| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | 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." |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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 |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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) |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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. |
|||||||||||
|
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? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-slams-bernanke%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cstaged%E2%80%9D-media-show.html Anyone, A television reporter asked Ron Paul a question: What tools exist to reign it in. The subject matter is The Fed. Look here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27988.htm Are you smarter than a 5th Grader? I want to speak to the Honest Productive People of America, the people who are intelligent as a result of necessity, and as a result of a willful demand for the truth, over time. Above are 3 viewpoints, and I will ad a fourth: 1. The Fed (the official legal viewpoint from "private" interests) 2. Journalism (the official no-nonsense "uncover and report the truth and let the chips fall as they may" viewpoint) 3. Government (the official legal viewpoint from the "public" interests) 4. My viewpoint (a viewpoint based upon over 3 decades of diligent, and relentless, independent study, complete with links to sources) My viewpoint: A sound bite will not work. Here is my source for the claim that a sound bite will not work: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." I. Human survival is a power struggle (as simple as it gets) I.A Human survival depends upon the power each individual produces in excess of consumption; failure to produce more than consumed is unsustainable for each individual member of the human species, and unsustainable as a total measure of all power produced by all humans as consumption subtracts from that total. I.B Human survival depends upon reproduction, failure of one person to reproduce is an example of one individual consuming the power of one individual life and failing to produce more life during the consumption of that one life, and failure, therefore, to reproduce that one individual (genetic) example of life, while failure to reproduce, as a total amalgamation of all individual human lives, is failure to perpetuate the species; human life ends. The power of reproduction is insufficient, human life lasts one more generation. I.C 1. Human beings can take power from other human beings, as a method of surviving, which is a method by which total power decreases. This method can be seen as the parasitic method, and it is a method that cannot be sustained, it is a method that does not ensure the survival of the species, it is a method that ensures that the species will destroy itself, and it is a method that will destroy itself if the power of the numbers of individuals using this method reach a critical mass of numbers, and the result is a steady rate of consumption, of power, that is greater than the rate of power produced. The parasites consume the host by this unsustainable method when the numbers of people operating this method exceed the number of people who produce power, not as a strict, simple, relative number of people: as an accurately measurable power struggle. I.C 2. Human beings can refuse to take power from other human beings, as a method of surviving (producing by way of producing, more than consumed - not the parasitic method), a method by which total power increases. This method can be seen as the host method, and it is a method that sustains human life. Power available is used to make more power, and the level of power increases exponentially, since the scarce power supply increases to an abundant power supply, which increases the power available, the power from which more power is produced increases, and therefore the rate of increase increases. The result of an increase in the power supply is an increase in the standard of living, for each individual human being, while the cost of living decreases, for each human being, as power moves from scarcity to abundance - while power is used to produce more power, and then more power is used to produce even more power, on and on, even reaching a total power supply that can build Pyramids, or produce inter-planetary travel, even to a potential point of total power that is sufficient to empower the human species with the power to colonize other planets. II. Numerous methods exist by which people either take power from other people or people produce power (use power to make more power), resulting in either scarce power, and destruction, or abundant power and production. II. A. The methods by which people take power from other people, all of the methods, can be called crime, in English, or some other word in another language, it is the same process in any language. The criminal methods include (but not limited to): 1. Deceit (the power of knowledge is skillfully employed in the process of transferring power from the ignorant victim to the knowledgeable criminal) 2. Threats of violence (the power of will is skillfully employed in the process of transferring power from the apathetic victim to the willful criminal) 3. Examples of violence (the power of force is skillfully employed in the process of transferring power from the weak victims to the strong criminal) 4. Organized crime (criminals agree to access division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, in the work of taking power from other criminals, not in their group, and taking power from power producers, and recruiting more members into the one dominant, criminal, group) Note: Power producers are the source of power, therefore crime cannot exist without that group, a function of numbers applies, and becomes obvious, as the number of criminals increase, the number of power producers decrease, and the total supply of power produced decreases as that power supply is divided by the number of people consuming it, and not adding to it, that power supply is produced by a steady decline in numbers of producers, and that power is consumed by a steady increase in the number of criminals, and the rate of consumption increases in proportion to the increase in criminals gaining numbers over the number of power producers. The rate of power consumption increases while the rate of power production decreases as the criminal power gains power over the productive power. Where: C = the number of criminals, parasites, or those who take power from other people P = the number of power producers, or those who produce more power than they consume T = the total supply of power above consumption + = a rate of increase in the total supply of power - = a rate of decrease in the total supply of power C > P = T- C < P = T+ The greater or less than symbol can be "power in numbers" or just power not necessarily a function of numbers of individual criminals or individual power producers. Criminals produce crime, destruction, or negative surplus wealth. Producers produce surplus wealth, they consume less than they produce, they produce positive surplus wealth, and if no one does so, human life ends. As the total number of criminals (parasites) increase, the rate of increase in the total power supply decreases, and when the total number of criminals exceed the total number of power producers, the result is a negative rate of total power supply increase, or, the people, as a total amalgamated whole, consume their power supply, which is unsustainable, as power lessens, power becomes scarce, then more scarce, and fewer and fewer people have enough power to survive, fewer and fewer people add to the total power supply. As the total number of criminals (parasites) decrease, the rate of increase in the total power supply increases, and when the total number of power producers exceed the total number of criminals, the result is a positive rate of total power supply increase, or, the people, as a total amalgamated whole, produce more power than the power consumed, and as more power becomes available, more power is used to make more power, and the quality of life increase, and the cost of life decreases, and the power producers work less and get more for each measure of power spent. For each measure of power spent, more power is produced, when the power of the producers exceed the power of the criminal parasites. Visual reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo&feature=player_embedded The above visual reference measures an increase in the total power supply and therefore the total power spent by the parasitic criminal group must be less than the total power supply produced (minus the total power spent by the productive group) because the total power supply has increased, as the power producers improve the rate of power production for each amount of power spent, working less and gaining more over time, when seen as an amalgamated whole, and the rate of increase increases despite the parasitic crime power consuming power, and not adding to power, at a high rate. That is the good news. The power producers are gaining power over the parasitic criminals in measurable ways overall. The bad news is such that some individuals are being consumed so as to benefit other individuals in some places, at some times, in the past, and in some places right now, and in some places some time in the future. The worse news is that some of the individuals who are being consumed, to the unwelcome benefit of criminal individuals, are the most productive people, the people who could have, but will not, increase the total power supply, and the worse news grows exponentially worse, as the power stolen from the productive people, who are now less able to produce, empowers the parasitic people making their criminal group more powerful, and therefore more able to consume, and lessen, the total power supply. Historical reference: http://www.constitution.org/civ/comsense.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 calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Honest productive people who send their hard earned power to people so as to protect the hard working people from harm, is one thing. Honest productive people who send their hard earned power to people so as to protect the hard working people from harm, but instead the power sent is used to injure honest productive people is another thing. One thing increases the power supply, and the other thing decreases the power supply, on purpose, for someone's, or some groups, exclusive profit. All that above is meant to offer a competitive viewpoint intended to describe the nature and constitution of the problem. The problem is such that those who produce power are being victimized as the power they produce is stolen and then the stolen power is used to perpetuate the power to steal, under the false front of "protection" against harm. Having the fourth competitive viewpoint in view I am going to comment on the other 3 viewpoints originally posted above. 1. The Fed (the official legal viewpoint from "private" interests) 2. Journalism (the official no-nonsense find the truth and let the chips fall as they may viewpoint) 3. Government (the official legal viewpoint from the "public" interests) 4. My viewpoint (a viewpoint based upon over 3 decades of diligent, and relentless, independent study, complete with links to sources) 1. The FED I can offer a real time account of how The Fed works, and then make some comments in the effort to communicate why the real time account does account for how The Fed works. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ That web site measures the flow of dollars. The Fed controls the flow of dollars. If the honest productive people actually want to keep the power they earn, so that they can use that power to create even more power, and so that they can avoid providing the means by which they suffer, then all the honest productive people have to do is to replace the dollar with something better, and that won't be difficult to do, since the dollar is almost as bad as the worst that can be, in that sphere of conflicting interests that goes by many names, including: 1. The Fed 2. The Dollar Hegemony 3. Wall Street 4. The World Reserve Currency 5. The Business Cycle 6. The Globalists 7. The Elite 8. The New World Order 9. Business a usual 10. The Establishment 11. The Powers that be 12. The Oligarchy 13, U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) The name is a place holder, the thing, is what the thing is, in reality. Deception is the greatest power employed by those who profit from that thing, and those who profit from that thing can make their victims believe that everyone profits from that thing, as we all join together in our power struggle to profit at the expense of other people, or non-people, or weak people, or unfortunate people, or stupid people, or terrorists, or savages, or socialists, or capitalists, or the bogey men. In a word, the Fed, is criminal, or false, or destructive. One word descriptions, although accurate, only begin to explain the complexity. Simplicity works, but not if the idea is to produce an effective remedy. Simplicity works to accurately identify the problem. If the honest productive people are able to slow down, stop, and end the flow of their hard earned power going to the people who use that stolen power to keep the flow going in that direction, the dollar has to either go, or the dollar has to become something that it is not, because the dollar is the unit of currency that does what it does, in real time. This: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ The dollar in its present form, as it is designed, and used, is a destructive tool, a deceptive tool, a weapon, and it perpetuates a crime in progress. That web site, that debt clock, measures what The Fed does. You can believe whatever you want, while you stay connected to everyone who is connected by the dollar, and those who are not connected by the dollar aren't, no matter what anyone wants to believe. If you are connected you pay along that path, if you are not connected you don't pay along that path. Disconnect from the dollar, see what happens. If disconnection from the dollar disconnects you from every other power producers, you will suffer a net loss of power, a bad idea lone. So you stay connected to the criminals, so as to stay connected to the other power producers. Only disconnecting from the dollar connection, without replacing the connection to other power producers, by way of a better connection, results in, cutting off your nose to spite your face, or shooting yourself in the foot, so, logically, the right thing to do is to connection to other power producers with a different form of currency. Failing to fill the void, when the connection between power producers and criminals is no longer a connection, is economic exile, solitary confinement, or some other word that is a place holder for the real time result of having no connection to anyone else. The Fed disconnects power producers from other power producers when they create an economic bust, when they bleed the economic body into an anemic, bloodless, condition. The solution isn't to help the criminals by volunteering to produce less, and consume more, to give more blood, attach more parasites, invite over a few more vampires, or completely disconnect yourself from every other power producer, the solution is to throw the bath water out, and keep the baby. The honest, and accurate, accounting mediums, that connect power producers to power producers, is vital, in the process of using scarce power to make more power, and make power abundant, without which, human life ends. It is a suicidal act to willfully sever the connections between power producers, as the saying goes, if products don't cross boarders, troops will, and that is true for a reason, a reason that should be clear, but may not be clear, when the power of reason is compromised by the power of falsehood. A proposed solution that suggests disconnection from all, is a solution that proposes disconnection of power producers to power producers, when, if you think about it, all that is needed is disconnection of power producers from criminals. One supposed solution removes any hope of charity, for many reasons, and the other workable solution preserves that willful connection between power producers and people in desperate need of help, such as children, and old people, and people who are too weak minded, or too weak physically to produce, alone, enough power to survive. Cut the connections between everyone, as a supposed solution to cut out the connection to criminals, isn't a solution, it is another problem, and a very serious one. The dollar connects all who use it to all who use it. Those who are not connected by the dollar are either completely disconnected from everyone else, or some other connection connects people to people. Connecting criminals to their victims is what the dollar does, that is what it is designed to do, and the flow of power goes one way in that connection, it goes from those who produce power to those who steal it, and the stolen power is then used to perpetuate that form of that connection so as to keep the power flowing only in that direction. The dollar, in that form, has to go, but not without something better filling the void, something competitive, something that allows the consumer to regain the power to choose something better, and no longer something that is the only thing that must be used, when it is made available, or not used, when it is made scarce, according to one person, or one group of a very few individuals. That is what The Fed does and the score board (debt clock) is as accurate as it needs to be, and there are many forms of the score board including the following reference. In addition to the dollar denominated Nation State (nationalism) Debt Clock there are these scores along the dollar denominated legal monopoly extortion racket money trail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-gCKDmnRGY Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports report, precisely, who produces power, where the power comes from, and who steals power, names, dates, amounts, and all of it is denominated in dollars, and all of it stops the second that anyone connected to that crime in progress stops using dollars, and starts using something better. Failing to use something better than dollars, or failing to make dollars something that no longer is used to steal power, is not a solution, just like laborers going on strike is not a solution. Laborers uniting to create a better business competitor, and then out-competing their former employer is a solution; because one method stops the process of producing power, going the wrong way, and the other method forces competition which forces more production of higher quality, at lower costs, gaining more power, as a solution, rather than consuming power as a supposed solution, rather than refusing to be productive, as a supposed solution. A. Measurable progress that accurately proves that the problem is being solved. B. Lies that cover-up the truth; whereby the supposed solution is the problem. All those words intend to quantify and qualify what The Fed is. How do you measure what The Fed is, in reality, and without resorting to deceit as a means of communicating what is The Fed? 2. Journalism (the official no-nonsense find the truth and let the chips fall as they may viewpoint) If the supposed journalist fails to accurately communicate how criminals are now perpetrating very serious crimes, what then constitutes that message? That message, if it fails to accurately communicate how criminals are now perpetrating serious, very serious, crimes, is by that measure criminal. The crime may be nothing more than a failure to know the truth, criminal negligence, and a little bit of criminal negligence is not worth a moments concern, not a fraction of a second of concern does any good, whatsoever, concerning a minute, minuscule, harm-less, crime of criminal negligence, on the far end of that scale, and on the far other end of that scale, criminal negligence can include such things as a doctor prescribing Tylenol to a patient who will die from something obvious, something any other doctor would not miss-diagnose, just to illustrate the point of criminal negligence, which is a scale of examples from least to most criminally negligent. If you were a reporter and you were watching a group of people driving tanks with flame throwers through a church full of people, including pregnant mothers, babies, women, children, old people, toddlers, and even grown men, and you reported that the burning, crushed, and tortured dying people were "killing themselves", and if that is what you actual believe, as you report that criminal massacre, then you are defining what is criminal negligence, as you fail to be a journalist. It matters not if there are laws that intend to discourage such crimes, they are crimes by the measure of their ability to cover-up, and perpetuate, crime. If the supposed Journalist intentionally produces and publishes false information, concerning very serious crimes, committed by known criminals, then the supposed Journalist is an accessory to those very serious crimes, a hired criminal associate, or even a charitable volunteer criminal associate, covering up the crimes, "pro-bono". Alex Jones is a Journalist, by the measure of communicating the facts, facts that can be proven, or challenged. If a journalists facts are successfully challenged, a journalist further proves his measure of journalism by retracting the false information. These are known methods of accomplishing knowable goals. 3. Government (the official legal viewpoint from the "public" interests) Ron Paul is a representative of liberty, as far his power allows him to be, which, by that definition, as he defines that definition, represents everyone, and excludes no one, except by way of self-exclusion when criminals exclude themselves from that group. Got that? Why, you may ask, does this guy, Joe Kelley, speak in language that is so foreign to my ears? If you think that, then you are measuring the language of duplicity, you are measuring the language of falsehood relative to the words I convey to you. By contrast the language of falsehood is compared to the words you read from me. I don't speak double speak, get it? Ron Paul, as far as I have known his messages, and that goes back decades, consistently represents everyone, except the criminals who exempt themselves from liberty, because Ron Paul represents liberty. Liberty is the condition of life that effectively disconnects criminals from victims, liberates the victims from their oppressors. When criminals can't get to their targeted victims, there are no victims, all the potential victims are liberated, and no longer accessible to the criminals. If that appears to you to be a message written in a foreign language, then you may be speaking double speak. I don't. You may have grown accustomed to speaking with a forked tongue. You may have been exposed too long to the radiation of falsehoods emitted by the supposed journalists who are in fact members of the legal crime cabal, just get yourself a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and follow the dollars as those dollars connect the victims with the criminals, if you want to know who those criminals are, there they are, in black and white. Numbers don't lie. Math is provable. Math repeats each time you try it, the same result occurs every time you use math to solve a problem. How much do you get when you take 1 from 2 this time? How much do you get when you take 1 from 2 tomorrow? When you come up with a different answer, using math, let me know, so far, math works the same it once did 2000 years ago. The English language isn't that way, not like math. What was once a liberal 200 years ago, is not a liberal today. Why? Try math, it works better. Try reading what I write, not what you assume to be what I write, and you may see the math based message, or not, and then try asking questions, if you are the least bit curious. 4. My viewpoint (a viewpoint based upon over 3 decades of diligent, and relentless, independent study, complete with links to sources) There are too many divergent viewpoints working to solve one problem, when one solution works to solve one problem. What is the problem? Power is being consumed by those who steal it from those who create it, and that stolen power is used to perpetuate that one way flow of power. That is English. The math based account of the problem is documented in dollars. That is math. If that one problem, dollars, is known, what is the solution? Again from Alex Jones's own power to report the facts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDswHOfib9A That is a source of information that reports a clearly workable solution to the problem. The problem: Power is being consumed by those who steal it from those who create it and that stolen power is used to perpetuate that one way flow of power. The solution must be a method by which power is no longer flowing to those who steal power, as the thieves then use power to keep stealing power, and the solution must also allow the productive people to connect with fellow power producers maintaining the power to use power in the work of increasing power, which increases quality, and lowers cost, or increases the standard of living for all the power producers, and as a bonus, charity is possible. What is the best solution? What is the second best solution? What is the third best solution? Who decides which solution is the best one? Will the best solution be the best solution for everyone, at the expense of no one, except those people who willfully volunteer to exclude themselves from the benefits of the best solution? At this point I see a need to return to Gary North and his report on the division within the Austrian Economist group: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? Four solutions: 1. The Fed system of extortion using the dollar unit of currency to connect the power producers to the legal criminals: transferring power one way (an enforced legal monopoly) 2. A solution by which government produces and maintains a not-for-profit monetary accounting system such as the examples shown in the Money Masters videos, or the proposed examples reported by Walter Burien, or examples offered by one side of the Austrian Economist group (all of which are enforced legal money monopolies) 3. No law power expended toward the enforcement of any money supply of any kind, no power taken by government and then spent to subsidize any competitive money supplier whatsoever, which is the other side of the Austrian Economist group (the complete absence of the willful employment of the force of government in the work that causes a money monopoly power) 4. My competitive offering of 2 financial products issued by the government power as licenses awarded to a number of competitive money producing businesses in the effort to solve both the problem of having a need for competition in money markets, so as to allow the force of competition to enforce higher quality, and lower cost, and the problem of financing government by some means other than abject crime (involuntary taxation). Clearly, for anyone having managed to get this far, the fact that competition is the solution, and competition is the force that will work to solve the problem, can be seen as a glaringly obvious fact. Having no choice other than The Fed system of extortion, measurable by following the flow of dollars, using math, using the actual record of dollars flowing from the source of dollars, through each user, and back to the source of dollars, having no choice but that measurable crime spree, that perpetual victimization of the people who produce power, by the people who steal it, is the only single enforced answer for the few who profit by that one choice, which is not a choice at all, since it is a crime, and it is a devious crime, and it is enforced by threats of violence, and it is enforced by actual examples of violence. It is not a choice, it is a dictate, it is an enforced condition of servitude whereby anyone using dollars will be sending the power they create to the criminals who produce and maintain the dollar legal unit of money. Anyone choosing something better solves that problem - as obvious as the sun on a clear summer day in the open desert. Something better that that extortion racket is, in a word, competition. A. Monopoly B. Competition One is not a choice, and the other is a choice. That, at least, is obvious. Among the competitors, which ones are no better, and potentially worse than the dollar monopoly non-choice, and how can anyone move from the dollar non-choice to a better choice, when taxes must be paid, and the only legal money accepted by the involuntary tax enforcers are dollars? Of the four choices I have enumerated above, there is only one choice that completely avoids monopoly, and that choice, as it happens, completely removes the force of involuntary taxation. You can't have one with out the other. A laws that says, hey dude, if you want, you can pay me with your choice of money, when you pay your taxes, is a law that removes the tax collectors from the power they have over money, and once that power is gone, the government power is subject to the money power. Once that law is the law the money power subjects the government power to whatever the money power demands, or else, the government power does not collect taxes, or money, or power, and that is why the word power is a better word than money. Money is power. Power is money. If money has no power (to purchase) it isn't money. Get that, or remain ignorant about money. I like that choice. You may not. Many people, even most people, think (or are made to believe) that taxes must be involuntary, since failing to enforce tax payments, from the people who create wealth, which is the only place taxes can come from, will result in anarchy, and anarchy, according to this type of thinking, is a situation whereby everyone is running around raping, robbing, torturing, and mass murdering everyone else, as the story goes, all men are bad, and therefore some of "us", have to lord over the rest of us, and "us" good people have to force all the bad people, and "us" good people must make the bad people good, by our superior goodness, since "they" are all bad, and only "we", or "i", am good, in other words, might makes right, or in other words "do unto others before they have a chance to do unto you", or, kill or be killed. That is the script that is written by all the dictators, and unfortunately, that is the script that is also read by all the dupes who are sending their hard earned power to the dictators. Here, take this power I worked hard to produce, and kill them over there, before "we" have to kill them over here, or bla, bla, bla, bla, the same story, in other words. You are either with us, or you are a terrorist. In one word: Obey There is no choice, and that is the secret. Knowing that that is what is happening, measurably happening, is one thing, doing something about it is another thing. Of the options enumerated above, to solve the problem described above, are the monopoly money enforcement methods. The Fed solution solves the "How can I get something for nothing?" problem, which is the problem from the victims perspective, and which is the solution from the criminals perspective. The Bill Still, Money Masters, or the Walter Burien, from his work with Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, solutions, employ government in the work of supplying a not-for-private-profit legal money monopoly method, which has worked, does work, and will work, so long as the criminals don't take it over, as they are likely to do, have done, and are doing. The same problems, of usurpation, are addressed in the solution I offer, if anyone wants to know. The main point here, from my viewpoint, is to point out that the solution is to allow the force of competition to work, as competition is a measurable transfer of power from a monopoly power, whereby the consumers have no choice, to a condition whereby the consumers have the power of choice, and once the consumers have the power of choice, the suppliers must increase quality, and lower cost, or the other suppliers will increase quality, and lower cost, and therefore the only way to keep the power that is needed to stay in business, is to pony up, and be better than the competition. If the solution is to change the laws so that government is subject to the monopoly power and the monopoly power has no competition, then that is a description of what is, not a description of the solution. That is a description of the problem, not a description of the solution. Therefore there are two obvious methods to solve the problem (as it was described above): 1. Enforce a single supplier by way of deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence, by the single supplier (criminals) upon the targeted consumers (victims). 2. Allow liberty to work, whereby victims have effectively disconnected their connections to the criminals, and suppliers must produce higher quality supplies to the consumers or be forced to look for work where they can supply higher quality supplies to the consumers, or be dependent upon true charity for failing to produce more than they consume, or die trying. My viewpoint may appear to be harsh to some. Think first. Use your own brain. If the power supply becomes scarce then there isn't enough power to be charitable, and on that path each person will be forced to spend more and more of the scarce supply of power working to defend against a growing number of increasingly desperate criminals. If liberty exists, as a greater and greater power, as more and more producers of wealth disconnect themselves from the criminals, more and more power is produced, and less and less power is consumed in the work of defending against criminals, because, by that definition, more and more people are allowed to produce more power, and less and less people can afford to earn their living at crime as the remaining criminals have to fight each other to gain access to the remaining, shrinking, supply of ready victims. Added to one problem is one more problem and before I add the second problem I will restate the first one: The problem: Power is being consumed by those who steal it from those who create it and that stolen power is used to perpetuate that one way flow of power. Second problem: Too many people continue to believe that they can solve a measurable problem by using a solution that is measurably the same exact thing as the problem. In one word the problem is: Stupification That is a numbers problem. How can less people be in one group and how can more people be in the other group? Group A: Those who stupify Group B: Those who are stupified If Darwin's theory is correct, then that problem will solve itself, one way or the other. The internet, for example, may have been constructed as a means by which those who stupify can increase their power to stupify, and now, it seems, the power is like a genie let out of the bottle, or like the opening of Pandora's box, and try as they might, the genie won't go back in the bottle, and the box remains open. Stop reading from the script, before it is too late, please. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
#1...LEO=Law Enforcement Officer. Persona Non Grata, I can get back to that later, now that I know what you mean, I have to go back and read the context of the acronym. For now I see our discussion taking a bad turn in the following: #2...Whether I do or do not see any significance in a link you posted does not bear on my or anyone else's decision-making process, so try not to make weakly formulated presumptions, if you would please... Having no reference as to what you mean with the above, and polite, request, I can't honor the request, since it makes no sense to me. If you have no comment on the references I offer, then you don't have any comment on the references I offer, and to me that is exactly what is its, you have no comment concerning the references I offer. #3...The PEOPLE have the power to "target" tyrants, if they would just band together with singular purpose, be it either in armed rebellion or unarmed revolt. If an intelligent person cannot perceive which are tyrants when their actions boldly proclaim their tyranny, then such person deserves their oppression, in my opinion... My point on that has to do with getting from point A to point B, whereupon there isn't enough power, therefore point A become powerlessness, and point B, obviously, becomes a willful effort to gain power. That was my point. If you say that The People have the power, that is a statement that can be proven, or that is a statement that can be dis-proven, in a measurable way, and if I can offer another link that may or may not help with the measure of the power of The People, I can only hope that you will consider the measure of this power that The People have, so as to help measure the claim for accuracy. Offer me a measure of the power of The People as you know it to be - please. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If the link doesn't measure what you claim, then I have no idea what it is that you are claiming to be this power that The People have, so our viewpoints are, apparently, measurably, not on the same page. #4...I have read Mr. Bell, and am one who believes that his system, while a bit extreme, is preferable to the con-artistry which is so prevalent among our governors today...The likelyhood that Mr. Bell was persecuted for thought - of any kind - is only further testament to the absolute tyranny of the powers-that-be. The powers-that-be know who to snuff out and who not to waste time on, such is a measure of their power. Other people are less inclined to resort to the stuffing out solution to problems. The ratio of those who resort to snuffing out, and those who avoid resorting to snuffing out, if I can offer a wild guess, is somewhere along the lines of 1 to 99, on average, but a wild guess, there must be fewer of the killers, and there must be more of the cannon fodder, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone left, and I think that the average is being pushed to an unacceptable high average for the snuffing out group, and those on the top of that group are set to do some spring cleaning, if that makes any sense. I have no references for that perspective, since it is just my own - all alone. I think they know that their own numbers are bloated. #5...I'm sure you're a very well read person, as am I. And you seem to have an abundance of faith in the knowledge of books and the act of evangelizing others with the knowledge gleaned from them. I also value the advice and wisdom of those more learned than myself...but I am not the guy who, when faced with a severe personal threat, will quickly assess the situation and try to determine which previously read tome possesses the knowledge to talk my self out of harm's way... Is that a clue for me to shut up, or just a clue for me to stop wasting my time linking sources? I can't tell. Are you just speaking your mind, or am I specifically well suited to be receiving this news from you? I don't know what faith has to do with me, I'm not one to be consumed by faith, to my knowledge, I don't understand faith, much. Harm is on the horizon, and being powerless to avoid it, to me, indicates a need to gain more power.
I have no idea as to why you would even ask me such a question. I'm the guy who knows that the only way to avoid harm is to gain more power than those who will harm. Why would you ask me such a question? What brings you to the point of asking me that question, as if I wrote something that could indicate something about me that would inspire you to ask me that question? When the legal criminals slaughtered the people in Waco, I can still remember the phone call, Linda Thomson started an armed march on Washington. I have an M1 Garand, I got it cheap from "the government" through the DCM program, I was set to take it. I was set to go show a force of deterrence, not start a war, I have no idea why protestors protest unarmed, it makes no sense to me. When that armed march of deterrence didn't materialize, I ran for congress in my distract, on the "It isn't good to torture and mass murder for profit" ticket, and the NRA backed the Assault Weapons Banning Republican candidate instead. I have been running an on-line presidential campaign, last election cycle, and again for this cycle. When The People, with all their power, have enough power, they will end the current reign of terror, or they will perish. I'm not sitting on the sidelines, but I too have to eat, my time, my power, is limited. I believe only a MASSIVE movement (action, not words) will dispel this particular parasite. Please understand, I don't want blood, but I fear it will be inevitable if people don't stop yapping and start DOING. Words are not powerful, but actions are either driven by reasoned thought, or actions are driving by something other than reasoned thought, which do you prefer? A person may be influenced by words to a point at which a person acts without independent, individual, reason. That is the essence of the info-war. Some people use words to cause people to act in certain ways that just happen to be destructive to may people while the actions done just so happen to be beneficial to the few who use words to cause people to act in certain ways. The words are not powerful, they are just harmless words, while the actions inspired by the words are powerful to a measurable tune - such as: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ I link things, even if you don't appreciate the links, because that is what I do, those are my actions. You act the way you act, competitively, and I act the way I act, competitively, because our actions are not driven by external forces, commanding us to obey, and follow the one monopoly act permissible. If suddenly, everyone woke up tomorrow, knowing the right thing to do, and then the right thing was done, by everyone, the event could be remarkable, and my question is to ask how did they come to know the right thing that night? A little bird told them to stop listening to the liars, and so they did? I don't know. What would you suggest that all The People do, next morning, as all The People, undergo this fit of conscience tonight, what is on the laundry list of things to do tomorrow, according to you, a man of action? I can answer that question in great detail, in fact I already have, so I can just cut and paste, or I can rewrite if you don't like links - much. Imagine how far the patriarchs would have gotten with a bunch of debate and no call for action... I don't know who are the patriarchs, so I can imagine just about anything. ...and again, imagine a different outcome if a majority of the colonies' population had said to Britain, "We're done with you." It is quite possible that such a number of resounding "Nos" would have been sufficient to encourage King George to pay serious heed and perhaps even avoid such a potentially exhausting conflict (remember that a minority of the population supported the American Revolution, and still we won)... If you are speaking about the American Revolution than I have a few contentions as to the official version of events, in particular, the cause of the war was a power struggle between those who wanted to run their own money monopoly and those who wanted to run the British based money monopoly power, and then there were those who just wanted to make an honest living. Therefore there were at least two major categories of people involved in the power struggle that became known as The Revolution, which wasn't over after the British troops were kicked out, The Revolution was finally defeated with the singing of The Constitution; paving the way for the new money monopoly power to gain the power they now have - The Dollar Hegemony. I'm not in the "we" group who won; as in "we still won", since I know that the legal criminals won, when they perpetrated the fraud known as The Constitution. Category A: Legal criminals Category B: Honest productive people Category A won You have your viewpoint. I have mine. I've done my homework. Perhaps my homework is in need of greater accuracy; but how will I ever know, when no one challenges what I report? In conclusion - please take no offense - perhaps you are "barking up the wrong tree"...it seems that you and I are on two separate sides of the room. While you might be satisfied to continue in philosophy and evangelism, without a resolution for action...I prefer to combine all three facets, proceed with as much useful knowledge and common sense as possible, and resolve for action in whatever way seems most likely to achieve freedom for my family, myself and my fellows... What ever caused you to think that I am satisfied to continue in philosophy and evangelism, at all? I am not the person your words appear to be constructing, and if something I wrote will cause someone to think such things, then I need to stop writing those words, which words I don't know, since your version of me is unrecognizable to me. What did I write, how did you come up with that view of me, and is there any way to avoid such a huge error in the future? What is the plan? I have a simple one. Use power available to make more power, and then use some of the excess power earned in defense against having power stolen, whereby the stolen power is then used by the thieves to make me weaker - to put is simply. Implementing the plan isn't simple. Inaction has never once in history resulted in victory for liberty...rather, it has only served to perpetuate enslavement... Who is inactive? Who is being painted up as someone who is inactive? I've been struggling with health problems for going on 10 years now, having worked in labor jobs for 25 years before that, I just managed to get a Real Estate license, here in California, to help pay off the bills - while more of my families power continues to be stolen from us through the money monopoly with it's involuntary tax sister of fraud. While I can still write, I write, and while I can still walk I walk. Why do people resort to collective punishment? You think someone might be guilty of something, inaction, therefore everyone is guilty - except you? Really? Prove me wrong...in fact, not in philosophy. When things get worse each person will face a decision, if such a decision has not already been made, whereby actions will either save the actor, at the expense of someone else, or actions will risk the life of the actor, in defense of someone else, or in defense of the actor alone - the act will slow down the aggressor. Being prepared for that moment requires willful thoughts, so as to make the right choice, and then do the right thing. What was the point of posting this topic? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north990.html Anyone, Please consider reading the above link, from an Austrian Economic professor, Gary North, concerning the future of honest productive people world wide; and consider doing so knowing the following: A few powerful people have borrowed money from honest productive Americans, you, and then those few people then use that stolen power to cause honest productive people to believe that you owe them money, with interest. Can you shed your false beliefs and know that fact; before you take another willful step into your future? Here is a quote from the link: That was surely forthright for a sitting Treasury Secretary. He was not specific, but to say that another crisis will come was unique. He added this: "It's not going to be possible for people to capture risk with perfect foresight and knowledge." Gary North quotes a person who has willfully borrowed from you. That person then acts, and speaks, as if you owe him money, with interest. Is that true? If that is true, then who is fooling who? Who is the fool? Who is making other people into fools? You can point your finger at me, if that makes you feel better. I just happen to know that the legal criminal lie, they are hired to lie, and those who hire them either know the truth or those that hire them desire ignorance: they prefer to believe in lies. Honest productive people create surplus wealth, and as such they are the source from which credit has been earned. Who constitutes the good faith and credit of the American people? You? Do you consume less than than you produce? Can you measure your productive capacity accurately enough to then subtract an accurate measure of your capacity to consume? If you cannot; then you are ignorant by that exact measure. Who borrows from who? How can anyone borrow from someone who has nothing but lies? What is the cost of lies? Are lies productive? If you borrow a lie, and you then consume that lie, and then you spend that lie, and that lie then becomes current, flowing from one consumer to the next, then how much is produced by that process, and who benefits from that production, what is produced by that lie, and who cashes in on that lie? Liars do not produce. Liars steal from those who do produce. Honest people, who earn the capacity to be trusted, produce valuable things, because that is the only way to make use of division of labor, and specialization, and economies of scale, by way of reducing the cost of distrust, so as to use time and energy (power) more efficiently, to trade, to exchange, to make one part that adds to many other parts as the many diverse and specialized parts are then capable of producing a much more complicated whole. So where do these guys get their power, these hired liars, where do they borrow their power, or do they steal it? If you are not ready to jump to the conclusion that the hired liars steal, or if you are not even ready to jump to the conclusion that the hired liars lie, then I can walk you through, hold your hand, and help you measure reality more accurately - with the help of one of the Austrian Economics professors. Look at the quote: That was surely forthright for a sitting Treasury Secretary. He was not specific, but to say that another crisis will come was unique. He added this: "It's not going to be possible for people to capture risk with perfect foresight and knowledge." Someone has the legal power to add trillions of dollars to the total number of legal U.S. dollars. That same person, or group of people working together, trusting each other (working together), can subtract trillions of dollars to the total number of dollars. Can you call the bank up and tell them to add 12 zeros to your account? $1,000,000,000,000 Someone can, and they do, and the same group hires liars, and one of the liars, or one of the employers of the liars, has part of the power to legally add 12 zeros to their bank account, and then you hear about it from someone else, like me, or like Gary North, or Alex Jones, or anyone who has this wild idea that you may want to know this fact. How about a name, a real person, someone with a name, and someone who is inside that group of people who either hire liars, or who are liars, who are the people, or who is the person, who has the power to add 12 zeros to their bank account, when they want, and they do, and one of them has a name, and one of those names is the person speaking, the person quoted by Gary North, in the article linked at the top of this page. That was surely forthright for a sitting Treasury Secretary. He was not specific, but to say that another crisis will come was unique. He added this: "It's not going to be possible for people to capture risk with perfect foresight and knowledge." Where does the power to purchase with that legal money come from: who produces the value that backs up the dollar, and makes the dollar powerful enough to purchase something? Who produces the good faith and credit of the American people? Who borrows from honest productive American people? What do the people who borrow from the honest productive people say when they are borrowing from the honest productive people in America? A. The truth B. Lies "It's not going to be possible for people to capture risk with perfect foresight and knowledge." Do you know what that means? Do you think that the meaning of those words are only meaningful for a select few people at the top, and that the meaning of those words has nothing to do with most of the honest productive people in America? I can help you know the truth, if you are as yet ignorant about the truth concerning those words. The legal license holders have added many zeros to their accounts and they then consume that power. They then call the result of their use of that power a risk to you, if you are one of the honest productive Americans from which that power is produced. If you are one of the sources of the good faith and credit of the American people, then you are one of the people who produce more than you consume, and you are one of the people who have increased surplus wealth, and you are now at risk because your power has been borrowed from you, and spent, and the expense of your power has caused a risk, and you will now have to produce more, and you will have less to consume, even while you produce more, which is the accurate measure of what is being called risk, by that person quoted by Gary North. That was surely forthright for a sitting Treasury Secretary. He was not specific, but to say that another crisis will come was unique. He added this: "It's not going to be possible for people to capture risk with perfect foresight and knowledge." Adding 12 zeros to the dollar account is definable as a loan that has been legally borrowed from a creditor. Who is the creditor? Who borrowed the money? Who owes who? What is owed to who? How can someone, who borrows from you, manage to convince you that you owe them money: because they borrowed money from you, and on top of that magic feat, they convince you that you owe them interest on the money they borrow from you? How deep are the lies buried into your conscious? They borrow from you while they say you owe them for the money they borrow from you - with interest? Who is the fool? Me? They lie. They first have to convince you, and make you believe, that their product, their money, is the only money that you must have, or without their money you will suffer, without their money you will have to work harder, and without their money, you will have less, and less, and less to consume, and without their money, you will earn less, and earn less, and earn less, as you work harder, and harder, and harder, for less, and less, and less, without their money. Do you actually, really, believe that lie, as gospel? That is what the lie intends to accomplish. That is why they subtract from the total supply of money. They have to convince you that you will suffer without their money. You can see the truth of this if you can regain control of your own mind. Without their money you are broke. To bad for you. A monopoly money license is a legally enforced single legal money product, having no legal competitor, and as such there is no legal force that forces that money product to a higher quality, at a lower cost. The single monopoly money license holders can add 12 zeros at will, or subtract 12 zeros at will, from the total supply of the single legal money product - in this case The Dollar. If you regained control of your mind you could then conceive of at least one competitor to that one legal money license holder who produces that one money product, that Dollar, and then, as with insurance, the quality of the product increases, and the cost of the product decreases, as competitors try their best to get you to choose their competitive product instead of the other competitor. If one competitor keeps adding 12 zeros to their money product, paying themselves bonuses, rewarding their fellow license holders, and the other competitor pays you back for borrowing your money, with interest, then which will you choose? A. One competitor borrows from you and then demands that you pay them back for the money they borrowed from you, and they demand that you pay them back interest on the money they borrow from you. B. The other competitor borrows money from you, risks your money, and if they spend your money almost as good as you, or as good as you, or they spend your borrowed money better than you, then they pay back every cent borrowed, and they pay you back more than they borrowed, they pay you interest on the money they borrow from you. If they don't pay you back, do you look for another competitor, or do you continue to loan money to those who waste your money on failed aggressive wars for profit, or other less wasteful expenses? I'm going to read the rest of the article by Gary North, to see if I can find any value in it. You can do with the liberty you still have; as you see fit. I have yet to edit this offering. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
06-15-2011 Listening to Alex Jones "Race to the Bottom" "National Suicide" "They are insane, out of control" etc. Honest Productive Americans, Please see the big picture logically by contrast with illustrated examples of competitive future possibilities; know where to go, so as to actively move closer to that goal. A. Business as usual, New World Order, World War III, World Economic Collapse, Global Domination, by way of willful orchestrated specific purpose, or by insane random coincidence, or some way, some how, the human species accelerates the accelerated rate going in that direction. B. The human species stops accelerating the accelerated rate going in that direction, some way, some how, randomly, or intelligently. C. The human species slows the rate of acceleration going in that direction. D. The human species stops accelerating in that direction, holding the rapid rate we are traveling in that direction to a constant rate, neither accelerating or decelerating. E. The human species begins to decelerate the rate that the human species is traveling toward extinction, doom, destruction, enslavement, torture, and mass murder. F. The human species accelerates in the opposite direction of depression, doom, destruction, torture, mass murder, war, etc. G. Prosperity becomes an obvious, measurable, obtainable, reasonable, well understood, intelligent, active, willful, common, goal - again. Can I repeat the obvious measure of such things? http://www.usdebtclock.org/ How does that web page compare to a diametric opposite to it; supposing that honest productive Americans can produce and maintain a diametric opposite of that web page? What would such an opposing process look like; assuming that honest productive Americans had an interest in such a thing? A time is approaching whereby the actual power brokers will be transferring the monopoly power from The Dollar Hegemony to the new regime. Regime change is afoot. Out with the dollar, and in with the new regime. You won't be told the measure of the new regime. Think men, think women. The insiders can't allow everyone to gain the power of that specific knowledge; doing so will remove the power of it. The idea is to dupe every one except the few, so as to have the many waste their hard earned power on the wrong investments while the few capitalize on the inside information. How does that work? While the victims are working to secure their surplus wealth, their savings, one way, the legal criminals are securing their surplus wealth, their power, in the other direction. You may need an example. Suppose that many people have earned, by some means not limited to honest means, a large amount of power, surplus wealth, in one form or another, and it is clear and present that the measure of that power is in danger. What does the owner of that power do to avoid having that power taken? If you choose the right choice, your power is saved. If you choose the wrong choice, your power is lost. If you invest in Germany taking over the world, and Germany is bombed to ashes instead, do you win, or do you lose? If you know that Germany will be destroyed, will you choose to secure your power in Germany? Two web pages may help: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/ http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/ Before WWII, as documented on those web pages, the few designed a specific outcome, and power moved from the past monopoly power, which was then England, to the new monopoly power, which was The Dollar Hegemony. WWIII is now the new plan, and it is on a regular cycle. The next dominant power will be in Asia. Many resources accurately record that move in progress; but the future is a gamble. A moment will exist soon, and at that moment the monopoly power will be in transition, and honest productive Americans will be losing the money monopoly power lever, and that power will be transitioning to the new monopoly power. When honest productive Americans no longer have the monopoly power of legal money they will then have an opportunity to resume legal control of their own legal money, before honest productive Americans are forced to accept a false substitute. In order to better understand this I can offer more words. No matter how poor the Dollar is as a form of economic currency the competition has been worse. No matter how destructive The Dollar was, as The Dollar was used by the legal criminals to steal the wealth produced by the honest productive American people, the measure of The Euro, and the Yen, and all the other legal currencies has been even worse. That dominance by The Dollar is over, and that does not mean that the new dominant legal currency will be "better". What is "better"? If you, as an honest productive American, could produce, and maintain better legal currency, how would that improvement measure up? Look again: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Your power is now flowing to many sides of a new World War. Where do you think those trillions of "dollars" are flowing when "they" say that "they" are "inflating" The Dollar. They say that they are printing dollars. Where is that money going? Where is that power going? What is that power buying? Are you receiving bonuses? Are you receiving investments from investors who are booming your economy? Do you think that the reports of massive expansions of the dollar money supply are lies? The goal has been to bust America because one country cannot be allowed to prosper as an example of prosperity; allowing such a thing to perpetuate will clue the honest productive people in on what can be the goal to work toward. This is not news. A regular cycle of bust and boom has been the goal of the legal criminals for some time. Power flows from the honest productive group during the boom cycle. Power flows from the honest productive group during the bust cycle. Power flows to the legal criminals during boom and bust. This is not news. You may not know the facts, that does not make the facts go away. When The Dollar Monopoly power (World Reserve Currency) is moved to Asia the honest productive American people will have a golden opportunity to regain control of their own legal money power. Know this fact. See it. It will be the legal criminals worst nightmare. Honest productive Americans will then have the power to opt out of World War III; instead of being the force that finances it. Don't just vote for liberty, make it real. Seize that moment when the legal criminals have to make their power over America weak, when they transfer their power to Asia, it will be a fleeting window of opportunity to create and maintain a legal money power that works for honest productive Americans instead of a legal money monopoly power that works exclusively for the legal criminals in America, as it has been, or in Asia as it will be if we let it happen. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Listening to The Alex Jones show 06-17-2011 I hear bad news ahead and what I don't hear is a specific report on what must happen so as to avoid bad news ahead. I've written before, and I will write again, that a date can be set in the future, 2012, July 4th, for example, and a number of people joining an honorable agreement is added to the date, and on that date, if enough people agree to the honorable agreement, then that day will be a new day of liberty. What must happen on that day? The number of people agreeing to liberate themselves from the bad news ahead must regain control of their power to employ their honest productivity, their ability to produce an abundance of surplus wealth must be regained, and the connection by which that power is stolen must be severed on that day. Why would anyone reading my words find any argument against it; unless their living depends upon the legal crime organization? Those who choose to remain connected to the legal crime organization will get what they deserve. Is that understandable as a rational viewpoint of physical reality? Suppose 1 million people joining the new liberty day movement join by July 4th 2011? What signal would that send to everyone else, and compare this question, and answer, to the number of people who have no agreement to join in a new liberty day by July 4th 2011? A. No one joins a movement to cause a new liberty day to be a fact on July 4th 2011. B. 1 million people join a new liberty day movement by July 4th 2011. What signal does A send to the legal criminals, or anyone else, including all the people who have no direction, no plan, no way, and no how, to avoid the bad news on the near horizon? What would happen if an Alex Jones, or Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich, or Bill Smith, or Pete Jones, or Jane Smith, or anyone, a 5 year old child, started a web page, and the web page took off, went viral, gained currency, and the number of people signing the new declaration of independence, to be made effective on July 4th 2011, only if enough numbers joined, and what happens if only 1 million people join by July 4th 2011, and the new date is moved to July 4th 2012? What would happen if by July 4th 2012 the number reaches 100 million honest productive Americans signed onto the new liberty day movement? What happens on that day, what happens because things happen during the next 13 months up to that day, and what happens if those people agree to stop using fraudulent money and start using honest money on that day? Which money is chosen by whom, and will people allow other people to choose more than one money, will there be a working competition for a higher quality money at a lower cost in America? If you cannot see how that will work, then you will continue to be dependent, not independent, and your dependence will be an intimate connection to the worst inhuman examples of evil on earth as the price of your failure to regain the power of independence. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north994.html serenesam, There is an example of someone who is an activist and someone who has more practice working on some of the problems with money. In that link he reports an event whereby tons of money was sent to Iraq. I reported on that same event. That event is a very good example of what bad people do, and they use money to do bad things, and they create and maintain bad money systems, so as to facilitate their plans to injure innocent people for profit. If bad people send disease contaminated blankets to innocent people, as bad people have done, on purpose, in the past, and now bad people send radioactive bullets to injure innocent people in the present, the bad people do bad things with tools, if that is what they do, that is what they do, and it should be no surprise that they prefer their victims to blame the tools, not the criminals. Accurately identifying the criminals, for what they do, instead of focusing attention on the tools they use, may actually help the victims in avoiding victimization. Tools: A. Blankets contaminated with polio sent to Native Americans in early U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) history. B. Projectiles contaminated with depleted uranium sent to Native Arabs in current U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) wars of aggression for profit. C. "UNMARKED" 100 dollar bills by the TON sent into Native Arab countries that are being targeted for exploitation. Do you understand the concept of money? Where does the power to purchase with money originate? I have news for everyone, apparently, as the source of purchasing power is surplus wealth, and the only place where surplus wealth can originate is by honest productive work, without which there is no surplus wealth, and therefore no purchasing power. If money is designed by bad people, with bad plans to do bad things to innocent victims, for profit, then what will the money look like when money is designed by bad people, produced by bad people, and maintained by bad people? It will look like blankets, but hidden on the blanket will be a disease. It will look like a defensive weapon, but hidden on it will be depleted uranium which will cause the shooter and the targets to suffer a torturous death as the uranium causes genetic mutation, cancer, and don't forget that the projectile is falsely aimed at false targets in a false war which is in reality merely a crime committed by criminals, and their victims on all sides, including the soldiers who are trained to believe in the lies perpetrated by the criminals, suffer as their power flows to the criminals. A money that is higher in quality could, obviously, be a money that is "marked" in such a way as to render criminal abuse of money powerless, and if you can't understand what I just wrote, then you may want to blame me for that fact, which is par for the course. I understand. If you have something for sale and the person buying it is offering to you a money that is soaked with the blood of innocent victims, who have be tortured, and murdered in the millions of numbers of now dead people, knowing that, and having a choice, would you choose not to allow that person to purchase anything from you, with that blood soaked money on that paper trail that that money has been on? Gary North repeats a story about TONS of 100 dollar bills, sent on pallets, and then much of it was lost, in Iraq. Blame the money? What do you think would happen if one person decided to use a better money, and decided to no longer use the money used by the criminals, and that one person decided to do that on July 4th 2011? That person would have a tough life ahead, all alone. What would you think would happen if 100 million honest productive people in America decided to stop using the legal crime money (dollars) and decided to use something better instead, something competitive instead, on July 4th 2011? How would the legal criminals collect their taxes that they use to purchase their aggressive wars for profit at home and abroad if the entire honest productive population of America began using a competitive money on July 4th 2011? No more marches, just a day when power shifts, and it would be a day of liberty. What would that competitive money be - exactly? Ignore the question, since it is against the law. Be a good slave. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
The problem with this is that even if competitive money was inside the law, the "winner" may buy up the "loser." For example, there was an announcement that ATT just brought up T-Mobile serenesam, Perhaps you fail to see the point. Competition is what it is; and if it isn't, then it isn't. If competition exists, by law or not, the competitors will have to increase the quality of their product, and lower the cost of their product, or the competitor will, that is a fact, and you can ignore that fact if that is what you decide to do, in your own best interest, or any reason under the sun. If a competitor creates a cartel, or mutual agreement, or monopoly, by hostile take over, or by deceit, or by threats of violence, or by acts of violence, or by any method at all, then competition no longer exists. A. Competition exist B. Not A Do you see the point, or do you prefer to continue to not see the point? You are offered a solution, and you ignore it, and you claim that the solution you are offered isn't what it is, when it is what it is, and your claim is akin to replying to my solution as I report to you that some people do good things, and you reply with "the problem is that some people are bad". There is a legal money monopoly. It exists. It is run by bad people. That is a problem. The solution is competition. You can say: "But the problem is that bad people destroy competition." Yea, that's right, so why are you ignoring the obvious solution offered to you? I'm curious. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I disagree with this. The current reign of terror can still be in existence with or without competition. Whoever has the what is defined as being "a lot of money" (as George Humphrey once stated, "we're not talking about the millionaire down the street, you can't even be a member of their club unless you are a billionaire) can still bring about terror for money = power and a lot of money = a lot of power. sereneesam, Do you disagree with what I wrote, or do you disagree with your misunderstanding of what I wrote? Here is what you quoted (and then respond with "I disagree with this"): That is competition, and that is how competition becomes competition in reality, and if you continue to look away from legal monetary competition every time I point at it, as if you were a baby being fed a spoon full of spinach that you abhor, then the point about how legal non-criminal monetary competition ends the current reign of terror will be very difficult to see, as you continue to refuse to look at it. You go on to explain how you disagree with "this" by saying: The current reign of terror can still be in existence with or without competition. How can you measure your disagreement with "this"? Here is a measure of "this" as it is reported by the people running "this": http://www.usdebtclock.org/ That, in fact, ends when "this" can no longer be "The Dollar Hegemony" and many people are now claiming that the end of "this" is going to be something along the lines of "World Wide Economic Collapse" or some other such "Headlines". In fact: "this" ends because of legal, criminal, competition. The more deceptive, more threatening, and more violent criminal cabal steals the legal monopoly, and a new set of power criminals take over the world wide legal crime money monopoly power from "The Dollar Hegemony", and the actual people involved may be the same people on the top 10 or so, while many of the members of the "insiders club" may be left holding an empty bag, once the "better" criminals competitively take over the "World Reserve Currency" power. What is the measure of your disagreement with "this"? What do you disagree with - exactly? Crime is competitive as criminals compete with each other over their limited supply of ready victims; and that is one form, or one level, of competition. Do you disagree with that? Crime also has a competitor knowable as defenders of liberty, or not-so-ready victims, and that is the point that you appear to be unable to grasp; so how can you disagree with something that you are unable to grasp, comprehend, understand, know, acknowledge, see, perceive, and measure? If honest productive Americans unite and begin using their own form of currency, and they produce, and they maintain, a currency that excludes the criminals, divorces the criminal connection, severs the link between the honest productive Americans and the legal criminals, then how do you think those legal criminals are going to fill their bank accounts? This: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If honest productive Americans unite and begin using their own form of currency; who has any concern, or interest, in that abomination measured above? This: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Do you disagree with that, above? Do you have an argument against the existence of what that official measure measures? You go on to respond, as if you disagree with something, and your words are quoted:
What is the source of the power in question? I think you are speaking about something called "Surplus Wealth", and that power is the source of the "power to purchase", or the "value of money", or the stuff of value that fills bank accounts, the real stuff, not the fraudulent stuff, and if that is what you are speaking about, which I can't know unless you clue me in, then where does that stuff come from: What is the source of surplus wealth? Do you understand the question? What is the source of surplus wealth? It is good, I think, that we have progressed from hamburgers, to information currency, and are now focusing interest on legal money. That may pay off. I don't know. I can't speak for you. And as far as my insistence on "taking you literally"; what would you prefer: I should read between the lines? The Dollar is going down, The Dollar Hegemony is going out, and what is going to replace it, will be either: A. Better legal crime for the criminals, a "better" world reserve currency, legal crime, monopoly power, enforced by deceit, threats of violence, and many, many, many, terrible acts of violence, so as to maintain monopoly power. B. Competitive money; and therefore higher, and higher, and higher, quality money, at lower, and lower, and lower costs, until such time as all the competitors are forced to produce, and maintain, the highest possible money, at the lowest cost. That is a power struggle, that is not a static object, and knowing the difference between "that which is current", or currency, and that which is not current, is a significant step toward understanding the power struggle, as it exists. I think that the time is ripe for a regime change away from legal crime, enforced with a legal money monopoly, in American, and a return to a competitive money, such as the time in America before the legal criminals retook that power from the honest productive Americans. You can go on thinking whatever you choose. So far, from my view, your choices are not competitive Note: The series of responses above have been removed from the original forum they were published onto. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/06/15/the-practical-implementation-of-constitutional-tender/ Anyone, The above link includes the combination of the Tenth amendment (Bill of Rights), or States Rights (competitive Federated Democratic Republican form of government), subject, combined with the Honest Money subject. I began reading it and before finishing I decided to link that article in this Forum Topic, and add my comments. I am no fan of The Constitution, since I've read the history of it, I know which type of people created it, how it was created in secret, how it included The Dirty Compromise to get the deal struck between the legal criminals who created it, and how it was sold to the ignorant massed by way of a false advertisement campaign run by its proponent legal criminal, banking extortion racket frauds, however, having said that, I do see the wisdom of both The Declaration of Independence, and The Bill of Rights, which work like Liberty bread on a despotism sandwich, where The Constitution is the meat of despotism. I am also not a fan of state run banking monopolies, whereby a few exclusive members of society are subsidized by the transfer of wealth from those who create it, the honest productive people, through the few government employees who spend the collected taxes, and then that power flows to those select few exclusive people who run the legal money monopolies, however, having said that one State can be compared, competitively, to another State, by the tax payers, to see which State offers the higher quality tax/money monopoly/government/business, at the lower cost to the tax payer, and vote with their feet, within a working Federated Democratic Republic, if one exists, by some measure. Well, there you have it, in that link at the top of the page, and here is a quote from it:
That is a large chuck of text especially for all those who are unaccustomed to anything other than a sound bite, and I don't usually quote such large numbers of symbols, all at once, since I prefer to take things apart and get down to the honest parts, the trees, in the forest, however, having said that, the article works as a whole, it is more than the sum of all its parts, at least up to the point where I stopped reading, and then I started linking, and commenting. This is major news on the liberty front. Here is another example of something similar: http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-california-town-prints-its-own-currency/ Josh Freeman of North Fork, CA sure took President Obama’s talk about providing help to “Main Street, not Wall Street” seriously. The tiny town of 2,400 people, located near Yosemite National Park, sits in a county with a staggering 15.7 percent unemployment rate. Seeing his town struggle, Freeman did what any red-blooded American would do: create his own currency. North Fork Shares, emblazoned with pictures of a butterflies and hummingbirds, are worth $12 per share, and are available in half and quarter shares. Now before you are the things by which people force themselves, voluntarily, and without resort to deceit, and without resort to threats of violence, and without resort to acts of violence, to improve the quality of life, while at the same time, reducing the costs of life, to be better able to pursue happiness, by gaining exclusive control of property, or by helping other people, or any happy thing under the sun, so long as no innocent people are willfully thrown under the bus to get there. A. Utah, a competitive State, within a supposed Federated Democratic Republic, is working toward producing, and maintaining, a competitive legal currency. B. North Fork, a competitive city within a competitive State, within a supposed Federated Democratic Republic, is working toward producing, and maintaining, a competitive legal currency. Now, before I get back to the article, and finish it, looking for specific things, such as the necessary law, in Utah, that acknowledges their new competitive legal tender as a form of legal money that can be used to pay taxes, which is the link that links the honest productive people to those who receive the honest productive power known as surplus wealth, before they set about spending it, distributing it, as various forms of subsidy, got that?, I'll return to that later, but before all that I will show you what has happened in the past when competitive money begins to gain currency, or "gained traction", in three historical examples: A. The time between Colonial Stamp Script in America before the legal crime creators of The Constitution effectively forced a monopoly upon the honest productive American people. Here is a source for information on that time period (not the only source): http://www.perfecteconomy.com/pg-relevant-historic-quotes.html Here is a quote: Having usurped British Parliament, "the Bank of England" required the American colonists to adopt a currency subject to as much as 30 percent annual interest. As interest is the rate at which debt is multiplied, the greater the rate of interest, the faster the dispossession by artificially multiplied indebtedness. Franklin thus later explained the substantial effects and principal cause of the American Revolution to a friend in France: Attributed to Benjamin Franklin B. The time before the abomination now called The Civil War included an experimental currency in a few experimental cities including what is now called Brentwood New York. Modern Times was an experimental city built up by people using Equitable Commerce, and similar forms of that competitive currency continue today in Ithaca New York. Here is a link that documents the original experiment: http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf C. A competitive currency used by Austrians before the take-over by the Nazi Regime. Here is a link reporting that experimental competitive legal currency: http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904 In each case an experimental competitive currency was invented, produced, and maintained, and in 2 cases the experimental currency was crushed by legal criminals. A fourth example involves the invention, production, and maintenance of Whiskey as a replacement currency, and George Washington crushed that competitor once the law of the land prescribed that solution to that problem. Returning to today, the Equitable Commerce experiment continues to work in various forms, Utah is beginning to challenge the National State, which is run by legal criminals, and a city in California is also inventing an experimental competitive currency, producing it, and maintaining it, according to my latest news sources. Which brings me back to reading the rest of the article at the top of this post, and I will be looking for that link between Utah precious metal money and tax debt. Let me go out on a limb and say those famous last words… “This time it is different.” I like the use of lists, and I agree with the validity, the accuracy, and the truth of the listed events, that are occurring in our present reality, with one exception, the debate over sound/honest money has been going on for more than a few decades. First of all, Utah has made gold and silver money once again. It is this anomaly – this “disturbance in the force” if you will – that has captured the attention of two of the largest newspapers in the nation. Why would a state actually pass a law to make constitutional money legal again? They are confused about the issue, as is evidenced by comments made by the reporters. I am going to offer some comments that may help anyone who may yet be confused. If one State within a working Federated Democratic Republic shines as the one State that has the only sound/honest money, then, ask yourself, what may happen? Think in terms of "keeping up with the Joneses", and consider what you would do, if you hear about someone you know in Utah, as that person brags to you about how they avoid having their hard earned wealth taken from them by way of inflation during BOOM, and taken from them by way of inflation during BUST, and you may not understand, until the person in Utah explains how sound/honest legal money works for them, but not for you, since you are not in the State that offers a competitive legal currency. You are stuck with the dollar, invented by the people who invented The Federal Reserve System (of extortion), and maintained by their successors, and the person you know in Utah isn't stuck with that criminal dollar. Do you move to Utah, or do you wait until the people in your State copy the example set by the people in Utah? Do you wish, and hope, and prey, that the people running The FED send troops into Utah, so as to crush "so fatal a spirit" as did George Washington back in the day? What do you really think The Civil War, which was not at all civil, was all about? It was about slavery, yes, and the masters meant to keep their slaves, not set them free. The slaves always have to set themselves free, waiting for charity doesn't work. Perhaps you can wait long enough to prove me wrong, and I won't hold my breath. Back to the article: With gold and silver as legal tender, the people own the metal. That is what I was looking for, and found, the link between tax debt and "legal tender". If you owe a tax payment to the government you can pay that tax payment with "legal tender", and you don't have to work for Federal Reserve Notes in Utah, if their experiment works, in Utah, you can work for gold and silver, or dollars, your choice? Will Utah still accept Federal Reserve Notes as payment for Utah State Tax Debt? I will read on, to find out, and then, of course, there will be a need to set a legal exchange rate in Utah, so as to measure the value of the dollar relative to the value of gold, and relative to the value of silver, and that, my friends of liberty, is legalized monetary competition, if it is invented in Utah, is produced in Utah, and is maintained in Utah, and is not crushed by enforcers of monopoly legal money powers. “He who owns the gold makes the rules.” Well… with the system put in place in Utah, the people are in a position to make the rules – not the central bankers. One might think that such a thing is reasonable, and any intelligent human being above the age of 5 could understand the fundamental principles, and interests involved, but, then again, this is the land of the something for nothing fad, so, who knows? I do. How about you?
Do you see? There will be competition, in the plan, the planners are planning on inventing, producing, and maintaining a legal monetary competition, legal choice, who would ever have thought such a thing? The sky is falling. Some one pinch me, I must be dreaming. So what does the Federal Reserve think of all of this? You can bet your bottom “dollar” that they are watching for any vulnerability with which to attack this system. However, unlike what happened with the Liberty Dollar and its founder Bernard Von NotHaus, what if there is no legal recourse for the Fed? What if state law is on solid constitutional grounds? What if free market implementation solutions have the backing of the state(s)? What if those solutions operate legally within the confines of the existing finanical system? That writer is so exited he may have misspelled financial. I'm on the edge of my seat. While it has been a very long time, there is precedent for “we the people” winning in a battle with the central bankers. Andrew Jackson led the last charge to “root out the den of vipers.” It nearly cost him his life. In the end, it was he who “killed the bank” – an epitaph written on his tombstone. Keep in mind, please, that Andrew Jackson was not a friend of liberty for "we the people", he was one of those "just us" people, just us get free, screw the Indians, women, slaves, and consider what happens when you travel down the road of "enemies of our enemies are our friends": a tangle web woven, but none the less, vipers are vipers, and not just anyone can root them out. Here’s to the Sound Money Summit. Mark your calenders. September 26th and 27th promise to be the next quantum leap forward as the states move to return to honest money. Here is the link: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/constitutional-tender/ No time, or interest, to edit, now, but I can delete and repost if something is really messed up, after the forum removes my edit button. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Josef, I really do admire your intellect. Take a look at this: serenesam, As I admire yours. I think there is a spark in each of us, something that drives us to "do the right thing", if only we knew what the right thing is, if we were all graced with a continuous steady flow of perfect information, what could possibly go wrong - ever? Absent that steady flow of perfect information, or absent that spark that drives some of us to "do the right thing", the thing called life is imperfect, and often things go awry; but from whose viewpoint? Who does the measure of perfection, right, wrong, good, bad, better, worse, true, false? Who decides to move our meeting of the minds, where we are afforded the opportunity to compared notes, to the punishment bin? I thought our exchange was exceptionally beneficial to anyone having similar contentious viewpoints as ours, as we aired our dirty laundry in public, and as we allowed the chips to fall as they may, and what is our reward for being honest, open, diligent, resourceful, meticulous, and persistent? We are moved from the good topic to the bad one? I do not agree with most everyone else's measure of good, with few exceptions, and the exceptions remain consistently the same exceptions. Do no harm. If you do harm, accidentally, don't repeat the error, or it isn't an error, is it? If you are attacked, and in defense the attacker is harmed, who claims that it is the defender that has done harm, on purpose, for profit? Beware of things that sound to good to be true, and if possible go back to the source of the claim, and find out the motive behind the claim, and as likely as not the claim will be false on purpose, for profit. There are basic things that can be known, and from those basic things many other things can be measured, compared to the basic things, for reference, for accurate measure, and when confusion arises, when things don't add up, it may be a good idea to go back, and rethink, re-evaluate, the basic things. I have been working on this since at least high school in 1975, what I call by a few basic names: 1. The Problem 2. Legal Crime 3. The Power Struggle My intellect is a combination of many things, persistence is probably the most valuable thing, as I keep chipping away at the remaining confusing items, improving the basic things, and retesting all contending perspectives, and that is where the value of your persistence can be measured. Without contending perspectives there would be only one perspective. How can life exist if only one perspective existed? There is great value in competitive perspectives, or absent that, the one perspective had better be the best one. Does that make sense? I will read the rest of your reply now. I work forum conversations in this way, as if simulating a conversation, by reading from the beginning of a post, and stopping when I see an opportunity to comment on the words I read, and then I go on to read, until I see an opportunity to comment, instead of reading the whole response first - and that works for me. That is how I work forums, as I try to measure other perspectives, as I try to test my own perspective, so as to improve my own perspective, so as to get rid of the false viewpoints, and so as to know, better, life.
I am going to comment on your method of responding before I comment on the words you quote. When someone offers a viewpoint to someone the person offering the viewpoint will have to choose words to accomplish the goal. Why choose the word "socialism"? Socialism is a word that has two opposite meanings in English. Why choose the word "capitalism", for the same ambiguous reason? When Albert Einstein offers his measure of Relativity, do you understand the full measure of that unique perspective? When Albert Einstein offered the world his viewpoint on atomic science, did someone turn that viewpoint around, from something good, to something bad? What is socialism, according to Albert Einstein, or Stephen Pearl Andrews, Eric Fromm, or Noam Chomsky? What is socialism, according to Joseph Stalin, Karl Marx, George Washington, or Ludwig Von Misses? I can measure each divergent definition of socialism by reading the words written by each of those viewpoints on that list above, but I can't ask them, and get an answer from them questions I have about their version of socialism. I can ask you. Will you answer my questions? If you don't, then, what is the point of quoting those versions of socialism to me? Is socialism, according to your version of socialism, a voluntary, welcome, agreeable, and mutually beneficial association among liberated people? Please consider answering that one question. As to the specific quote: * Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organisation which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate. Please consider reading Eric Fromm's work: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Anatomy_of_Human_Destructiveness.html?id=YjR5Ve-zTcYC Eric Fromm offers references to specific studies of anthropology relating to the various forms of human associations, including references to modern day (his day) examples of societies that are, or were, much less "civilized" due to their remote locations, disconnected from "civilized" societies. I can quote specific words from Eric Fromm, on that point. Our connections to each other can be improved in specific ways. We can work toward improving our equitable connections, and we can work toward avoiding criminal, or inequitable, or unwelcome, or dictatorial, or false, connections, and who on Earth wants to improve inequitable, unwelcome, dictatorial, false, inaccurate, fraudulent, injurious (to the innocent), criminal, master/slave, connections? Let them raise their hands, confess, and offer reasons as to why they want, work toward, and make those criminal connections "better". Who would make roads and then place signs at each intersection saying: "you have the right of way" on all four corners? No one; because no one is stupid enough to fall for that fraud twice. The lies have to be covered up with half truths, or the victims have to be stupefied to a much greater level, before someone could get away with such an obvious crime as to build roads and then place signs at each intersection saying: "you have the right of way" on all four corners? Who ordered the signs placed on all four corners of each intersection? Why are the signs still there; as the bodies pile up? Who is still claiming that the signs are there to help spread democracy? Why are people still using dollars, are they really that stupid; or is there some other power involved, other than abject stupidity? I will read the next quote you offer: * The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is free what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. That is dogma, from the first sentence, and I do not have to read the whole thing. I will respond only to the first sentence, and then you can respond accordingly. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By what measure, by what accurate method, is one person known to be a worker, and another person not a worker, or one person an employer, and another person an employee, or one person a seller, and another person a buyer, and when we can nail down the best answer to this question, we can move on to the rest of that quote, if you are up to the challenge? If not, then not. I will move to the next quote: * I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. I've been alive for over 50 years now and that sentence above is, to me, patently false. By my measure, again as a result of more than 50 years of life on Earth, there are many honest productive people who are gaining capacity for improved life, not deteriorating, despite the enormous power wielded by legal criminals who use stolen power to cause deterioration. A. All human beings are deteriorating. B. A majority of human beings are honest productive people who continue to improve despite the enormous measure of power designed to injure those innocent people - cause deterioration. You, and whoever wrote those words, may choose to place more weight in the first perspective (A); while my perspective is the later, and I can offer many specific examples that support my viewpoint, if you care to know. Next: * The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor — not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. You may to very well by reading Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, so as to identify a specific method of pricing that is chosen by many people, and that choice, as far as I know, is the essence of capitalism, it is capitalism. Capitalism is, as far as I have determined so far, a method of pricing - a choice. A person can choose to price something equitably. A person can choose to price something at a price that maximizes the flow of power in a favorable direction, or inequitably, and that is a choice, and so long as there is no other power involved, so long as the inequitable transfer is strictly voluntary, in every sense of the word voluntary, then, by that measure, both people involved, and all people involved, measure the transfer as an equitable transfer, despite the fact that the price was set by the seller so as to maximize the flow of power in a favorable direction - inequitably. That may be a difficult paragraph to understand; and I can get past the specifics and get right to the general facts - the principles. Associations will either be voluntary or involuntary, and any other character is relatively superfluous when compared to that specific, principled, character of human associations. In other words, the root, can be expanded into subdivisions from the root as such: A. Voluntary associations B. Involuntary associations A. 1. Voluntary capitalism 2. Voluntary socialism B. 1. Involuntary capitalism 2. Involuntary socialism Capitalism can be compared to socialism, and the differences, and the similarities of each association can be known, as this, and that, but those difference and similarities will be minor differences, and minor similarities compared to the differences between Involuntary capitalism and Voluntary capitalism, or the differences between Involuntary socialism, and Voluntary socialism. Involuntary capitalism and Involuntary Socialism will be almost identical, as if both were the same thing, compared to the differences between Involuntary capitalism and Voluntary capitalism, which is like the difference between night and day, or right and wrong, or good and evil, and the same wide span of difference exists between Involuntary socialism, and Voluntary socialism. Master and Slave associations are, in my view, criminal associations; whereby criminals plan on and then execute their plans to injure innocent victims, as criminals invent, produce, and maintain those connections that make up those associations, while the innocent victims suffer, having no power to avoid such injurious associations. It matters not what label is used by the criminals to get away with their crimes, since criminals lie, they false advertize, they commit fraud, they target their victims, and they misinform their victims, and they mislead their victims, and they hide behind false fronts, and they use false flags, and they deceive, and they threaten violence, and they use violence, and all that is all part of Involuntary associations. Where there are voluntary associations the capitalists and socialists appear almost the same, with only minor, practically irrelevant differences. The measure of the divide, the measure of the conflict, the measure of the hatred, lies in the lies, the lies that are part and parcel to the Involuntary, criminal, associations - with or without badges, licenses, franchises, titles, and pieces of authorized papers. Calling "capitalism" evil, when there are plenty of honest productive voluntary capitalists supplied in abundance, is, a measure of falsehood, misdirection, fraud, prejudice, and collective punishment, so as to cover up the true measure of evil, owned by those who produce evil, even if they say otherwise. What do they do? If they plan on injuring innocent people, and then they execute those plans, and innocent people are injured, does it help the victims in avoiding further injury by using the name capitalist to call attention and accountability to the criminals? What happens to all the honest productive voluntary capitalists when you collectively plan on punishing all the capitalists for the crimes committed by only the criminals who hide behind the false label of capitalist? What does that make you, as you intend to target capitalism, for crimes committed by criminals, and all those innocent bystanders pay the price of your punishment - how do you explain away all that collateral damage? What word do you use to hide the fact that your plan includes the injury of innocent victims, and you go ahead and execute that plan knowing that innocent victims will pile up in mass graves as they scream bloody murder on their long march to a torturous death? What is done? Not what is said. How many screams occur, listen to the victims as they scream, heed that warning. How many bodies pile up? What is your solution to the "capitalism" problem? Is it the same old final solution with a new font? I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. Words lead to deeds. You will have a very hard time selling voluntary socialism. Planning on and implementing socialism onto a targeted number of victims will be as difficult. How do you manage the voluntary sales job? How do you managed the involuntary method? I can offer two definitions of socialism that are in the historical record, and these definitions are original versions of the idea, and then I'll offer a glimpse of the historical record whereby the word socialism began to mean the opposite of the original meaning. I do this not in the hope of selling socialism, or capitalism, rather the idea is to do the right thing, to avoid being a victim, and to avoid being a criminal, more that once, and to avoid perpetuating victimization of the innocent by the criminals. Socialism as defined by one of Socialism's original activists, proponents, and historians (He wrote a book titled The History of Socialism, or so I've heard, but I have not found that copy yet, and I originally found my copy of the book where the quote was found in a Library in Australia, and I paid for photo copies of the text mailed to me from that source, and since than I have helped publish this book on-line, by converting the photocopy text into digital files): http://anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all. If you get to the root of voluntary capitalism what will you find, and will it be any different from that definition above, and if different, will the differences be a matter of principle or interest? Next is a quote of Karl Marx by Eric Fromm in the before mentioned book titled "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness": For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968) Whose version of capitalism is joined voluntarily? Whose version of capitalism is enforced by deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence? Now onto the Communist Manifesto so as to help know how the criminals redefined the original meaning of socialism. http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it. Presuming that the historical record is accurate, the text clearly records a division between the voluntary socialists (such as "The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France" who were referred to by Stephen Pearl Andrews) and the involuntary "communists". Karl Marx, apparently, became corrupted, from a scientifically based, self-improving, perspective, to a criminally based, dictatorial, perspective, and we in America have similar turn-coats; George Washington in particular. A similar division occurs within the capitalist set of people - in their numbers. Example: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money. There is much more to the obvious divisions among the capitalists, in particular the writings of Karl Menger - offering a measure of the division that I won't elaborate on right now. I have to move on, it is getting late, and I have yet to produce something of value, or work, as I define it. Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralisation of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured? That is extremely dogmatic; making references to things as if things, or even ideas, or even legal fictions, or groups, are capable of responsibility, and therefore capable of accountability, which is a variation on the criminal tactic of yelling "thief" while committing a crime, so as to inspire the victims to be misdirected, and render them powerless. There may be more meaning in the context of the words quoted, but why tangle things up is such a confusing web of falsehood, what is the point? Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service. Excellent final quote, I agree with those words, that perspective is well supported by many examples. Thanks I can deal with the move from the main page to this punishment bin, this execution of punishment, without trial, as those who executed this punishment rationalize their acts, by some measure, because this is what is, even if I don't agree with the transfer; I can deal with it. At least this thread was not deleted, at least this thread is still competitive by its actual measure, despite the move to discredit it. No time to edit Please understand that I welcome your perspective, even if I do not agree with it, and if you can expose my error, as I try to expose yours, I will be better for your effort, you will help me, which amounts to a measure of generosity on your part - as far as I can see - at this point. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Do the Bankers/Federal Reserve do Usury ? Valerius, I think that your question is a very important question that can help everyone once it is answered accurately. I am going to offer an general answer, or an answer that moves toward a more accurate answer, assuming that my answer is valid. If a person has a choice between borrowing from someone who charges a lot for a loan and borrowing from someone else who charges less for a loan, then that is a case whereby two competitors are competing against each other for the opportunity to sell a loan. If a third competitor competes for the same opportunity to sell a loan and the price charged to the borrower is even less, then which does the borrower choose? A. Higher priced loan B. Medium priced loan C. Lower priced loan If a fourth competitor moves into the competition and undercuts all three previous competitors for the opportunity to sell the loan to the borrower and the fourth competitor lowers the price even lower, which does the borrower choose? A. Higher priced loan B. Medium priced loan C. Lower priced loan D. Lowest priced loan to date If a fifth competitor moves into the competition and undercuts all four previous competitors for the opportunity to sell the loan to the borrower and the fifth competitor actually pays people to borrow the loan, so as to corner the market, which does the borrower choose? A. Highest priced loan B. Next to highest priced loan C. Medium priced loan D. Next to lowest priced loan, almost "free" of charge E. Negative priced loan, lender pays borrowers to borrow money At which point you may claim that no such thing can exist, where banks pay people to borrow money, and at which point you may want to check out the following link: http://www.umungu.com/scrip.htm When banking competition is not against the law, what do you think happens? When banking monopolies are not enforced by the same people who enforce moral laws, what do you think happens? What happens to the quality of things produced, and the cost of things produced, when there is no competitor allowed to offer higher quality and lower cost? I can illustrate the answer with one link: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If all the honest productive American people picked a day in the future, at which time, in unison, all of those honest productive people in America began using a competitive legal money, instead of the enforced legal monopoly, or Dollar Hegemony, who would have a care in the world about all those who still rung their hands over that National Debt Clock, whereby many people are led to believe that they owe an impossible sum to a very few mysterious nobodies? In short: Yes, Bankers/Federal Reserve do Usury, that is what they do, and they have names, and they leave paper trails, and those paper trails are denominated in their legal monopoly paper fraud currency money stuff (not so short an answer). OK, the short answer: Yes |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north997.html Anyone, That is a link to the latest report about The Dollar Hegemony (A.K.A. U.S.A. Inc. LLC), or The Federal Reserve System operators, including Ben Bernanke, and the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), by Gary North, the Austrian Economist Authority - if there ever was one. Note: They don't know why. Gary may be playing with the facts, nudging, or chiding, or kidding, or having his tongue somewhere near his cheek, or white lying, or whatever can communicate Gary North knowing better than he reports to his readers. If those legal criminals running The Dollar Hegemony don't know why the things they do cause the things that happen, over, and over, and over, and over gain, with unfaltering consistency, then I'll eat my hat. I don't have a hat. The point is made, and it matters not what I believe, or what Gary North believes, as to what those legal criminals know, or don't know, while they continue to somehow manage to retain control over nearly incalculable power, and as they continue to cause unspeakable suffering upon immeasurable numbers of victims perpetually, and with impunity. If they are so dumb, Gary, why are they so powerful, for so long? If they are so dumb, by what measure of lack of intelligence does their victims compare - competitively - on the dumb scale? Gary was speaking about this: The Keynesian textbook account, including Bernanke's textbook, says that monetary expansion and low interest rates are supposed to increase economic growth. It's not happening. Keynesian textbooks can be compared to Austrian Economics textbooks, just as Socialist textbooks can be compared to Capitalist textbooks, and if they have been authorized by the authorities who are connected to The Dollar Hegemony, the bend will be toward blind obedience, or a general scarcity of competitive information, such as can be found by people who are neither Keynesian, nor Austrian, and neither Socialist, nor Capitalist, just honest working people, who are not out to get something for nothing, as a plan, followed by the execution of the plan, to get something, for nothing, or to get something at the expense of someone else, or to trade inequitably. Here is a quote from one of the Austrian Economics Professors who wrote the fundamental principles behind Austrian Economics, according to some of those authorities living today: ...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. http://mises.org/etexts/menger/two.asp I've read enough of that professors work to realize that the motive is no different than every other motive dreamed up by someone planning on, and then executing the plan, to gain at the expense of targeted, innocent, victims. What is the measure of what they do, compared to what they say? Is the truth in the fine print? Do they confess, eventually? When the pot calls the kettle black, as in the Austrian Economists calling the Keynesian Economists monetary cranks, and that "they" don't know how to do this, or that, I'm curious about the viewpoint from which the finger is pointing, as much as where the finger is pointing. The exclusive control over the legal money power is an example of some individuals, certainly not every individual, attempting, and then gaining ground, to secure his, or their, own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others, right out of the Austrian Economics text book. Karl Menger goes on to describe, in his words, not mine: how value isn't value without scarcity. Things that are abundant are not valuable, speaking in Austrian Economics speak. What about Sunlight, or power of any kind? Power remains powerful even when it is abundant, perhaps even more so because it is cost-less, as a result of being abundant. The fingers being pointed at the legal monopoly power, and calling them anything but legal criminals, misdirects the focus of attention away from the fact that they are criminal and focuses attention on whatever other characters are associated with the false front. Call the legal criminals Humpty Dumpty and sooner or later the victims are going to dislike Humpty Dumpty, and then it will be time to replace the old name with a shinny new one, preferably one that the victims identify as being a nice, harmless, or even beneficial name. Absent anything good, the lesser of two evils prevails, at least Humpty Dumpty isn't as bad as Donald Duck, currently. That last sentence leads into another quote from Gary North: Furthermore the data above proves beyond a reasonable doubt why there has been no excess lending by US banks to US borrowers: none of the cash ever even made it to US banks! This also resolves the mystery of the broken money multiplier and why the velocity of money has imploded. The use of the word velocity is instructive when measuring current realities. It is not merely speed, or velocity, that measures currency, in any form, the current of a river, the current flow of blood through a human body, the electric current flowing in an electric circuit, and hydraulic fluid flowing in a hydraulic circuit, all have stuff flowing at a specific rate and the rate is determined by all the forces that determine that rate, and if the rate increases, certain measurable things happen, and if the rate decreases, certain measurable things happen. A human body can be killed if the velocity of blood slows down or speeds up too fast, there is a range where life is possible. Electric circuits are even more sensitive to changes in velocity, whereby too much velocity will render the circuit powerless to do the designed task, and injure parts of the circuit. A social network can be seen in similar light. Take an operating social network and then remove half of the legal currency that was circulating at a measurable velocity and what do you think will happen? Does it matter if that removal of that currency is done by a few people, or one person? The result is the same until such time as the currency returns into circulation. What happens if the power available in the social circuit is doubled, such as the case when the legal criminals doubled the legal number of dollars in 2008? Does it matter where the money is sent, what the money buys, or even if the money is burned, or even if the money is used to employ an army of people to dig holes, and then another army of people to fill the holes back in? What happens if the legal money supply is cut in half inside the social network and that half of the supply of money is then added to a doubling of the money, and then both the half and the double money supply sum is sent outside the social network? How about a look at rough numbers to get an idea of what happens. A = Total dollars in circulation (with a known velocity) inside U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). That is the situation before the total money supply is cut in half, and we can say that that time is roughly the beginning of 2008. Then there is the following: B = half of A is removed from inside U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) Then there is added to that cutting in half the legal life blood of the U.S. economy an additional plan, with an additional execution of the plan, which amounts to the following: C = doubling the total supply of legal dollars before it was cut in half. Then the plan is to take the half that was taken out of circulation inside U.S.A. Inc. and add to it the doubling of the supply of money (before cutting it in half) to spend that total amount of legal money outside U.S.A. Inc. A = 1x (where x is a number of zeros) B = .5x C = 1x Before the plan is executed the Honest Productive American People have 1x to work with as the life blood of the economy. Then the Honest Productive American People have their life blood supply cut in half and taken and what is taken is added to the doubled amount, which adds up to 1.5x, and that sum of dollars is sent, or spent, or held in reserve to be spent later, or sent to the competition as the Honest Productive American People struggle to compete. Before the plan is executed the Honest Productive American People work with 1x as an amount of legal purchasing power flowing through the entire American Economic Body, and no one anywhere has any more Dollars to work with as far as the 2008 plan is concerned, and then 1.5 is suddenly transferred somewhere by some people. BP (Before Plan) 1x for the Honest American People and 0x for the competition. AP (After Plan) .5x for the Honest American People and 1.5x for the competition. What can be expected to happen, by any reasonable person, even an Austrian Economics Professor? Before the plan is executed the Honest Productive American People have 1x power, perhaps trillions of dollars, perhaps more, who has the most accurate number? Then the power of the Productive American People, as world economic competitors, is cut in half, while their half cut out is added to the measure of their power before the cut (Bust), and that power is then employed by a few people, and the same few people who have the legal power to cut the power of the Productive American People in half, bust it, and the same few people who have the legal power to double the power used by the Productive American People, boom something, and the same few people who then have the power to spend the half taken from the Productive American People, and the same few people who have the power to spend the extra sum of purchasing power that they doubled, and added to the half they took out of circulation, and they can spend it outside the network used by the Productive American People, those few can actually spend that purchasing power taken, and doubled, on the competition that competes with the Productive American People; if that is what they plan on doing, then they can execute that plan. Who has the power to stop them? If the Honest Productive American People do not have the power to stop them before half of what power they had was taken, will they then have enough power to stop them after that power, and much more, is used to finance the competition? This is not news. This has happened before, and here is the writer who wrote about it then: http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm Here is how this story was told back then: 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. Double the power available, keep half of that doubling, then cut half of the power out of the circuit, keep that half and add that half to the total power taken, then that sum of power is transferred to the competition. A. 1x Then B. .5x After taking half C. 1x Taken by doubling D. .5x added to 1x = 1.5x sent to the competition E. .5x is what the home team has to work with after having worked with 1x, and now the home team, suffering from that loss, is competing against the competition that was just given 1.5x. And Gary North says: They don't know why. They are stupid? They are hedging their bets by creating the situation to their advantage, and the few who know exactly what is being done, and why, are not likely going to be advertising those facts, because everyone can't win when the goal is to earn something at the expense of other people. When the goal is "to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others" the "others" can't be clued in on the goal, they need to be clueless, or even better, they need to be paying for the whole thing and then sent a bill for all the cost of the whole thing, including expenses, and including bonuses flowing to the worst of the worst, or best of the best, whichever eye by which the measure is made. Which explains the following link well enough: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ I have yet to finish reading Gary North's report on the bad guys, as the bad guys are busy, lately. I'm curious about such things, but not in such a way as to find myself seeking to secure my own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of all others, rather, I think that responsibility is individual, or there is no responsibility, and without responsibility there certainly can't be accountability, by my measure? |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north998.html Anyone, Gary North again, the go to guy, holding the fire under the legal criminals, as those lying, cheating, torturing, and mass murdering, serial killers extraordinaire, transfer the power from the source, which is the honest productive people of America, and use that power to keep the power flowing, by any means necessary, including the aforementioned crimes against humanity. And the skeptics may claim, this, or that, but all that has to be done to hold the actual people accountable is to follow the money to the source, then follow where it goes, what it buys, and who cashes in on the current crimes of the century. Look into Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. You may have heard that the Federal Reserve System is the lender of last resort. This is a misleading concept. The Federal Reserve loans the U.S. government newly created fiat money. The government issues the FED an IOU. It is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. But who stands behind the United States government, wallets in hand? You do. And so do I. So, humanity, are you embarrassed by your gullibility, at all, as the power still flows from the victims to the criminals, and it is accelerating, and the rate of acceleration is accelerating, as the honest productive people grow ever weaker, and as the legal criminal grow strong enough to increase the rate of acceleration of power flowing to them, by way of deceit, and by way of threats of violence, and by way of unaccounted examples of horrific mass violence? Just a tad embarrassed? What is the pay off for willful ignorance, and what is the profit for parroting the lies, how does one rationalize such embarrassing moral irresponsibility? I didn't know? I was following orders? Really?
There goes more of the gullibility. Who claims that "we are broke"? Look at the debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ That is a measure of the power flowing. The power exists. The power is a power to purchase. If it is not power, it cannot purchase. When they say that "we are broke"; they mean "we want more of the power we are stealing from you". If there is more to take, and they know there is more to take, then they take it, anyway they can, including by way of the lie that "we are broke". Why parrot that lie? We are not broke. There is plenty of power, abundant power, so much power that the legal criminals can steal much, or most, of it, and then consume that power to destroy our ability to produce power, and use our power to destroy other people in other countries, and there is so much stolen power that there is enough power to rebuild the other countries that they destroy, and so much stolen power that they can BOOM the Chinese economy. How much power is there, not who owns it, how much power exists? Call the total supply of surplus wealth X. Is that supply increasing or decreasing? If the legal criminals use that power to BOOM the Chinese economy, then the total supply of power is increasing, as the power is used to make more power. If at the same time that power is used to destroy Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries, then the total supply is being used up, it will be decreasing, as the power is used to destroy power. How much power is it? It is enough power to BOOM the Chinese economy, destroy Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, feed most of the people in the Unites States, and construct two cars in every garage, all the garages, all the houses attached to all the garages, the roads, the Space Program, the welfare programs, the corporate subsidies, the secret military, the underground bunkers, the nuclear industry, bio warfare research, and the list goes on, and on, and on, and all that purchasing is the measure of the power to purchase, which is the measure of the entire sum of humanities power to use power to make more power, power enough to construct Pyramids before the discovery of oil, before the advantages of industry, before electricity, before air-flight, and before global networked communication whereby anyone can instantly contact anyone else and transfer information immediately. How much power is the power that they are claiming is the true measure of us being broke, as those people are driven in limousines, to one of their summer homes, on one of their summer vacations? Who says "we are broke" - Gary North? If they have the power to steal all the measurable surplus wealth, then they are not broke, and once they have that power they can take anything away from anyone, or everything from everyone, all the power to purchase, by using the same tool they use to steal the power - they manipulate the legal monopoly money supply. What happens if all the honest productive American people stop using The Dollar on July 4th 2011, and begin using a competitive, accurately, honest, high quality, and low cost money instead? The National Debt clock then measures something other than the connection between the honest productive people and the legal criminals. Who ever is left using The Dollar is left holding an empty bag, because the source of the power has been disconnected from that legal extortion racket? What then is the measure of the power produced by the honest productive people once the honest productive people stop using the dollar measure? No more "we are broke". Then it is just "they are broke"; meaning those left holding onto that fraud account. What then, when all the honest productive people of American begin using their own honest legal money, or many diverse competitive currencies, once the flow of the power to the legal criminals stops, what is then the measure of the power of the honest productive people of America, who can say then, that "we are broke", and what is used to measure how broke we are then? How does anyone measure the "full faith and credit of the" honest productive American people? The scam is such that the lenders (the honest productive American people) are told that they are the borrowers, and if the honest productive American people are broke, it is a lack of knowledge, a lack of will to resist victimization, and in that measure we are broke, not by the measure of power to purchase, not by the measure of the power to produce surplus wealth, and once the honest productive American people figure out the scam, and figure out the tool that is used to facilitate the scam, The Dollar Hegemony, they will be powerful enough to end their victimization. They will no longer be broke. We are the victims of last resort. The honest productive American people are the lenders. Who is paying the lenders the interest payments, and the principle payments, that they earn for lending the power to purchase to the borrowers? A. Honest productive Americans are the lenders. B. The legal criminals borrow from A How can the lenders be so stupid as to actually believe that they owe someone something for having loaned something to someone? The scam is so incredibly bold, and audacious, that there is very good reason why the legal criminals think that their victims are stupid, inferior, and deserving of victimization. Look at how stupid it is, for the lenders, the honest productive American people, to believe that they are broke, and that they owe the people who borrow from them, instead of the other way around. Imagine going to the Bank. You sit down and take out a new home loan, for 100 thousand dollars. You then send the bank a monthly bill, not a payment, a bill. You send the Bank a monthly bill and you charge the Bank a monthly bill that begins to transfer the interest you charge the Bank for you having borrowed money from the bank, and then you charge a principle payment transferred to you from the Bank, as the Bank pays you for the money you borrowed from the Bank. You borrow 100 thousand from the Bank. You then charge the Bank an amortized payment schedule whereby the Bank pays you an additional 100 thousand dollars of principle, and you also charge the Bank 100 thousand dollars of interest payments, because, as you say to the Bank, you borrowed money from the Bank. Because you borrowed from the lender you expect, and you receive, monthly payments of principle and interest from the Bank, because you borrowed from the Bank; the borrower is owed principle and interest payments for having borrowed from the lender. Got it? You borrow 100 thousand dollars from the Bank. You tell the Bank that the Bank now owes you 200 thousand dollars, for having loaned you 100 thousand dollars. How do you convince the Bank that that arrangement is acceptable to the Bank, how do you get the Bank to believe such a ridiculous fraud? You think I'm stupid? Read Gary North (who appears to be as yet still duped into the belief that "we are broke"): You may have heard that the Federal Reserve System is the lender of last resort. This is a misleading concept. The Federal Reserve loans the U.S. government newly created fiat money. The government issues the FED an IOU. It is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. But who stands behind the United States government, wallets in hand? You do. And so do I. Who is borrowing power from who? Who owes who? Who is paying who for what? Where does the power to purchase originate, where does that power come from, and how is the transfer from those who create that power to those who then spend it managed? Power does not exist at a point in time. Then someone makes more power. Now power does exist. The producer of the power has it, of course, the producer made the excess power, the producer produced the surplus wealth, the producer consumed less and produced more, and the producers produces surplus wealth, from a time, and from a place, where there was no power. Someone has the power that that same person produces. How is that power then transferred to someone else? What is that transfer called? The power producer has power. Power flows to someone else? Who is the lender? Who is borrowing? Who owes who? If the producer believes that the power flowing to the other person constitutes an obligation to pay more, and more, and more, and more, because that power started flowing in that direction, if that happens, then that is called what? Stupidity. Fraud? Willful ignorance? The lesser of two evils? What else can explain that transfer? The powerful people empower the legal criminals, and the legal criminals then use that power to keep that flow of power accelerating, making the powerful people less powerful, and making the legal criminals more powerful, until such time as the power producers can no longer produce power. Does that make the power producer broke, or just incredibly stupid? Of course the legal criminals smirk. Of course the legal criminals laugh as they give themselves bonuses, and raises, and extended vacations, and piles and piles of tortured and murdered victims stink to high heaven, on your dime. You are next. They can afford to laugh. How much longer can you afford to be so stupid? I'll read more of Gary North - while listening to Alex Jones, and I may comment further. Hold on: Alex Jones says: "Most Americans would..." Obey orders to walk into a mass grave to be shot to death, with their own children at hand? If we are so broke, as to believe that we owe legal criminals for the privilege of being their victims, the we are certainly broke - that broke? Who is on that list of "we"? Back to Gary North: The constant absorption of capital by the U.S. government cannot go on forever. No, Gary, the legal criminals have actually recorded the money trail in their published documents called Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, and they are people, the criminals are people, they have names, they willfully plan on that "constant absorption of capital by" them, those names on those reports, or the names of the people behind the false fronts named on those reports, the limited liability corporations, or whatever label is on the paper. The actual power is wielded by actual people. The power flows to actual accounts, where actual people have the power to use the money in those accounts to purchase; they have names; actual signatures from actual human beings cause the power to flow as directed by the person signing, authorizing, and making the transfers happen, and the "U.S. government" cannot be responsible, and "it" can't be held accountable, so that error, of blaming a thing, for the crimes committed by people, is part of the fraud, parroting the fraud, supporting the fraud, being the fraud. Why parrot the lies one more time? What is the pay off? This means that when the Federal Reserve finally stops buying U.S. debt, there will be a great default. I mean finally. I do not mean temporarily. I do not mean this year. The fear of another recession may keep the safe-haven money flowing into the Treasury this year. But, at some point, investors will demand higher interest rates. Geithner's letter raises this specter of higher interest rates if the debt ceiling is not raised. But this threat will also exist if the debt ceiling is raised and raised again, as it will be. None of that means anything to anyone not connected to that legal monopoly money, so why care about it? Why put any power in it? Why not divorce yourself from it, and connect to honest productive people instead, connect with a new connection, connect with competitive honest money instead, and the honest money, if it is higher quality, and if it is lower cost, will be designed to effectively prevent connections to the legal criminals. Honest productive Americans are now connected to the legal criminals by way of the legal monopoly money power, the dollar unit of currency, and that can end, and no owner of that money can demand interest payments from anyone not connected by that fraudulent connection. There is no demand for any interest payment when the victims are no longer stupefied and victimized by that legal money fraud. A replacement money, a competitive money, an honest money, a secure money, in place, removes that flow of power. Honest productive Americans stop the flow that weakens them, and stops the same flow that strengthens the legal criminals, and thereby the legal criminals can no longer demand interest payments. Who would pay those demands once a competitive choice is less expensive, less costly, and much more powerful for the person, and the people, choosing the better option? There is no longer a power to enforce such demands of interest payments, or principle payments, or mortgage payments, or even tax payments, not in dollars, no longer in dollars, since honest productive Americans invent and use their own honest productive American currency. What is the problem? Rising interest rates? Really? Who says so? A dollar supporter? Someone betting the farm on the good faith and credit of the dollar unit of currency? The dollar is controlled by criminals, why use that money? Why fight the criminals at all? Why not ignore them? Why not cut the credit card? They borrow money and then they say the lender owes them principle and interest. How stupid can people get? The Federal Reserve at some point will start buying Treasury debt again to keep rising rates from crippling the economy. This means price inflation will return, as it did in the late 1970s. Then it will move above that era's rate of rising prices. This is why the FED will eventually have to face the music: either hyperinflation or the Great Default. I believe that it will choose the Great Default. If it refuses, then the dollar will collapse. That is entirely a dollar denominated network of individuals connected by that single legal currency, and it has nothing to do with anyone who manages to get by with something better than the dollar, anyone, or any group, managing to invent, and maintain, a better legal money has no interest in that dollar denominated crisis, or fraud, or gravy train, or whatever it is to whomever benefits from it, or whomever is injured by it. Why do people consider the dollar to be the only measure of the power of the honest productive American people, as if no other measure can exist. If the measuring device is false, get one that isn't. What is the problem? At some point, interest rates will rise. Then we will see the negative consequences that Geithner described in his letter. Why will interest rates rise on the dollar unit of legal fraud money? There will be a Great Default when voters finally say, "We're not going to pay." On that day, your net worth had better not rest on a pile of IOUs issued by the U.S. government. Otherwise, you will be like Thomas Mitchell, in "Gone With the Wind," sitting at his desk in 1865, mad as a hatter, insisting that he was rich. Why? He had lots of government bonds issued by the Confederacy. Betting the farm on the ability of legal criminals to keep the power flowing from those who create power to those who steal it with the legal monopoly money fraud is cause for hedging, and the Austrians tend to suggest hedging, by betting, or by investing, or by buying gold, silver, and other measures of surplus wealth. Why not buy things that make more power out of less power? A Solar Panel. A Farm, or even a Modular Home Vertical Farming Unit or two. Knowledge, wisdom, or something other than stupid voluntary victimization, which is the measure of the legal dollar money fraud extortion racket, is an investment opportunity that leads to more power, abundant power, and avoiding bankruptcy. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
just my opinion mind, but the meaning of capitalism is free enterprise of the individual in a society that protects and upholds contracts and punishes fraud and coercion. aLLyOuRbAsE, Society cannot punish, and therefore your definition is as ambiguous, and imprecise, as any legalese that may intend to be imprecise, so as to afford the authority who authored the words, the ability to constructively interpret the meaning of the communication authored by said authority. Your imprecise, and ambiguous, definition of capitalism falls well within the range of definitions of capitalism that is common among what has become known as State Capitalism, which is in many ways opposite in principle when compared competitively against the group of individuals who have become known as Ancaps, or Anarchist Capitalists. Anarchist Capitalists are as far apart from State Capitalists as hippy communes in the American 1960s are far from Stalin's enforced communism during his regime of legal crime that has been measured as high as 20 million legal murders of innocent "citizens"; but anarchist capitalists and state capitalists have one common connection. I have a working definition of capitalism that so far fits every single capitalist, without fail, until such time as a capitalist honestly informs me otherwise. Capitalism is a pricing method. The price of something to be exchanged, by a capitalist, is priced at "that which the market will bear", in their words, and in a more precise wording, free from euphemism, the price is set to the highest limit that the other person is willing to pay, and that method of pricing is the essence of capitalism, until an honest capitalist can correct my error, and I won't hold my breath. If a so called capitalist uses a different pricing method, such as an equitable price, or a cost price, then that so called capitalist, as far as I know to date, is the one capitalist alive that falls outside my working definition of capitalism, which would be nice to know, but where is that person, and if there are more than one, where is that group of capitalists who don't have that one common denominator, that pricing method? Back to your definition: just my opinion mind, but the meaning of capitalism is free enterprise of the individual in a society that protects and upholds contracts and punishes fraud and coercion. Up to the point at which individuals, "in a society" (which can mean any number of people connected in some way, and the sum, or aggregate, set of people connected, is "society", and "society" isn't a thing unto itself, "society" is not a responsible entity, and "society" is not an accountable entity it's self, to be clear, and to head off any misdirection, or misconception, of what is, or is not society), are free to do anything enterprising, or productive, or anything other than the willful premeditated injuring of the innocent, I can call that description: peaceful human existence, or: liberated human existence, where the innocent people are not being willfully injured by criminals. How is that capitalism? Where is the capitalism part? just my opinion mind, but the meaning of capitalism is free enterprise of the individual in a society Where is the capitalism part? Do the capitalists claim some patent on free enterprise? Where is this exclusive right to own, or use, free enterprise, this stuff that is somehow held by capitalists exclusively, if so? Moving on to the last part, but again making sure that the word "society" is not misused so as to project a false perspective of society, and so as to avoid the often made error of misunderstanding: that "society" is capable of thought, or "society" is capable of action, and "society" is therefore, falsely, blamed as being responsible for anything, or held accountable as if "society" were a being, and not merely a set of people, or sum of people, or aggregate measure of a group of independent minded human beings who are all capable of individual thought, and who are all capable of individual action, and who are all accountable, and who are all responsible, as individuals, for their individual thoughts, and their individual actions. a society that protects and upholds contracts and punishes fraud and coercion. Who does the punishing, in your definition of capitalism? Is that the thing that accurately draws the line between regular people and capitalists? Capitalists construct and maintain a society in which capitalists decide who can punish who, and for what, and if you are not a capitalist, well then, what does that make you? Love it or leave it? If you are not a capitalist, you are a terrorist? Capitalism, at it's core, the one common denominator agreed with, among all capitalists, is the method of pricing, until one, or more, honest capitalist confesses otherwise. All other considerations stem from that one common denominator and vary considerably from one to the next capitalist. There is a very wide range of how much a capitalist will push for his, or her, punishment doctrine, from the anarchist capitalists all the way up to the flaming fascists, and many variations in between, and still, the one common denominator is the pricing method. Take away the pricing method, and the essence of capitalism vanishes, and the person returns back to just another person. And you can accuse me of reading to much into your definition, while I remind you that it is your ambiguous definition, not mine. My definition of capitalism is precise, workable, and so far proven to hit the mark every single time, without exception. Capitalism is a method of pricing something to be exchanged to someone else, or to other people, at a price that is raised to the highest limit the the other people are willing to pay, or in one word, an inequitable price. Capitalism is a way of pricing an inequitable price that favors the capitalist exclusively. A capitalist will not touch my viewpoint with a ten foot pole, and I have direct experience, spanning over 25 years, with this knowledge earned over that much time. As soon as a capitalist begins to see the doors that open from my viewpoint, they slam that door shut with vengeance, and resort from then on to deception, threats of violence, or as yet personally experienced, I can assume, reasonably, that they will resort to their version of physical punishment doctrine upon me, for the crime of offering a competitive, and accurate, viewpoint. Why? You tell me, and I am being nice. I've read other competitive perspectives on the full, and accurate, base, or principle, measure of capitalism, but so far mine works best, in actual efforts to find the true measure, and I will offer three examples of other authors whereby the other authors offer their definitions of capitalism, and I will add mine, and I will add yours, and therefore there will be, now, before you, a total of 5 competitive definitions of capitalism, so as to offer you, or anyone, a means by which you, as the individual judge, can find which definition offers the highest quality, at the lowest cost, to you. Which definition works for you, best, so that you now have the best working definition of capitalism, the best definition that affords you the tool you need to accomplish your goal. whatever that goal may be. Competitive definitions of Capitalism (for anyone with lots of questions, where the idea is to find the best answers): 1. Yours just my opinion mind, but the meaning of capitalism is free enterprise of the individual in a society that protects and upholds contracts and punishes fraud and coercion. 2. Mine Pricing inequitably. 3. Marx, by way of Eric Fromm Source: http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Human-Destructiveness-Erich-Fromm/dp/080501604X For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968) 4. Karl Menger by way of The Mises Institute Source: ...every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others. 5. I.G Farben, and the Secret Service, by way of Joseph Borkin Source: http://www.amazon.com/Crime-Punishment-I-G-Farben/dp/0760703736/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207843929&sr=1-1 The construction of I.G. Auschwitz has assured I.G. a unique place in business history. By adopting the theory and practice of Nazi morality, it was able to depart from the conventional economics of slavery in which slaves are traditionally treated as capital equipment to be maintained and serviced for optimum use and depreciated over a normal life span. Instead, I.G. reduced slave labor to a consumable raw material, a human ore from which the mineral of life was systematically extracted. When no usable energy remained, the living dross was shipped to the gassing chambers and cremation furnaces of the extermination center at Birkenau, where the S.S. recycled it into the German war economy – gold teeth for the Reichsbank, hair for mattresses, and fat for soap. Even the moans of the doomed became a work incentive, exhorting the remaining inmates to greater effort. There is a point to capitalism, a point for each capitalist, a goal, where each capitalist has a goal, a plan, a willful plan, and capitalism helps each capitalist arrive at that willful goal, and so, what is that goal, for one capitalist, and the next, and the next, where each capitalist shares that same goal, thereby defining the true meaning of capitalism, and no other thing defined by some other goal? What is the base? What is the principle? What glues all the capitalists into that one group, what bonds them by their specific willful choices, common among all of them, excluding anything other than that one capitalist bonding element? You tell me. I think I know, but I've been wrong many, many, many times, enough times to finally dawn upon my consciousness, that I can be wrong again. Don't, please, steer me down some rabbit hole, if you can possibly avoid such a willful thing that targets me specifically. So far my working definition of capitalism, which is merely inequitable pricing, is that one common bond, and any other thing, so far, is just people being people, not people being "capitalists". I can be enterprising, and I don't need a capitalist license to do so, and I can be freely enterprising, choosing not to injure innocent people during my free enterprising actions, that are willfully done by me, and I don't need a capitalist authorized patent to do that either. I can punish people if I want to, but that doesn't make me a capitalist either, as far as I know, punishers punish, that is what they do, that is what defines a punisher. What does a capitalist do, to join the club, exclusively, the thing that makes a capitalist unique to capitalism, exclusively capitalism, and not any other defined group? I'm anxious to know the true, accurate, highest quality, and lowest cost answer, and you have my best guess to date, and I've been looking. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
So, we understand that corporations are global now. Electrellect, Please understand that my response is in no way designed by me to win anything, or to be argumentative for the sake of argumentation. I have been searching for honest discussion for many years, finding very few examples, and that short story brings me right here, right now, looking at that sentence, stopping at that sentence, and offering a competitive response to that sentence, before moving on to reading the rest of your original offering for discussion on this forum. I realized, and I understand, that the legal criminals (criminals who happen to be elected into positions of law enforcement) gain by the fact that their victims believe in legal fictions, and the belief is such that the legal fiction is, itself, a responsible entity, a being, and therefore an entity that can be held to account, and presumably, an entity that can be punished - while the actual legal criminals are not held to account, and are therefore left with all the power they need to perpetuate their legal crimes. If my version of your sentence amounts to the same message, the same realization, and the same understanding, then from my view I'd have to assume a whole lot of message that does not show up in your sentence, unless I read between the lines. Corporations are legal fictions, and they are incapable of thought, and they are incapable of action, and therefore they are incapable of responsibility, and they are incapable of accountability, and the legal criminals realize these facts, and their victims, as a rule, do not realize these facts, or understand these facts, with few exceptions to that rule. They are not bound to the country they originated in. Which is more important: people bound by moral consciousness, the realization, and the understanding that moral consciousness is necessary for survival as living beings, or people being bound by some legal fiction, or nation, or country, or geographical area? What is meant by the words "the country"? If you do not realize, or understand, the significance of the question being asked, then consider reading the following link, or at least the quote taken from it: http://www.lysanderspooner.org/node/35 “The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial the government. Do you use the term "The Country" to be a synonym for "The People", as being all the people, without exception, and specifically not a reference to the few people who constitute "The Government"? Having no clue as to what you mean by they words "The Country", I am able to assume that you mean "The United States of America", or "The Nation State", or anything imaginable since the term has been used often to mean, specifically, the few people who wield the power of the government, or the law enforcement power, criminal or otherwise. If you use the term to mean all the people within the geographical area that has been designated as the legal boundaries of The United States of America, generally, if not specifically ever single legal "possession' of that legal fiction, then I can go on to realize, and understand, whatever else you communicate about that all inclusive group of all of those people, without exception. They are not bound to the country they originated in. It seems to me that the legal criminals are bound very intimately to every single one of their victims, and they are connected, or bound, by the one single lawful currency, among other things - including a common language, and a language that has been renders as false as the fraudulent legal currency. You can accuse me of resorting to arguments over semantics, and I can then be accused of resorting to deceit, to accomplish some nefarious goal, but I am innocent of that accusation, I just happen to have realized, and I now understand, a fuller measure of the power of falsehood, including how that power manages to pervade our common language. It is a good idea to return to principles, before taking false steps of interest. That is the true, and honest, explanation for my decision to focus attention on specific definitions for specific word choices. Yet individual countries bail them out? There it is, a use of a word that can cover up the crimes committed by specific people and blame those criminal acts on all the people, as if all the people in a "country" collectively perpetrate the crime, or the entire population of the country, as one unit, bailed them out. Legal criminals form crime organizations. One legal criminal group has exclusive rights to exploit the victims in area X, while another legal criminal group has exclusive rights to exploit the victims in area Y, and at times one legal criminal group bails out another one. Is that the concern being voiced? Yet individual countries bail them out? Do I realize the true measure of the actual situation in question? Example: The legal criminals running The Dollar Hegemony, also known as The Federal Reserve System of extortion, also known as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), have doubled the total number of legal dollar units in 2008, and the purchases made with that huge measure of purchasing power is a tightly held secret, but some evidence suggests that portions of that huge measure of purchasing power has been sent to finance the following laundry list: 1. Suppression of defense against legal crime in Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Columbia, Venezuela, and places not as well documented 2. Offensive aggressive violent attacks upon innocent victims in the same areas mentioned above 3. Asset purchases of productive natural resources in some of the same areas mentioned above 4. Construction of productive facilities in the some of the same areas mentioned above and other areas such as China 5. The production and publication of deceptive communications designed to cover up the legal crimes being accounted for here 6. The purchase and consumption of weapons and ammunition used in the legal crimes being accounted for here 7. The purchase and consumption of personnel used in the perpetration of the legal crimes being accounted for here 8. The planning and executing of the plan to cause World War Three as a means by which the legal monopoly power transfers from U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) to Asia (or wherever the new base of operations will be) Why should the American tax payer bail out a bank that is global? Realize, please, that the source of surplus wealth, which is the source of credit, is the honest productive people, here in America, or anywhere, and therefore the fraud that is in play, is such that the legal criminals have convinced their benefactors, their employers, are their benefactors, their employers, and their lenders of last resort. Is that too complicated to understand, and to realize? The source of surplus wealth, which is the source of purchasing power, is the honest productive people, also known as "The Tax Payers", and those same people are now convinced that they owe money to some other group. How is that even remotely possible? The producers of wealth, the powerful people, have been led to believe that they owe another group something - with interest. Not only have the honest productive people been duped into the false belief that they owe another group money, they have even been duped into believing that they owe interest on the money they owe that group. That fraud can be illustrated absurdly, because it is absurd. You walk in to a bank in your town. You hand the employee at the bank a legal notice that says: Give me all your money. They obey that law and they give you all their money. Now you return the next day after spending that money on the construction of a new bank across the street, and the new bank will now compete with the bank that you had just removed all the money, and upon your return you hand the employee at the bank another notice. On the new notice you demand repayment of the entire amount of the money you took from the bank the previous day, and now the employee of the bank believes that his bank owes you the entire sum of the money you already took the previous day. You then hand the same person at the bank another notice. On the next notice you demand, legally, that on top of the entire principle, of the money that bank owes you, for you having taken that entire sum from that bank the previous day, that bank also owes you interest payments, over 30 years, which amounts to double the entire sum of money that you took the first day. Day 1: You demand and take X amount from that Bank. Day 2: You demand and take monthly payments for the entire amount you already took, and then demand payment for that entire sum. 30 years later: You collect a total of 3 times the money you took from that bank on Day 1 Why should the American tax payer bail out a bank that is global? Why are Americans stupefied to the point where they will obey every order unconditionally? If the legal criminals can convince their victims that disobedience is not an option, they have absolute power over their victims, hell, they can cause their victims to send their beloved children off to torture and murder, and be tortured, and be murdered, at the exclusive pleasure of their masters. Anything is believable once unconditional obedience is a measurable fact. What should the moral, honest, productive American people do? How about inventing and using an honest currency as a reasonable, and understandable, starting point, say, on July 4th 2012, or sooner? I.e. Goldman Sachs got bailed out in the U.S., is getting bailed out in Greece, and other countries, etc. Many people work at Goldman Sachs, and many of those people pay taxes, and many of those people are honest productive Americans, in every sense of the words, in measurable ways, as their actions help increase the total production of surplus wealth, and other people work at Goldman Sachs. Which ones have planned on, and have executed those plans, to injure innocent people? Which people at Goldman Sachs are the people who are guilty of crimes? Is it a good idea, or a bad idea, to collectively punishes everyone for the crimes of a few people? Do you realize the full measure of the problem? Did bailing out a global corporation help the United States tax payers? Does anything done with any dollars have anything to do with any honest productive person if all the honest productive people use a competitive, honest, accurate, and powerful legal currency instead of the dollar? Entire countries owned. Unconditional obedience is what: ownership? Most Americans know that Iraq is about oil, etc. Oil is a measure of actual, physical, power, convertible to watts, or BTUs. Etc. is a measure of actual power, convertible to dollars, without one power, the other power is without power. Without unconditional obedience, how can the legal criminals maintain their connection to their victims? Do you get any benefit from our troops securing oil in the Gulf? When the victims are unconditionally obedient to the point where they are ordered to use only dollars, then their fate will be directly connected to the fate of the dollar value. Those oil fields back the purchasing power of the dollar, and those powers combine to enforce what is known as World Reserve Currency Status. When The Dollar Hegemony is no longer The World Reserve Currency, you will know the full measure of that loss of that power because the American people are unconditionally obedient enough to bet their farms on the fate of the dollar, and when the dollar falls and when a new World Reserve Currency is enforced, by the new power, the powerless fate of the dollar will drag down all the Americans who volunteer to be connected to that fate - failing to invent, produce, and maintain a higher quality, and lower cost, option. When that happens, your question may be more comprehensively understood, as that realization becomes real, and you are unable to ignore the full measure of the actual answer. Do you get any benefit from our troops securing oil in the Gulf? They are enforcing The World Reserve Currency status of The Dollar Hegemony, as planned, and the plan is to expend those troops in the effort to transfer that power from The Dollar Hegemony to whatever the new power will be, which is a trade secret, not for public consumption. Your guess is as good as anyone's, unless you are an insider at the top, and my guess is that the new World Reserve Currency power will be based in Asia, because Asia is on the Boom cycle, and America is on the Bust cycle - in a big way - both ways. I have to stop at this point and get some work done. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Alex may need a break? I'll host the show if he has no other volunteers. How much Doom and Gloom can a person tolerate? The Liberty Crew has arranged an event in Reno Nevada, and it might be a very positive thing to attend, for Alex, or anyone, anyone who has had enough Doom and Gloom. You know the saying? I'll link it a quote it: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/patrick_henry.html 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. Enough anguish of spirit, do something. I know that Alex is doing something, playing the part of Paul Revere, and many are now awakened. What does that lead to? Anguish of spirit? What is being provided for it? Here is a link: http://www.lpac2011.com/events.php Take some time off, sort of, not really time off, there is a process of discovery, there is a process of communicating the discovery, and then there are other things to do, like, for example, figuring out exactly what constitutes those other things to do, so as to reach for, and get closer to, the goal. When the goal is liberty, not a bad goal to be reaching for, a steady supply of anguish of spirit may not be working well enough. |
|||||||||||
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Perhaps more of the 'concept' put forth in the Constitution Overcast, This: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Article. I. That led directly to this: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html AMENDMENT XIV Those words are not the actual actions, the actual actions prove the meaning of those words. Those words are merely words that enable specific actions. Numbers are merely numbers, as numbers account for the actual actions that are enabled by mere words. Example: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Words and numbers account for the actual willful actions perpetrated by actual people. Perhaps more of the 'concept' put forth in the Constitution Which concept are you referring to; where are those words in that enabling document? Which words led to which actions? Regardless of the politics of the time, a concept of a free nation and free market was born. That is what counts to me. When was a concept of a free nation and free market born? A time existed during which people fled persecution by criminals running criminal governments in England and Europe, and those religious and political refugees fled to the North American Continent. During which time many people struggled and then prospered, according to more than one source, they prospered, in part, because they invented and maintained competitive legal currencies, then called Colonial Script. The people running the criminal government in England ordered those honest productive Americans to obey involuntary tax laws, and the legal criminals enforced monopoly legal currency laws, and then the honest productive Americans disobeyed those laws, and then the honest productive Americans had to fight the invasion of those legal criminals as they conducted an aggressive war for profit upon those honest productive Americans. When is that historical time period does that free nation and free market become a free nation and free market? When did that free nation and free market come into being, at that time, before that time, or after that time? If you are claiming that the free nation and free market came into being after that time, as in the time when The Constitution usurped the voluntary union of 13, or so, separate and sovereign states, then I'm puzzled as to such a claim, since the actual evidence proves otherwise. A test case, of a free market, occurred on the occasion when, after the British legal criminals were driven out of America, and before the new legal criminals usurped a working voluntary union of separate and sovereign states, with The Constitution fraud, when, a group of free men, ex-revolutionary war veterans, continued the revolutionary war, by defending their liberty against a runaway criminal government, then committing legal crimes under the color of a law that was being perpetrated by criminals running the Massachusetts State government. That test case was later called, by the victors, as the victors rewrite history, as Shays's Rebellion. The test case proved the validity of a Democratic Federated Republican form of government, as the rebels, who lost that battle for liberty, and fled to Vermont, and were then allowed to remain free in Vermont, as Vermont offered a much higher quality government, at a much lower cost, compared to the criminal government, run by legal criminals, in Massachusetts. The news of the continued effort to defend against legal crime, to fight for liberty, and to continue the war for independence, spread, and was especially well understood by the settlers on the frontiers, and the legal criminals both. One group saw the events known as Shays's Rebellion as cause to continue the fight for liberty, and against criminal governments, while the other group saw a serious threat to their monopoly control over law and money. Both sides regrouped in preparation for further hostilities, as the war for independence continued. The legal criminal resorted to deceit, to threats of violence, and then acts of violence, false flags included. Those on the frontier, having lost their power over money, to the legal criminals, invented competitive currencies, including whiskey, which could be distilled as as separate product on farms, and then used as money, in the absence of Colonial Script, and in the absence of Gold, both competitive currencies were made scarce at the time, due to abuses, and tactics, used by the emerging legal crime organizations. Those legal criminals hatched a plan behind closed doors, by which they would sell a solution to a problem they had created, and the solution would be what they called a Consolidated Government, based upon the previous Monarchy - complete with a open door to create any other legal powers imaginable, since the plan hatched included the necessary property then known as constructive interpretation. The enabling document had to be ambiguous to a point of meaninglessness, leaving the power of adding meaning in the hands of those who are enabled by that document. That was The Constitutional Convention. It authorized the suppression of rebellion, it killed the spirit of liberty, it made the fight for liberty unlawful. The record of that fraud survives, despite all efforts by the legal criminals, the victors, as they rewrote history, and continued to control the ignorant masses with the lies they invented, are inventing, and will continue to invent, perfect, and disseminate, to their exclusive profit, and to the detriment of every one of their victims, past, present, and future. Failing to know the facts, is ignorance of the facts, not so bad, but claiming to know the facts, without doubt, without a welcome challenge from any perspective, is willful ignorance, in the face of evidence that contests the validity of the supposed facts. Regardless of the politics of the time, a concept of a free nation and free market was born. If you are seriously referring to The Constitution, as evidence supporting an accurate accounting for the beginning of a free nation and free market, then your evidence, as shown above, is the exact opposite. The Constitution cannot be questioned. That is a thought crime, to question The Constitution, and there are plenty of enforcers more than wiling to shout me down, as I show, as a matter of fact, the actual document, out-laws the thought of questioning it. The words are published by the authorities on the official web page. You can leave me completely out of the data, there is no need to shoot me as the messenger, it is The Constitution's own supporters document, their own words, that expose their own belief in their own false claims. The Constitution was designed by Monarchists, Nationalists, Dupes, and legal criminals, for reasons, and the reasons were meticulously exposed by the opponents of that fraud, that false front, that Nation State hidden behind a false advertisement campaign known as The Federalist Papers. It's own author, James Madison, a dupe, too late realized he had been had, and later set to the task of defending against it, with his part in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, in a too little, and too late, attempt to reignite the defense of liberty. Too bad for the victims, the hero's of past fights for liberty failed, what to do now? Continue to pay tribute to falsehood? Seriously? |
|||||||||||
