a confession - wins the competition, until a more competitive explanation moves into view. Example: Ah, so you think that the only criminals in the world are supported by the government. What is the purpose, according to the author of that sentence, behind the authorship, and then the publication, on a public forum, where that sentence targets another forum member, what is the point, what is the purpose, of that sentence, or what does the person targeted me, wish to accomplish with that sentence? Absent the confession, what are the possible intentions behind publishing that sentence? How can anyone know, without a confession, and then without a confession, how can anyone know if the sentence is not read, and then understood, based upon the contents of the sentence? The person authoring, and then publishing, the sentence chooses the word "you" followed by the words "think" followed by the word choice "only". The obvious target is me, since the sentence follows a quote of something I published, and since the author chose the word "you", so the word choice "think" is then obviously intending to attach me, his target, to what I think, and here is where the true purpose of the message can be challenged for accuracy. Is the forum character assassin asking a fellow forum member what the fellow forum member thinks, seeking a confession, or is the forum character assassin publishing lies about what the assassins target thinks, and who knows what anyone else thinks without some measure of evidence, in the absence of a confession? I can easily confess exactly what i think, since I have no cause to lie about what I think, so anyone asking me what I think, will be someone who is given an answer as to what I think. The quote above the lie, that the character assassin places in place of what I think, is this: As far as I know the people running the monopoly government, U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), hire fellow criminals to pose as agent provocateurs, which isn't a new thing, and they don names that work best at the moment, any name will do, so long as the name works for the moment. Sometimes the name has to be switched or the lie is caught, as, reasonably, you cannot both support an enemy and oppose an enemy at the same time, which would be akin to giving money to someone for protection from them. An early example of that very thing, as far as I know, involves a group of people who were seeking admission into the Federated Democratic Republic, under The Articles of Confederation, and this fictional legal entity was then known as The State of Franklin. Franklin failed to become a State within the Federated Democratic Republic, under the Articles of Confederation, for reasons explained in the book on that subject, an old book, a rare book, but a book I happened to stumble upon. The point about that book involves a number of sentences in a specific chapter, in the book, that described a practice whereby white people dressed up as murdering native Americans, or Indians, and the result of that charade was examples of tortured piles of dead white settlers on the frontier, or on the boarders between white settlements and native American settlements, whereby the native American settlements were subsequently places whereby tortured and murdered innocent bodies piled up. That is where I get some of the information I use to think, in places like that old book about The Lost State of Franklin, whereby my thinking is based upon such examples of information, on the subject of people running a monopoly government, such as the State of Franklin, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), where the people running the government are criminals, hiding behind a veil of legitimacy, and they hire people to pose as agent provocateurs, which isn't a new thing, and they don names, like "terrorist" or "savage", and they do what they do best, torture and mass murder, so long as they have a target, and a pay off, and the word, terrorist, or savage, tends to be a word that fits the occasion, and the costume tends to be a costume that fits the occasion, feathers or turbans, whichever fits the occasion, and that is what I think, and that is why I wrote the sentence I wrote, and I published that sentence I wrote, to communicate, to anyone, what I think, on that topic. This is what I think, again: As far as I know the people running the monopoly government, U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), hire fellow criminals to pose as agent provocateurs, which isn't a new thing, and they don names that work best at the moment, any name will do, so long as the name works for the moment. Sometimes the name has to be switched or the lie is caught, as, reasonably, you cannot both support an enemy and oppose an enemy at the same time, which would be akin to giving money to someone for protection from them. Next is the poor attempt by my character assassin to replace what I think, according to me, with what my character assassin prefers to have people think are my thoughts: Ah, so you think that the only criminals in the world are supported by the government. According to my character assassin, apparently, I am guilty of thinking stupid things, things that only he knows, things I don't even know, but none-the-less, according to his conviction, I am guilty, and according to his actions, I am summarily punished for the guilt he fabricates upon me, since he publishes his twisted version of my thoughts as if his twisted version is somehow attributable to me, in fact, which is false, and demonstrably false, if only I were presumed innocent before the conviction and before the execution of the sentence. Why would someone ever dream up such a false thought ever? Who would be so stupid as to think that only criminals in the world are supported by the government? Who on God's Earth would ever be guilty of being that incredibly stupid? Who comes up with such stupid things? I didn't. I didn't write that, I didn't say that, and I don't think that, so who, who is accountable for such ignorance? My forum assassin, as far as I can tell, desires that stupid thought to be held accountable to me, his target, yet, the paper trail that defines that stupid thought can be traced to the source of that stupid thought, and the trail leads right back to my personal forum assassin. Honestly I can't even believe you're still posting. The forum assassin may be used to weaker victims. I don't know. Perhaps I am one of the few people who stand by what they say, so as to offer a true representation of what they think, or perhaps I am unusually careful in the work of defending against misrepresentations published by forum assassins, whereby other potential victims care less if they are targeted by forum assassins with such misrepresentations as those numerous misrepresentations logged onto this paper trail. Perhaps forum assassins have gained ground in their chosen work of censoring information that they prefer to censor? I can certainly believe that I am still posting because I, unlike my forum assassin, know what I think, and I think that it is important to be accurate, be responsible, and be accountable - setting the record straight, since so many forces are aligned and working to falsify the record. What one person thinks is important, as likely as not, another person will think the same thing is unimportant. How does one, anyone, know if another person is a friend or a foe? How does a person know if another person supports liberty, a friend of liberty, or not? I think that is important. Another person may not think that it is important to be in command of the power that can accurately discriminate the difference between friend and foe. Unless you can start putting forth some real evidence and employ a debate tactic in which you actually address my points and don't devolve into accusations, proclamations, and insults, I really have no interest in continuing to try and understand your dogmatic position. Absent a confession, my forum assassin, if I can take him on his word, returned to this thread, after that statement, for those reasons above, the reasons my personal forum assassin published earlier. I don't know, by I think that my forum assassin returned for dubious reasons, such as to add more false representations to his growing pile of misrepresentations targeting me, which is the case, if words mean anything. If it depends upon what is is, then, what is the point? The point can't be a desire to accurately discriminate between those who are friends and who are foes, if it depends upon what is is, because accurate language is necessary if the goal is to avoid miss-communication. Miss-communication can lead to false conclusions and a friend may the be mistaken for foe, and visa versa. You purport to be putting forth another option yet offer nothing. To set the record straight, which is the inevitable distasteful chore, once a forum assassin begins a campaign of character assassination upon his "fellow" forum member, I can repeat the report of how the power struggle works, whereby monopoly power, or no choice, competes with choices, since choices, or competition, over power a monopoly power. The monopoly power tends to offer no choice as such: Obey Other words may be included, to dress up the one choice, such as: Obey, or else, the order shall not be questioned. And Either you are with us, or you are a terrorist. The deeds of the people supporting a monopoly government are more important than the words published by the supporters of a monopoly government; because the deeds cause harm to innocent people and the deeds thereby uncover the truth, and expose the lies. There are choices, and among the many choices, perhaps, one choice can the choice by which the intended victims of the monopoly government choose anything else, and thereby avoid victimization. A. Obey B. Not A I can explain how that works from top to bottom. A one world government supporter will have his, or her, victims thinking, and believing, that the one world government dictates must be obeyed without question. Call that a world nation, or world nationalism, "we are the world", etc., and if that comes to be, the potential victims will have few choices, mars and the moon are too far away, and uninhabitable. No place to run, no place to hide from blind obedience. Enter stage left, or right, and there still exists the force of competition, as intended victims can still love their chains, or leave them behind, relatively speaking, since there are many Nation States, and a few examples that are more like a Federated Democratic Republic. A. Obey B. Move from a lesser quality monopoly wanna-be, to a higher quality monopoly wanna-be, and move from higher to lower cost, anything but blind obedience found in the lower quality and higher cost monopoly wanna-be location. Stepping down from the Global monopoly power tip of the pyramid scheme, going down one more level, whereby the lower levels of monopoly power wanna-be legal fictions number more than one, there are sub groups within each lower level monopoly wanna-be legal fictions each of which is unique by some measure of quality over cost or cost divided by benefit, whereby potential victims can choose the higher quality sub division of monopoly wanna-be power structure. Example: Level 1 (competition) World Dictatorship (NWO is one competitor to that throne, but possibly the most dangerous one) Level 2 (competition) European Union, China, Russia, Japan, South America, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, etc. Level 3 (competition) France, Germany, England, Texas, New York, Brazil, Iran, Sudan, etc. Level 4 (competition) San Bernardino (a county in California) Level 5 Redlands (a city in San Bernardino county) Level 6 and on, and on, all the way down to the bottom level of that Pyramid scheme, where the individual person may, or may not, add to, or subtract from, the number of choices imaginable, and then those newly invented choices are made real by direct action, such as moving with, or voting with, their feet, whereby one foot may compete with the other to be the first foot to start down that new path. My forum assassin, when he takes a break from his chosen occupation of misrepresenting me, may get to the point at which he returns to this: There is no “birther” debate here, it is a debate between those who unquestioningly support the Constitution, and those who seek to subvert it. Which, absent a confession, appears to be the quintessential end of all competition. There can only be one, nothing else exists. Like this: You purport to be putting forth another option yet offer nothing. What I did point out, and what the monopolist type forum assassin appears to wish into being, are two different things. 1. You offer nothing 2. I reported the facts. Starkly highlighted against the competitive choice of no choice are many obviously better choices, such as the working Federated Democratic Republic, under The Articles of Confederation, that existed before the legal criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton, and Robert Morris, usurped that competitive government power, and consolidated power into one monopoly power under The Constitution. A. Monopoly (The Constitution) B. Competition is not against the law (The Articles of Confederation) When competition is not against the law, as in The Articles of Confederation, the subjects of one dictatorial monopoly government in one State, can move, or vote with their feet, to a less dictatorial monopoly government, and they did, in one famous case, whereby Daniel Shays, and others went from the legal crime state of Massachusetts, where they lost the fight to rebel, legally, against the criminals running that monopoly government, to Vermont, where they lived happily ever after, more or less. This: You purport to be putting forth another option yet offer nothing. That, which is pure fiction, is one choice. Anyone can offer something other than that one choice. I don't have to sign onto that dictatorial fabrication of falsehood above. I don't have to accept that bogus non-choice. There are many, many, many options, but, and this is knowable, at some point the choices do pare down to the last two, at any given moment, and a choice is then made, even if the choice made, is to take a nap. A. Obey (the false non-choice) B. Not A (the force of competition is driven by the desire to pick a higher quality choice, at a lower cost, which to some, is blind obedience)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Apr 26th, 2011 04:01 pm |
|
18th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
04-26-2011 Listening to Alex Jones, I arrived late, it is now a commercial (I do not like commercials), I just missed the context of a reference by someone concerning "filling the void" and Alexander Hamilton (the Nationalist hiding behind a false Federalist front) warned George Washington (the leader of a rebellion against criminal government and then the leader of the suppression of rebellion against a criminal government), and the context of the reference had to do with the money power. I hope I can hear this whole exchange later. Bill Still, is speaking about the money power, speaking about examples. Here is one form of money that Bill may not offer as a competitive example of money: http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904 Here is another one: http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/ Another: http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf I hear the argument between "free market" and "government". That argument tends to ignore the obvious problem. How can government pay for government if government does not enforce a legal tax money form? I recognize the voice of Bill Still now. He is the guy who put out the Money Masters Documentaries - I'll get the link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204# This is monumental, the meeting of Alex Jones with Bill Still. I'm on the edge of my seat to hear what Alex Jones makes of the facts brought to light by Bill Still. Alex Jones is hedging his bets, thinking, which is very, very, very, good. There is a split within the Austrian Economics group and I can help anyone know that division with a link and a quote. It is important to know this division. I'll explain later: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? The question of how to pay for government is inescapable. Before that can be answered the purpose of government, the form of government, and the definition, the actual defining of government, must be answered, there is no way to get around that work, failure is not an option. That is the void, failure to define government, failure to finance it, is a void that will be filled by criminal powers. There are many possible answers to the question of what will fill the void: 1. Crime (involuntary association) 2. The complete and utter refusal to commit crime (voluntary association) 3. Minimum crime, such as, a Federated Democratic Republic Option 3 can work, and knowing how it works, and what works to over-power it, is important information. If the void is filled with crime then the money power will be a tool that transfers power from those who create it, and power will flow to those who are the most powerful criminals, by whatever name they choose to print on their stationary, that is what will happen measurably. Here is the measure: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If the choice is 2, or the absolute refusal to employ an involuntary association (crime), then, you have in place, to fill the void, something that goes by the name "The Free Market", and the problem there, is always the same problem, and that is that criminals do plan on, and then criminals do, execute their plans, and power does flow from those who produce power, to those criminals, and "The Free Market" may, or may not, work to minimize the profitability of crime, but who can convince anyone that it will? If not enough people will believe in the absolute necessity to stop thinking that it is a good idea to use crime (involuntary association) as a method of fighting crime, and I have tried, then option 3 may work, again, for some time, again, and it will certainly be a step in the opposite direction from absolute dictatorship, which is a euphemism for hell on earth, just read Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn if you have no way to measure what will happen when things really, really, really, go bad, down this path. Again: 1. Crime (involuntary association) 2. The complete and utter refusal to commit crime (voluntary association) 3. Minimum crime, such as, a Federated Democratic Republic 1. Crime Crime finances itself, the criminals use whatever works to enslave the productive people, allow the productive people a minimum supply of power, just enough to keep just enough of them alive, while they take all the rest of the power, and each criminal will be fighting each other criminal, so forget about this fantasy of a single conspiracy group of elites who agree to be nice to each other, if that is what you think. It must be hell to be near the top of that food chain, within that criminal network, where each power hungry criminal will do anything to gain more power, without limit, certainly without moral conscience as a limit. Criminals tax each other, with an involuntary tax, that is their invention, that is their Method of Operations, that is their world, that is what they do, they involuntary tax each other, and they involuntary tax their victims, and they involuntarily tax good old mother nature, and they would tax God if God can be taxed, and they would involuntarily tax the Devil if the Devil was similarly powerless to avoid being subjected to such an involuntary connection to a criminal. 2. Absolute refusal to resort to crime (involuntary tax) as a means of survival i.e. The Free Market No one taxes anyone else - involuntarily - not by way of deceit, not by way of threats of violence, and not by way of actual violence, not on purpose, for profit. Government, if it exists in any form at all, will exist as a voluntary form. So, naturally, a skeptic will want to know how government will be funded, as the natural reaction is to assume that criminals will run amok, having no one hired to catch them, and then punish them. As much as I would like to champion this choice, the power of falsehood has grown way too powerful, and people are just too stupified by falsehood to let go of this false viewpoint, whereby "we" have to force "us" to be good. Suffice to say that the only logical solution to the crime problem is to stop being one. People are weak, that is the way it is, so they are easily fooled into believing that the solution to the criminal problem is to hire the criminals to protect us. That is just the way it is, check out any discussion, anywhere, and see if you can find one, one discussion somewhere, anywhere, where the people speaking about how to solve the criminal problem are not resorting to the mistake of making stealing legal (involuntary taxation). It is not ingrained in "our" DNA, but it is ingrained into our culture, and has been for over 200 years, here in America. It was imported. The method of taxation in The Free Market is easy to know, just think in terms of an open competition among insurance companies seeking to offer the highest quality crime victim insurance policy, at the lowest cost to the policy holder, and I can add that one of the first policies could be an legal crime victim policy where a policy holder buys into a fund that will pay back to the policy holder a sum of money, a power to purchase, a measure of restitution in case the policy holder is victimized by criminals with licenses. Example: The survivors of the Waco massacres, having such a policy, would get a check in the mail, since they were victimized by government agents. Call it Anti-Despotism Insurance. Use your own brain, you may like it, if you can get used to it. This voluntary association option can be studied, because it has existed in various forms. 3. Minimize the use of crime as a means of fighting crime, or, a form of involuntary association such as a Federated Democratic Republic. That option can be studied because it existed, and even exists, in various forms, one of which was the example offered during the period between the enforcement of British law (legal crime) and the enforcement of The Constitution (legal crime), under The Articles of Confederation (less legal crime). The idea is to preserve competition among dictatorships so as to force one dictatorship to be less dictatorial or failure to be less dictatorial will result in victims moving to nearby dictatorships that are less dictatorial. The tax structure is a competitive developing, adaptive, process whereby each competitive dictatorship invents a better tax structure to entice more tax payers to pay into their fund. I hope that helps you understand the money power question. I can add that whatever choice forces a single money power monopoly will also be the choice that removes the force of competition. If you pick that choice you will get what you deserve. You will, by that choice, remove the force of competition, and competition is the force that forces producers to improve quality, and competition is the force that forces producers to lower the cost to the consumers. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The point is to reproduce, which must happen, or the human species ends in one generation.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 03:26 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
04-27-2011 Listening to Alex Jones. He has a guest on who said: "Our creditors are..." The guest is named Porter. Talk moves to the concept of The World Reserve Currency. Porter Stansburry reports that China is competing as a currency producer, my words, not his. Porter says: The value of the dollar is going to collapse. Alex Jones says: They want to wreck the dollar. Two viewpoints are emerging: A. (Alex) The shift of power is deliberate, and on schedule B (Porter) The shift of power is "natural" or accidental. That is what I see, yet, Alex Jones agrees with Porter once Porter reports that he thinks the shift of power is a function of "natural" forces (presumably along the lines of a free market, which would be the force of competition, which isn't "natural" - it is man made, competition is a man made choice). Porter is grinding a balanced budget axe. My suggestion right here is for Alex Jones to identify the work of Walter Burien, whereby Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports are exposed. Porter is grinding the gold bug axe. Porter is now suggesting that it is a good idea to buy real estate off-shore. Porter is a speculator. Speculating becomes a hyper-profitable occupation when law is employed in the work of creating and maintaining a currency monopoly, and then that power is used to create and maintain a business cycle, and then insiders know when the money supply will increase, so as to cause a boom, and the insiders will know when the money supply will be decreased, so as to cause a bust, and the insiders (speculators who have inside information because they cause the events that constitute speculator information) thereby know when to sell, at the top of the boom, and when to buy, at the bottom of the bust. Insider speculators have a vested interest in maintaining the legal money monopoly extortion racket. To a lesser degree, depending upon how well the "tea leaves" are read, an outsider speculator, a gambler, has a vested interest in maintaining the legal money monopoly extortion racket business. Those who are in the business of honestly using the power they have to create more power pay all the profits that flow to speculators and therefore honest productive people do not have a vested interest in maintaining the legal money monopoly extortion racket business. Some other things to consider: 1. Competition does exist between competitors who produce legal monopoly extortion racket money products, and the winner in that competition is the supplier who gains the most market share, and the winner can be called The World Reserve Currency, because the winner has captured the most market share when measured, accurately, against all the other competitors. Hold on: I heard Porter say "We are broke, Alex." People, please, look into Walter Burien's work on Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. When "they" say "we" are broke, they don't mean that "they" are broke. That is the scam, in a nut shell, in that shell game. They have two sets of books. Here is a link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2860538828528453481# Use your own brain. What would happen if the honest productive people in America held a competition whereby more than one money was produced and offered to the productive American people, and some of the productive American people chose one product, one money, call it E-Bay money, perhaps E-Bay is given a legal money making business, and some of the productive American people chose other products, Microsoft dollars, and PayPal dollars, and Wikileaks dollars, and Amazon dollars. Suppose a total of 10 legal money currencies were allowed to compete for market share and use your brain to begin qualifying and quantifying the physical make up of the money that begins to become the best money, the money most of the productive American people choose, and tell me, while you use your own brain, what that money looks like. Will that money be the most powerful money that can be made, in America, money Made-in-America, and will the money be the highest quality money world wide, and will that money be the least expensive money, or, using your own brain, will "our" money be low quality and high cost money, poor, poor, poor, stuff? Why would anyone claim that the dollar is good enough for us, or it will have to do, we can't even begin to think up something better? Why would anyone fail to recognize the value of employing the force of competition in the work of improving money made in America? What explains such colossal ignorance, by failing to apply the force of competition in the work of improving the money made in America? Why settle for less than the best? What explains anyone laying down, falling down, rendered impotent in the work of improving the quality, the power, of money, and reducing the cost of it? Is that not a significant vacuum? Please use your own brain, don't settle for less, don't choose impotence, don't lie down and accept falsehood or ignorance or failure to know, failure to invent, and failure to adapt. Walk up the the plate and hit the ball out of the park - please.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Apr 27th, 2011 08:22 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Why does it matter? worcesteradam, If it does not matter to anyone other than me, it doesn't. I see no problem with that, on the other hand, if it matters to someone else then I would like to know if their reasoning is similar to mine. We can compare notes. It matters to me, because I think it is important to keep life going, it is worth it, to me, to keep the human species alive, a little longer, and I think that honest productive people are much more likely to do things that keep the human species alive, a little longer, if honest productive people can choose to keep the power they earn, if they have that option, instead of having the power they earn taken, because they don't have that option, and then have that stolen power used to torture and mass murder, which to me, tends to work against the human species remaining alive longer. I really have a hard time with someone using the word "we" in places where I find myself excluded from that group, as in your use of "we" to describe a group that may or may not "allow the market to provide fast food". I'm not in that group. People who want to eat fast food can, as far as I am concerned, and people who want to produce fast food for people who want to eat fast food is also fine, as far as I am concerned, and if you think that fast food is harmful, then it is fine, as far as I am concerned, for you to avoid eating fast food. I don't think it is a good idea to sit idly by and allow someone to torture you, against your will, and murder you, against your will, or torture you without you knowing about it, or murder you without you knowing about it, with fast food, or any other weapon. If you, or anyone, are hatching plans that intend to injure some innocent person, and then you follow through with that plan, then it matters to me, It matter to me that such a plan, if known, can empower the intended victim with the power needed to avoid such a thing, or defend against it, or seek help in defending against it. I think that the crime, with fast food as a weapon, would be one whereby the medium of communication is abused, and whereby the producers of a harmful product not only fail to disclose the potential for harm, they may actually hatch plans, and execute plans, to willfully cover up the facts, distort the facts, and prevent the potential victims from knowing the facts, concerning the potential harm that can be caused by people who use the product being sold. That would be a case of willful deceit being the weapon, not the fast food, to me. At this point, what comes to my mind, is a term called expedience, or even a term called triage. On a scale of highest threats to humankind on one end, and lowest threats to human kind on the other end, there can be, for example, sunlight on one end, and nuclear war on the other end, just to get an idea of the scale, the scale that matters, perhaps. "We" can't allow the free market to provide sunlight, because, as we all know, it can be harmful. That is on one end of the scale. "We" cannot allow the free market to provide nuclear war, because, as we all know, it is without doubt harmful. Does it matter that sunlight is the source of power that must exist for human life to exist? Does it matter that nuclear war has no redeeming quality unless the idea is to end human existence, and then nuclear war is a real winner from that perspective? Setting aside the far ends of the scale, can it be known that Cheeseburgers, or fast food, is not as harmful as legal monopoly money extortion rackets, and that it may be a good idea, depending upon what matters to anyone, you, me, someone else, it may be a good idea, if "we" are going to do something relatively positive, something along the lines of doing less harm, doing something that may slow down the rat race toward extinction, the race to the bottom, the race to hell, to concentrate the focus of defensive effort more toward the more destructive things and less toward the less destructive things? I can report that I think that it matters to me. I think it is a good idea to focus power usage toward the production of more productive power, and I think that a competition in legal money markets will work toward that goal, but I could be wrong, and that is why I appreciate this feedback. If you represent the American public, and you don't care to have a choice between a mortgage that cost you the price of two whole houses, and a mortgage that cost you only the price of the actual house, then my offering is worthless, at least to the group that you represent, however large that group may be, and then, throwing myself a bone here, I can imagine that someone, one person other than me, would choose, if they had the choice, a mortgage that cost him, and me, only the price of one home, not two, and then we two, the one other person, and me, can stop sending our earnings to those legal criminals who use that power we made, in their torturous, and murderous work, where their work is becoming powerful enough to actually threaten the extinction of the species. Perhaps it is just me, I'd like to hang on to my ray of hope, and so I fabricate this imaginary second person, alive today, who thinks that this does matter, in this way. Call me crazy?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 09:45 am | Page: 1 2 |
| Power Independence > Good News > Good News > Prison Planet Forum | Top |
