Power Independence Home 
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
REAL NEWS  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 01:17 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Currency Red Herring War

Anyone (or no one),

I command an understanding of money. I do not understand the double speak generated by people such as the people speaking in these REAL NEWS reports on the subject of China.

Therefore:

A. Quote words spoken.
B. Decipher the meaning of the words spoken.
C. Propose a possible reason why these people say these things.
D. Begin to understand the double speak generated by people such as the people speaking in these REAL NEWS reports on the subject of China

Before doing that I am going to restate my own understanding of money as it relates to politics and economy.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

If any group of people anywhere on the planet decide to organize and agree to produce more and more power, invest the power they have to the job of creating more physical power, such as electricity, for example, then those people will reduce the price of power for themselves.

Money is purchasing power. Money is purchasing power or it isn't money.

Money can then be created and employed toward the work of making more power, such as electricity for example, and people organized, polarized, and working by this creation of money for this specific purpose can BOOM the electricity production market and do so to such an extent that electricity is so abundant that the price of electricity is at the lowest possible minimum price, a price comparable to the price on clean air.

Tide power, solar power, alone, without any other probable methods of generating more electricity suffice to illustrate the point and suffice to do so to defeat the argument that production of more power generators produces more pollution, CO2, etc.

Adding Modular Vertical Farming Units producing CO2 eating Algae based fuel reinforces the point and continues to defeat the arguments claiming that increased productivity, and increased industry, necessarily increases pollution, Climate Change (formerly Global Warming), etc.

Money creation begins the process - out of thin air.

Money is then focused on the work of producing more power, electricity suffices to exemplify power production, and CO2 eating Modular Vertical Farming Units add to the hypothetical exponential increase in power production.

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power.

At some point every home, every business, every place an electric generator can be placed is generating more power to a point where power is ubiquitous, and the price is then minimized.

Power produced into a state of oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases.

That sentence points the reader to the political or, if you prefer, the psychological aspect of power after that sentence reports on the economic or physical aspect of power.

Purchasing power increases. Money gains power.

Why?

Because power reduces the cost of production. When money is invested the result is more power. When money is squandered, there is less power. Power can be measured as surplus wealth. A silo full of grain. A store of Algae based motor fuel. Steel I beams. A warehouse full of unused Solar Panels. A stock of cattle. A high reservoir of clean water capable of pushing turbine wheels as the water flows down to thirsty living beings powered by clean water. A planet filled with oxygen. The Sun.    

How much does each person spend in work hours just to pay the electric bill?

How much does each person spend in work hours, time and energy, just to pay the transportation fuel bill?

How much does each person spend in work hours, time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears, just to pay the interest on the home and business mortgage?

The only possible reason for power production to be throttled down, restricted, governed to less than full production is crime. Criminals can't allow their victims to gain power, the powerless victims would cease being victims.

Back to the REAL NEWS report looking for a decipherable quote:

the fact that we're importing so much from China, and so much of it is so cheap, goods in Wal-Mart and so forth. People cry foul. They say that the currency is undervalued and gives the Chinese an unfair advantage.

What does the term undervalued mean - in context?

The apparent meaning, in context, is such that blame is projected at the people in China who have control over the Chinese Monopoly Money supply for something bad.

The bad thing is ambiguous. The bad thing appears to be things in Wal-Mart; where the price of these things in Wal-Mart are too low.

How is that bad? I don't know. It is not said, yet. Assuming for the moment that it is bad, how does that bad thing turn out to be caused by the people who have control over the Chinese Monopoly Money supply?

Can it be known that at some point 1 US dollar can be worth 1 Chinese dollar?

What happens if that is the case and people in the US are still buying things made in China, and then suddenly, over night, or in a week, or a month, or a year, the US dollar is worth 2 Chinese dollars?

Will people buy more or less things from China at Wal-Mart?

What happens if the opposite occurs and 2 US dollars are worth 1 Chinese dollar; will people in the US still buy things in Wal-Mart made in China?

How about the scenario whereby the change in exchange rates occurs instantly, and in this case the US dollar suddenly is worth 2, not 1, Chinese dollar.

What happens?

I cannot, for the life of me, connect the dots between the currency exchange rate and the price of things made in China on the shelves in stores in the US; unless I follow the paper trail from the source of the paper.

In order for 1 Chinese dollar to suddenly change from being worth 1 US dollar to a new exchange rate of 2 Chinese dollars now being worth 1 US dollar, what changes?

Did The FED suddenly remove half of the dollars in circulation?

Did the people in control of the Chinese dollar suddenly double the number of Chinese dollars in circulation?

Either of those two actions could result in that change in that exchange rate - but it cannot happen over night, not suddenly.

I think I need to know more about the process by which the people who control the Chinese dollar manage the action called pegging. How is it accomplished? How does the Chinese dollar become pegged to the dollar?

All these question occur to me only because these people in that REAL NEWS report are speaking the words that they speak. To me the words they speak are words that are meant to confuse people.

The reasons for low prices at Wal-Mart in U.S.A. Inc. LLC, on products made in China, include the most obvious reason, whereby the people who make those products are paid almost nothing in a place where the cost of living is almost nothing.

The reasons for low prices at Wal-Mart in U.S.A. Inc. LLC, on products made in China, include another very obvious reason, whereby the people who set company policy in the companies producing those products set a policy whereby they do not expend costs that must be spent in avoidance of causing injury to the people in China - they pollute on purpose, for profit.

The cost of living for the Chinese people will go up as a result of that pollution, as more and more people suffer injuries associated with such damaging pollution as is the case in China - as far as I know so far.

Suppose there is a warehouse full of Chinese things ready for sale to a buyer for Wal-Mart in the US, and it is today, and today the US dollar is worth the same as a Chinese dollar 1 for 1.

The buyer at Wal-Mart asks: "How much for that warehouse full of things?"

The seller at the warehouse says: "100,000 yuan"

The buyer says: "Will you take 100,000 dollars?"

The seller says: "Sure, they are worth the same thing, the warehouse is sold."

The buyer says: "Great, ship them."

The seller says: "We don't ship, we sell things made in China."

The buyer says: "Right, I'll send someone to pick the things up, thanks.:

Now suppose a day goes buy, the guy didn't come and pick up the things at the warehouse yet, but suddenly the Chinese controller of the Chines dollar says that 1 US dollar is now worth 2 yuan, not one.

What happens?

If I were the guy who bought the things I'd be in a panic; because I just bought 1 warehouse full of things made in China for 100,000 dollars when 100,000 dollars was worth 100,000 yuan, but now, today, suddenly, 100,000 dollars is worth 200,000 yuan. I call the seller at the warehouse back up.

Owner (former buyer): "Hey, ah, remember that deal we were thinking about yesterday, where I was asking if I could buy that warehouse full of your things made in China.?"

Renter (former seller): "Your stuff is outside the warehouse taking up space, and you will be charged an additional 100,000 yuan if you don't get it off our property by tomorrow, we had to make room for more things made in China - business is booming - don't you know?"

Owner (former buyer): "Ah, my guy won't be there until next week, so, ah, can we make another deal?"

Dealer (former renter): "Sure, next week. No problem, I'll wave the rent charge."

The point here, from my view, is such that the workers are still being paid next to nothing in a place where it cost next to nothing to live and where those costs are going up because China is being BOOMED, on purpose, on schedule, and the point is that the things in the warehouse are the same things today, and they are the same things tomorrow, even if the people who have control over the Chinese dollar say that the Chinese dollar is worth half as much tomorrow, or twice as much today.

I am going to offer a term, now, that may help me untangle some of the confusion in my own mind, as I try to figure out what these people are saying, when they say such things as this:

the fact that we're importing so much from China, and so much of it is so cheap, goods in Wal-Mart and so forth. People cry foul. They say that the currency is undervalued and gives the Chinese an unfair advantage.

The term is PPP or Purchasing Power Parity

How about [url=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Purchasing+power+parity&sa=X&ei=8nQ9TZ6aB47QsAPT]Google [/url] ?

I looked for a real time PPP converter but found only THIS

China isn't even on that table.

Why?

A usable chart

U.S.A = 47,000
China = 7,000

I have an idea about this relative measure of life on Earth between living in the land of the dollar and living in the land of the yuan.

If a person worked an average job for one year in each country, and in each country the person consumed the bare minimum while saving the most possible amount of savings, in money, not buying valuable things, which person would have more valuable things at the end of the year, and where would that person buy those valuable things.

Someone else, thinking along with me, might ask: what valuable things?

How about an ounce of gold
Enough Solar Panels to power one average home in America
Enough clean water for one person for one year
Enough food for one person for one year

I see a need to change the question.

How much time would it take for an average (by median earnings calculation) person in each country to work and live with minimum consumption and maximum savings to buy the above list from the same minimum cost place on Earth?

In other words a person in the USA begins working and consuming the bare minimum, at the average pay rate, and time passes until that person can afford to buy that list of things from the least expensive seller on Earth selling those things on that list, and at the same time a person living in China starts working the average job so as to eventually earn the same purchasing power, and the question asks: what is the percent difference in time required to arrive at the level of power required to purchase the list of stuff?

And the answer appears to be, if I have the PPP measure understood, the percent difference between 47,000 and 7,000 provides a workable percentage rate difference.

7,000 is roughly 15% of 47,000

If the list of stuff could be bought by the person working at the average job in the U.S.A. in one year then at that rate the person in China has only 15% of the purchasing power earned after 1 year.

How many years are needed for the person in China to work long enough to earn the purchasing power to buy the list of stuff earned in 1 year working in the U.S.A.?

Roughly 6.7 years.

I just realized that the math needed here is a ratio, 47/7, or 6.7 to 1.

If the people who have the power to peg the Chinese dollar to the The Fed dollar declare that the Chinese dollar is worth twice today or half tomorrow that application of that power can't, really, change that ratio of 6.7 to 1.

The things that change that ratio of 6.7 to 1 are such things as infrastructure.

Example:

1. A well maintained highway

2. An electric power distribution grid

3. A communications network

4. Ready access to purchasing power by people who will invest that power and in so doing more power is produced over and above the power consumed during production.

5. Limitations of access to purchasing power by people who consume, waste, or use that power to commit crimes whereby innocent productive people are injured and thereby rendered less capable of investing available power and turning available power into more power.

Those things lead to the average person in either place on earth lowering the number on their side of the ratio.

U.S.A. - China
1----------6.7


There are many other things that can be added to the list. Declarations concerning the legal value of a unit of legal currency relative the declarations of the legal value of a unit of currency produced by a competitor isn't on that list.

If Chinese people lower the amount of time it takes the average person working toward the goal of increasing their power to purchase a better life, lowering their cost of living, working less for more in exchange for their labor, they must finance productive activity and avoid financing crime.

They can't expect to lower their work load, and increase their wealth, by transferring the power they have to criminals, where the criminals then use that power to commit crimes.

The result of such folly is readily apparent in the U.S.A. as the productive people are now being indebted and the criminals are now being financed, with the obvious result of productive people having to work more and more for less and less.

And the responsible, and accurately accountable people orchestrating that transfer of wealth, in the U.S.A. are the people who have control over the dollar issue of legal currency.

If those criminals, who can commit billion dollar frauds, and then be rewarded with billion dollar bail-outs, complain about competition, as they complain that "the Chinese currency is undervalued and gives the Chinese an unfair advantage", then my guess is that the complaint is at best half true.

Are the Chinese people capable of moving the power to purchase to the people who will use that power to produce more power or will the Chinese people allow that power to flow to criminals?

Why not speak in simple language, meaningful language, and why don't people find good cause to unravel the tangled web of deceit?

What, on Earth, is preventing the truth from flowing quickly all around the globe, like sunshine dawning on a cool summer morning?

When will people declare a war on falsehood and when will people stop electing torturing mass murderers as their leaders, by whatever means they manage to accomplish that amazingly stupid feat?

I see a need to return to the REAL NEWS report and post this progress.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Jan 24th, 2011 03:34 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
have some public way of putting liquidity into the economy and stop giving banks free money

Another quote from HERE

I can offer more than 2 examples of that which Paul Jay speaks with his words "some public way of putting liquidity into the economy", but 2 will do.

Historical Example A

Quote from A:

The most important lesson, however, is that a depressed community in an apparently hopeless situation found a way of ending the seemingly insoluble problems of unemployment, local decline and lack of a reliable tax base, symbiotically through the use of community-owned currency.

Current Example B

Quote from B:


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.

This idea actually isn’t new; Ithaca, NY has its own currency, Ithaca Hours, which it launched way back in 1991. There are plenty of other local currencies around the United States: BerkShares in Massachusetts, the Plenty in Pittsboro, N.C., etc. The idea is to keep money in the community by encouraging spending only at local vendors who accept the money, like Disney Dollars, except less evil. Freeman explains his motivations to the L.A. Times, stating that ”In a small town, you tend to look out for each other …. With the changes in economy, the more we support each other in positive ways, the better the quality of life is for everyone.”


I will return to the REAL NEWS report to see how the answer to Paul Jay's question is handled by the political economy authority person.

Well...

The supposed authority dodged the question. Paul Jay's question was essentially exposing the monopoly power to the possibility of using the force of competition as a means of forcing any producer of money to produce higher quality money at a lower cost.

Not only did the supposed authority on political economy dodge the question, not only that, but Paul Jay didn't press the question, and I've seen Paul Jay's interviews enough now to know that Paul Jay is fully capable of pressing a question so as to actually get an answer. So far, the answer is no answer, which is an answer.

Competition is against the law.

Law is crime.

Look at those links above, and know what happens when competition threatens a monopoly banking power.

If a competitor gains currency, gains market share, begins to grow powerful enough to threaten the banking monopoly power, what do you think will happen?

What has happened in the past?

I see a serious need to quote from Paul Jay now, as he moves to the subject of interest rates supposedly voiced from a libertarian perspective. I ran for congress in my district as a libertarian in 1996.



Now, one of the arguments you hear from the sort of libertarian economists is that interest rates are simply artificially low. That's part of the cause of the problem, that the Fed's, you know, loaning money to banks practically at zero interest. But if there was a more market-established interest rate, banks wouldn't be getting this free money. What do you make of that?


Paul Jay is referring to Austrian Economic Dogma, such as the dogma that is spoken by Ron Paul, who is a Republican, and once a Libertarian.

The essential part of the dogma isn't the measure of the rate of interest being low or high, the essential part of the dogma is the force by which the interest rate is determined.

If the force by which the interest rate is determined is competition, then the interest rate will be X.

If the force by which the interest rate is determined is a National police or military force, or political force driving a national police or military force, then the interest rate will be whatever that political power declares the interest rate to be - by fiat - by declaration and the force required to enforce the declaration.

The term artificial is then meant to discriminate between a supposed "free market" interest rate and everything else; whereby everything else is "artificial".

The problem with Ron Paul's dogma, and the Austrian Economics Dogma, involve a significant split in "the party"; whereby one faction supports involuntary government intervention within the free market of currency (or money) and the other does not support, or sanction, any involuntary intervention whatsoever.

That split is clearly delineated by Gary North: HERE

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.

Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?


Gold as money is one thing. Gold as currency is another thing.

Voluntary associations are one thing, an agreement over time. Involuntary associations are another thing, some call it slavery, not typically the slavers, more typically the slaves. Slavers prefer euphemisms, as do criminals.

Criminals don't call up their victims and agree upon an appointment.

"Hi, what time sounds good to you for me to stop by and take what I want from you?"

I am going to return to the REAL NEWS report and see what the political economy authority has to say about artificial interest rates, and note that the Worgl competitive currency historical example amounts to a negative interest rate.

So the problem isn't that we should just let the market establish the interest rate; the problem is that when you have a massive unemployment situation where the basic mechanisms of the economy are no longer working, you have to have much more directed investment.

The problem there is that the speaker of those words either dodges the facts or is unaware of the facts. The fact is that the "market" in question is competition, not some nebulous fantasy, and competition will drive quality up and competition will drive prices down, unless competition is eliminated by some other force.

A. BANK 1 - high quality money at -10 percent interest rate.
B. BANK 2 - high quality money at +10 percent interest rate.
C. BANK 3 - low quality money but money that is required for the payment of taxes or the tax non-payer goes to jail.


The political economy professor ignores A and B as if no such thing can exist, and the only thing in view is C, on purpose, for some reason.

What is the reason for ignoring, dodging, and not speaking about questions concerning the force of competition as the force of competition causes money to be forced high and higher in quality and as competition forces money (or currency if you prefer) to lower and lower prices (interest rates)?

What is the incentive, the reason, the cause, the rationale, the excuse, or the thinking behind avoiding a discussion about competition as a force in competition with the force that enforces banking monopolies?

Ignorance?

I don't think so, Paul Jay asked the question once.

Here it is again:

have some public way of putting liquidity into the economy and stop giving banks free money

I've got to get back to work so this may be the end of this session.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Jan 25th, 2011 07:03 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I am calling for a reality check on the following words:

Source

And the crisis itself was caused by an economy that is increasingly deregulated, no longer subject to really stringent securities laws, labor laws, health and safety laws.

The cause of the supposed crisis is manipulation of the money supply by the people who have the license to manipulation the money supply, dollars, and those people are known as The FED.

It is well past time for people to begin using accurate labels for the things that people discuss, if the idea is to conduct meaningful discussion.

Double Speak is created by people for specific reasons.

The FED is a label that accurately identifies a specific group of people who have a specific license given to them by another group of people who can accurately be called The government of the United States, or, U.S.A. Inc. LLC.

The FED has the legal power to add or subtract to the total supply of dollars world wide.

Anyone else can subtract from the total supply of dollars, go ahead and try it, burn some. You may be guilty of a crime, try it, see what happens.

No one else can add to the supply, that is a crime, it is the crime of counterfeiting. Try it, see what happens.

When The FED doubles the supply of legal money, as they did in 2008, they are not committing a crime, they have the legal license to do so, at will, and no one has the power to hold those people to account. Ask them what they did what that money, see what you get as a response.

Members of U.S.A. Inc. LLC asked them what they did with that money, and they were told to pound sand - in other words.

I can link that event if I can find it, but why waste so much of my time proving the obvious facts, I don't have to tell people not to stare at the sun - to offer an analogy.

The Fed caused the crisis by subtracting from the total number of dollars, just as they added to the total number of dollars in 2008. How, exactly, The Fed managed to remove dollars from the total number of dollars is unknown, exactly, by me. Someone knows, the people who did it know, and my guess is that if asked, they wouldn't tell, just like they don't tell, where the new dollars, created in 2008, twice what the supply was before they doubled it, are now.

Where are those new dollars created in 2008, when the people at The FED doubled the number of U.S. dollars, according to their own account?

If someone wishes to pretend that the so called crisis is caused by some other means, by some type of accident, for example, then someone is guilty of producing fantasy, a reverse Utopian Fantasy Dream-scape of sorts.

That should be known by all who are serious about averting a real crisis looming.

WWIII for example.

WWIII can, as unconscionable as it can be, make WWI, and WWII appear to be a walk in the park, for humanity as a whole, by comparison.

WWI = not good for humanity as a whole
WWII = worse for humanity as a whole
WWIII = no more humanity

Torture and mass murder perpetuated by humans who are legal criminals isn't nice. Morally speaking it is wrong. It is wrong to steal. It is worse to torture. It is yet again worse to massively torture massive numbers of people, on purpose, for profit. It is even yet again morally worse to mass murder millions of people, on schedule, regularly, perpetually, like watering or weeding the lawn; however the willful extinction of the human species is the very end of bad according to any measure of human morality - along with everything human ending at that point in time and space.  

It doesn't get any worse from the macro-human perspective. If you are scheduled for a torture session this afternoon...worse is relative in the micro-human world.

Why construct a reverse fantasy Utopian Dream-Scape where randomness, or some other folly, is guilty of causing a supposed economic global crisis while the actual guilty people perpetuate it?

The answer can only be confessed by those who do it.

I earned some time off of work to finish viewing this report by REAL news and I don't know about anyone else, but I'm on the edge of my seat listening to the very good questions tabled by Paul Jay.

From the vast pile of surplus wealth a portion of it could have managed to find its way to someone, or some group, in America who then use that money to cause Electric Cars to appear in showrooms at new car dealers in every town across America, and in every town across America, there could also be a booming Solar Panel market, actually there is one, but the point here is that some of that money created by The FED, the money that doubled the money supply, could boom those two markets, just to name 2 possible methods by which jobs can become jobs in America.

Good question Paul Jay, good question, and the answer is to misdirect the focus of defensive power away from the people who cause a so called crisis and focus attention into a fantasy world, a black hole called random occurrence?

Quoting again:

And the crisis itself was caused by an economy that is increasingly deregulated, no longer subject to really stringent securities laws, labor laws, health and safety laws.

I may have wandered in response to that quote some. The actual message there is such that randomness isn't the cause of the so called crisis, rather: the cause of the crisis is deregulation.

That is not so. The regulators are there to allow crime to occur, the regulators are there to aid in the elimination of competition. The regulators are there to cover up piles of defaulting mortgage bundles, millions of them, and slap triple A ratings on them, in the effort to, what is the term, "explode" a competitor's political economy?

If regulation can occur it can occur with a working Trial by Jury system whereby criminals are accurately identified as criminals and anything else done to those criminals is secondary - even trivial by comparison to the accurate identification of the people who commit crimes - not an easy task, and to convict an innocent person is as bad as any wrong under the sun, and don't take my word on that moral judgment - it comes from a higher power.

How about a Trial by Jury system fingering the people at The FED for the crime of causing the so called crisis?

That has not happened because it can't happen as told by such people as Patric Henry over two centuries ago. End a working Trial by Jury and what do you think will happen?

Surprise!

Torturing mass murderers are paid the highest wage.

Why is that a surprise?

Now, now, Joe, I can hear someone argue, they don't actually torture at The FED, they just add or subtract digits to the dollar account - you are being overly general, or something less that accurate, or some other critical response, something negative aimed at my effort to report the vital truth.

Really?

What would you do with the power to double the total number of dollars currently in circulation? Would you spend a dime in the effort to get one torture victim off today's schedule?

Those people are being tortured in order that the power to add and subtract from the dollar supply remains in the hands of the people who have that power.

What do you think happens to people who have the power to double the number of dollars in circulation once they have that power?

Such power does exist, and such power has existed since, at least, 1913, and actual people actually have the actual license to have that power, and most of the ready victims, of the abuse of that power, are clueless about that power, completely, and utterly clueless - is that you?

It is not me.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Jan 27th, 2011 02:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Big Question is the State of the States

Anyone (no one),

I started and paused, to comment on, that report above.

Revenue sharing to state and local governments have prevented these kinds of severe cuts thus far, including from my own institution where I'm sitting right now, UMass Amherst, which got a $50 million stimulus check. We need another one

Before anyone anywhere has another bright idea as to what can be done with the huge pile of money (the power to purchase a whole lot of things) it may be a good idea to accurately discriminate one vital thing.

Whose money?

If the pile of money is denominated in dollars, it is The FEDS money. They own it. They control it. Congress doesn't, and The People certainly do not own it.

This accurate discrimination applied toward the measure of purchasing power in question must be done first, before moving on to any fantasy by which the person thinking, seeing, understanding, and knowing what will be done with that power proceeds.

A. What can "we" do with the power to purchase.
B. Who has the power to start and stop the flow of that specific power to purchase.

Carts do not pull horses. If you are at place A and you want the horse to pull you and the cart to place B do you reign in the cart, or do you reign in the horse?

If you have a cart full of Solar Panels, barrels of gasoline, food, and cloths to be delivered to houses where the power grid has failed, and these desperate people will pay you for that delivery, do you feed the cart first? What is feeding the cart going to do for you? Do you then expect to reign in the cart so as to drive the car, pulling the horse, to your intended destination?

The fix to this problem is to not fix it, according to the people who have caused the problem, on schedule, this is classic double speak.

Why are The People speaking double speak? What is in it for The People?

A. There is a problem that needs to be fixed, for The People.
B. The problem is the fix for The FED (legal parasites feeding off of The People by way of a monopoly money fraud, extortion, protection racket)

The dollar is the means by which power flows from The People to The FED (legal criminals) and that must be understood or failure to understand that is as powerless as trying to move your power to market by feeding and then driving the cart pulling the horse.

It won't work.

It can't work.

Dollars have to go.

What will be in place once dollars have no more power?

A. Something that works better for The People
B. Something that works better for legal criminals

When "The President" (A joke in itself, on The People, since the real power flows from The People to The FED, not "The President", and "The President" is an employee of The FED, The Dollar Hegemony, U.S.A. Inc. LLC) says that the recession is over the real possibility exists that more dollars will flow from those who create dollars to those who employ dollars as money.

Where, exactly, will that money go?

If that money goes to China to make Chinese made Electric Cars, and Chinese mad Solar Panels, and Chinese made tennis shoes, and Chinese made things that fill the shelves at Wal-Mart, and Chinese made anti-ship missiles, and Chinese made submarines, and Chinese made military space hardware, then who would profit from that investment?

The People?

How about The People in China, will they profit from slave labor, pollution, and WWIII?

Where, exactly, will that money go?

Revenue sharing to state and local governments have prevented these kinds of severe cuts thus far, including from my own institution where I'm sitting right now, UMass Amherst, which got a $50 million stimulus check. We need another one

Some of it goes to places where double speak is manufactured and propagated, it seems to me.

A. Dollars
B. Past time for The People to recreated their own, better, and less expensive form of money

The State will then beg for power or earn it, not lie, not dictate, certainly not torture, and no more mass murder with the power stolen from The People by way of a monopoly money fraud.

The concept of involuntary taxation, if that is what The People want, I don't, but if that is what The People want, then taxes can be collected by charging interest on the money The People create, and use, for their own purposes.

What do The People want to do with the power collected by involuntary means?

1. Torture
2. Mass Murder
3. Maintain the power to collect involuntary taxation
4. Defend against criminal invasion by any one or any group of criminals

The supposed moral reason for demanding involuntary tax payments from The People and by The People is 4 above - other wise the justification is a local question, such as a local police officer issuing a demand to lower the volume during the party.

When the criminals own the government, a recession is the fix to the problem, not the problem.

The recession is the bottom section of the cycle, and if it is over, as "The President" claims, (how do you tell when a politician is lying?) then the section called boom is beginning, if the claim is true.

Who will boom?

Where is the money sent?

The FED doubled the money supply in 2008. Where is that incomprehensibly vast sum of money?  

Do you need a reality check?

Look HERE

GIANT pallets loaded with cash amounting to more than $4 billion (£2 billion) and weighing a total of 363 tons were sent to Baghdad aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, it has been revealed to Congress.

That money went to finance the enemy. That is not news, that is what the legal criminals do, and they profit from war, that is their M.O.

I did some math on that report.

10,000 pound payload = 5 ton

2,000 lb per ton

363 tons of currency (cash) divided by 5 tons per truck load.

72.6 Truck loads

That is a long convoy of dump trucks driving into town.


When "The President" says that the recession is over he isn't talking about his ability to buy dinner, or a shirt, or a few more degrees on the thermostat. His customers are happy, he is paid a living wage.

What recession?

Why do people believe these lies, over and over and over again? What is the point? What is the pay off for being that incredibly gullible?

Revenue sharing to state and local governments have prevented these kinds of severe cuts thus far, including from my own institution where I'm sitting right now, UMass Amherst, which got a $50 million stimulus check. We need another one

AHHHHHH! A confession of sorts.

I'll restart the report and I will try to find usable data within that data stream (currency is a data stream).

Now, are the Democrats willing to sit there and watch pension fund contracts get broken? I don't really know the answer to that, and I don't think any of us know that.

May I point out that someone paid to not know something will not know something or they will be looking for another job.

If you do not please your customers: your customers will find someone else to reward with pay.

Why does that person think that no one else knows the answer to that question, or any question for that matter: isn't that, perhaps, a closed mind?

The first thing that could be done with any store of value, such as a pension fund, is to convert it to a denomination that isn't produced and maintained by legal criminals. If there is a large pile of dollars, in a pension fund somewhere, why couldn't a State governor, or anyone having the power over the fund, buy something valuable with that money, so as to maintain the value of the pension fund, rather than have the pension fund evaporate?

If the pension fund is denominated in dollars, and if The FED turns loose the new dollars that constitute double the total dollars before 2008, then the value of that pension fund will be cut in half as inflation occurs as a result of what The FED does when The FED manipulates the total number of dollars in circulation, on schedule, as they have done, and as they will continue to do, because they have that power, and as yet there isn't anyone, anywhere, no other group on the planet, who can take that power away from them.

Henry Ford quote please:

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.

That is possibly a very wise statement particularly because the revolution occurs before tomorrow morning: in the minds of the victims the revolution is empowered.

 
Thanks Henry.

Elon Musk is the new Henry Ford - it seems to me.

Elon Musk is making competitive American made Electric Cars, and I've seen reports concerning his inability to finance that lucrative enterprise.

Where will the dollars created in 2008, to double the dollar supply, go - Mr. President?

"That is a trade secret"

He can't say, really, it is such a secret that such a question would be dodged.

Liars don't answer some questions, some questions can't even be acknowledged, because the mere acknowledgment of the question confesses truth, and weakens the power of lies.

The severity of the state and local budget crisis is just starting to happen because up to now the federal government has funded it through stimulus funds.

Has any reader ever heard of CAFR?

If you have not heard of CAFR then you are now in a position for a moment of enlightenment. You can unlock a door to a room where the sun is bright and all those scary legal criminals have scurried back under their rocks - they no longer have power to terrorize you with reports of doom.

CAFR is Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports.

City, County, State, and National (Federal is an inaccurate term) governments have kept books, accurate books, on net income subtracted by net costs.

The lies told to the tax payers has been that we are broke.

In the city governments the lies have been that we are broke.

In the county governments the lies have been that we are broke.

In the state governments the lies have been that we are broke.

To tell the tax payers that we are rich is to transfer power back to the tax payers. Why would you pay more taxes to someone who is already rich?

Since at least WWII the governments at all levels have been investing surplus wealth toward the job of gaining more surplus wealth. The surplus wealth is then hidden from the public, and The People are told that we are broke.

The People are told that a sum of the total of surplus wealth has been budgeted for the years expenses and the years expenses exceed that budget, we are broke, and they are telling half the truth, a typical scenario.

The other half of the truth is the measure of total surplus wealth, denominated in dollars, in the account after all costs are subtracted from all revenue sources, including profits from investments, and that is a sum called net receipts.

Once The People get wind of those sums, as they have, some of The People now know about this fraud, the legal criminals will take steps to move the surplus wealth, denominated in dollars, from those accounts, and they have.

Their own, the legal criminals own, books have gone from very detail, very accurate accounts, reporting total receipts, before the discovery of, and dissemination of those frauds, to less accurate, less comprehensive annual financial reports, published by they frauds for fellow frauds - not for The People.

You won't believe me. You will have to confirm the facts yourself, despite simple logic, simple common sense. You will still not believe the truth, you will still believe the lies, and I ask why, think about this question even before you unlock this door, even before you go inside this room, think about the question right now: why do you believe in the lie that The People are broke?

A politician driven around in a limousine tells you that we are broke.

You beleive him or her.

You won't believe me when I tell you about CAFR.  
 
You refuse to believe me, and you now that there are many people who will refuse to check out the fact themselves on this specific subject: this CAFR report.

CAFR is one of those things that politicians can't even acknowledge. Show a politician their own copy of a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and they won't see it, they can't, it does not exist.

Net reciepts.

Where is the money?

How do you follow the money?

Who is trying to drive the cart; while the real cart is being pulled by tax payers, the horse, blindly off a cliff.

Where is the money going?

When you finally must get rid of your gasoline powered car, because it costs way too much to drive it, and you must then buy an electric car, and you have to buy the one built in China, because it is half the price of the one built in America, know then where the money went, when The FED doubled the money supply in 2008.

If, by then, it is too expensive to buy electricity from the State run Power Company (state license to own, or use, The GRID), and you have to buy Solar Panels, and you have to buy the one's made in China, because the ones made in American are twice the price of the one's made in China, then know where that pile of dollars went to; and from The FED back when The FED doubled the number of legal dollars.

I can go on, and I can go on in particular concerning the price of food, onto the subject of Modular Vertical Farming Units - as a missed opportunity to boom the power of The People, by the people, and for the people - but not now.

Now "The President" speaks - lies, half truths, and cover ups, while his friends, or his customers, or his employers, or by whatever filter you view that group of people with that power there at those places on the planet, and those words have power, those words move people and those words stop people because power has managed to flow to those people by some means.

Who has the power of The People?

What would happen if one City dumps the dollar and begins using self made purchasing power at home?

Do you think that such a thing is beyond posibility - and if so why?

The supposed national debt can be as quickly wiped out as it was created, or as Henry Ford's words suggest - before tomorrow morning.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Jan 28th, 2011 06:30 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
rewtedesco,

Thanks for pointing out that the movie is new, I am viewing it.

Example:

"So, you have to ask yourself the question: what matters?"

In a discussion, as far as I understand what matters, each member of the discussion offers their viewpoint on the topic.

If the topic is the movie, and not Joe's Law, then "what matters" in this part of this discussion, from my viewpoint, are questions raised in the movie, and other things in the movie.

Example:

Nature versus nurture was raised in the movie.

I've thought about that, or something similar, and I have arrived at a more basic dichotomy whereby two main forces are at play and those forces are:

1. Entropy
2. Ectropy

I found Extropy one day not long ago, while Entropy was already a part of my vocabulary and Entropy had been a part of my vocabulary for some time, Entropy had made its way to my vocabulary early on.

Ectropy is one of those terms that appears to be against the law, such as Legal Crime is against the law, and CAFR is against the law, terms that once spoken discussion ends.

What matters, as far as life is concerned, is Ectropy, it seems to me.

I will watch more of the movie, which I find very interesting, and comment as the stream of data flows past my personal viewing space, inspiring me to offer my part of an imaginary discussion.

Discussion is against the law.

Note: The forum spell checker doesn't recognize ectropy as a word.


"It's all in the genes": an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behavior when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on earth? it can't be the system!

As far as I can tell the movie producer/writer/creator/publisher/etc. uses the above quote as an example of rationalization or "apology" for maintaining "the system" whereby the system in question amounts to the system by which group A overpowers group B, which is what I call legal crime.

The System is either something specific or The System is ambiguous.

If The System is specifically identifiable as the system by which group A overpowers group B, then an accurate measure can be made by which power transfers from B to A, and I think this specific example accomplishes that accurate measure.

The group that overpowers the other group is the group that creates these lies, propagates these lies, and the lesser power group believes, and parrots, those lies - as that example in quotes above.

An apology for punishment, a rationale for punishment, an excuse for institutionalized punishment, and an obvious case of power being transferred, in real time, from the targeted group (those who will be punished), and the targeting group (those who punish), and the true test of this fact is to seek evidence that confirms the reality of group A having immunity from punishment while group B has no such immunity.

Take any supposed "reason" for administering punishment to anyone and see if the same "reason" applies to the creator and propagator of that supposed reason.

Example:

The serial killer must be put to death.

Each president of U.S.A. Inc. LLC, at least as far back as WWII is guilty of the crime of mass murder, serial killing, and how many of them have been put to death by the supposed "rational" system of punishment?

How about failure to repay money borrowed from the government? What is the punishment dealt out to banks that are "too big to fail"; group A? What is the punishment dealt out, by foreclosure, to group B?

Reality check:

In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature.

So the myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature, and that they are individualistic, and that they are selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs.


Competition is.

To say that society is or is not predicated on competition is to offer a competitive viewpoint on society. Why, really, really, really, why, do people blame competition for anything bad, evil, wrong, destructive, less by any measure than what competition does.

Competition forces quality up.

Competition forces cost (price) down.

Society A is a very low quality society; whereby each person in the society has to pay a very high cost to society, merely to survive as an individual, and by some measure Society A exists as a social power.

Society B is a very high quality society; whereby each person in the society has to pay a very low cost to society, survival is as costless as breathing clean air, and by some measure Society B exists as a social power.

If the measure of power in Society A is much greater than the measure of power in Society B, then which society survives, and which society does not survive?

A competitive example of a society that measures up as a very competitive society is one where the people learn to be empathetic, cooperative, aggregate, non-violent, and capable of equitable exchange, reciprocity, leading to economic exponential power production, surplus wealth, stores of life preserving power, by accessing division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale. Such a society is much more powerful than a society whereby each individual plans on, and then follows through with the plan, to injure each other person.

The accurate measure of the accurate discrimination between good human behavior and bad human behavior isn't as such:

A. Competition
B. Non-competition

Competition is.

The accurate measure of the accurate discrimination between good human behavior and bad human behavior is as such:

A. Crime (willful premeditated injury of innocent people by criminal people)
B. Not A

Back to the quote:

In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature.

So the myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature, and that they are individualistic, and that they are selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs.


The ruthless exploitation of one human being by another is the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another - what does that have to do with competition or individuality?

Individuality is.

Each moment is an individual moment. Each atom is an individual atom. Each person, in each moment, thinks an individual thought, and each thought can drive each individual act, by each individual person, each individual second.

Why does that person connect, by way of false association, the facts of competition and individuality, things that are, with crime, things that are either done or not done according to whichever individual person decides to either go ahead with a crime or not?

Crime itself is competition.

A. A society based upon crime (A.K.A. punishment)
B. Not A

Which society is more likely to survive longer?

The connection between legal criminals who propagate institutionalized crime, what I call legal crime, and capitalism, if there is such a thing, in context with Darwinism, is as such:

A.
The survival of the fittest means: kill or be killed.

B.
Do unto others before they can do unto you.

In fact, if I understand Darwinism, the capacity to reproduce empowers a species toward survival, not fitness in a violent or aggressive sense.

To be fit, is to be fit and able to reproduce.

To be fit, in a sense that someone, a single member of the species, is aggressively more powerful, violently more powerful, or deceptively more powerful than a competitor, more powerful than another member of the species, is unfit as a biological adaptation, not an adaptation that is fit for survival of the species. Such an example of one member of the species is an example that isn't likely to reproduce, and a whole society of such people would not be a powerful competitive society for lack of basic resources, since no one would have time to produce anything, since everyone would spend all their time defending against attack, and planning attacks on other people within such a society made up of such a poor example of biological adaptation.

If each person in the society were as powerful as The President, able to steal, torture, and mass murder at will, the human species would have ended a lot sooner.

It is dogma like this dogma, in quotes above, that lead to errors in social organization, whereby power flows to the worst, and most destructive, human individuals.

Blaming evil on competition, and individuality, rather than blaming evil on the actual people who are evil, by their thoughts, and by their actions, each at each moment, is not a very competitive thought or act.

Why think such nonsense?

Why speak such nonsense?

This:

In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature.

So the myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature, and that they are individualistic, and that they are selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs.


Why connect bad things done by bad people with things that are not bad, such as competition, which is, and individuality, which is, and to suggest that there is a connection, when no such connection exists, is willful, or not?

Why?

I won't get an answer, the video presentation is a one way communication medium, while discussion, as outlawed as it may be, is a 2 way communication medium, a method by which one individual can access another individual and compete and create a higher quality viewpoint (one that is more accurate) at a lower cost (a better perspective that is less filled with inaccurate data).

Example:

Person A:
Hi, it sure is fun running west with my eyes shut, I've been doing that for awhile and it is thrilling. I feel great.

Person B:
Hi, I'll try it. Before you go, though, it may be a good idea to hold off on your fun, I just came from the west, and there is a sheer cliff 100 meters west, so you may want to open your eyes long enough to avoid running off the cliff.

Person A:
What? You are stupid. Nothing you say has any meaning what-so-ever. I'm always right. Get lost.

Person B:
Just because discussion is against the law, doesn't mean that you have to obey.

Reality check 2:

It's a system disorder, and the system disorder seems to be fatal.


If it is a system disorder, as the person claims, then put that system in an empty room, next to an loaded gun, and see if the system commits suicide, and then we, the surviving human beings, can get along without that bad, bad, evil, system.

That is the same false perspective as the false perspective that blames shooting murders on the gun, or stabbing murders on the knife, or strangulation by hand murders on the hand, invisible or not.

Any system either accomplishes or doesn't accomplish its intended purpose determined exclusively by the capability of the system operators to get what they set out to accomplish with that system, or by accident.

Does the person speaking in the movie suggest that the system did it - by accident?

I am beginning to see some very huge errors, by accident, or by willful act, with the underlying message of this movie.

Reality check:

What is Intrinsic Obsolescence?

Context:

Economic Rule:
"Nothing produced can be allowed to maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to continue cyclical consumption."


I think that the main problem with the perspective being projected, or propagated, in this movie is the idea that the system is responsible and the thing that enforces the supposed Economic Rule, and that they system enforces Intrinsic Obsolescence, whatever either of those things mean.

I am typing on a computer that I patched together from parts given to me, and parts sold on E-bay. I did not choose parts that will be intrinsically obsolete, I chose parts that are the highest quality parts, at the lowest cost, and I won't throw away these parts, because I can use a less powerful computer near my guitar and amp, some day when I can afford a new computer, and I can even give these parts away to someone who has no computer.

Who, not what, is enforcing cyclical consumption?

If this video movie, this propaganda, does not accurately identify the legal criminals who have the power to add and subtract legal money from the legal money supply, in American that group of people are known as The FED, then this movie will miss-identify the actual cause, and the actual reason for causing, cyclical consumption. The people who cause it are the people who have the license to add and subtract from the money supply, in American, and the reason that they cause it is easy to understand; power flows to them and from the people who create power.

Power, or surplus wealth, is created by people as people cooperate with each other and thereby they, these people who cooperate, learn to specialize and divide labor, so as to make many things together where no single person could ever make one thing alone, such as a car, or even a steel sowing needle, or a computer, or a global news network, and by way of competition the people learn how to act in ways that improve what they do, what they make, as they compare their acts with other acts by other people, and where they compare thoughts they think with thoughts communicated by other people, and in that act of comparing, an obvious better way is made obvious, rather than unknown.

If I want better money, for example, I'll know it when I see it. Where is it?

How much does it cost?

If I want less expensive money, I'll know it when I see it. Where is it?

How much better is it?

If the propaganda piece linked here in this thread doesn't accurately I.D. The FED, finger those people, then this piece misses a primary cause of human suffering and misery, as those specific people continue doing what they have done, specifically doing the enforcement and maintenance of a global business cycle. If these propagandists fail to state the obvious, they confess by that omission something obvious to me. They are covering up the truth, not spreading it.

Reality check:

On the subject of planned obsolescence, it can be known that no such thing can occur unless a monopoly enforcement mechanism is at work, something employed by people who enforce a monopoly.

As soon as a potential user, buyer, consumer, purchaser, owner, or whatever word used to describe the person who doesn't have something and then that person does have the thing, as soon as that person has a choice between product, or thing, A, and thing B, where thing A wears out in 1 year, and thing B wears out years later, then the person will, most likely, obtain the better thing - especially if the better thing costs less.

How can someone explain reality otherwise?

Anyone?

Reality Check again:

The system cannot do anything. People do things. The system cannot allow, or not allow anything. People allow and don't allow things, such as competition, and thereby a person will enforce a monopoly, not a "system".

That method of misdirecting accountability away from actual people and onto irresponsible, actually un-responsible (unaccountable) things is a common tactic used by criminals, legal or otherwise.

Reality check:

On blaming the system (this movie propagandists call it "The Market System") for brainwashing people with advertisements:

Mass media has been taken over by actual people who actually have managed to create and enforce a monopoly on that which masses of people are exposed to, and the result is an obvious result; the quality of propaganda (advertisements, news, information, etc.) goes down and the price of propaganda goes up. To illustrate the truth of this fact all one has to do is perceive the facts as competition is now abundant in the form of The World Wide Web - no longer are the mass media monopolists able to enforce near total monopoly, yet, by at least one measure, access to a Super Bowl commercial minute will still cost a propagandist a whole lot more than access to a forum topic here on this forum. Where does a potential propagandist go to get the license to broadcast onto televisions in America?

Who do I ask for permission to run a television commercial?

Who do I ask for permission to start a forum topic on this forum?

How much does it cost me to run a television commercial?

How much does it cost me to run a forum topic on this forum?

Explain the difference in price, and try not to fix accountability on the system, try to fix accountability on actual people who actually set prices, and account for the reason why someone has the power to set the price at the price they set.

A person who has an enforced monopoly can set a higher price because no competitor offers that same thing at a lower price.

Last Reality check:

I see no point in continuing to point out how dogmatic this propaganda piece is as this viewpoint compounds the error of accounting criminal acts upon a system.

I will explain capitalism instead.

Capitalism is a method of pricing.

If the propagandists have a perspective that is critical of capitalism then the propagandists may find the root cause of the supposed problem within the method of pricing, otherwise the propagandists are barking up the wrong tree.

If the propagandists have a problem with a person freezing to death because a person selling power cut off power for failure to pay for power then the system that has worked in such cases is Trial by Jury.

Where is Trial by Jury?

If Trail by Jury no longer works, then the system that is no longer competing to gain market share as the best quality and lowest cost system of justice is against the law, and some other law, legalized crime for example, has taken away that competitive example of systematic production of justice, or fairness, or equity, or mutual cooperation, or universality, or whatever words label the system by which people manage to minimized the power of crime - rendering crime unprofitable for criminals at the expense of innocent victims.

If the propagandists are going to criticize capitalism, they can't ignore the pricing scheme, because that is capitalism.

Capitalism is a method of fixing prices.

I may be inspired to comment further as I finish this propaganda piece, but I'm going to economize my desire to comment based upon a scale similar to triage in the medical profession, as other things compete for my time and energy.

Ahhh...the propagandists are demonizing money.

Money isn't bad. Guns are not bad. Knives are not bad. Systems are not bad.

Money is a form of connection. Air, or oxygen, is a form of connection. Money can be used by human beings to accomplish things human beings want to accomplish. Oxygen can be used by human beings to accomplish things human beings want to accomplish. If a criminal wants to injure innocent people with money a criminal can figure out how, and then a criminal can execute that method. A criminal can cut off the supply, like cutting off the supply of oxygen, or the criminal can add too much to the supply, like pumping oxygen onto a raging fire. A criminal can even figure out how to govern the decrease and then the increase of the flow of money so as to cause the actual power to purchase to flow from the people who create the power to purchase (surplus) to the criminal or the gang of organized criminals, and these criminals can even figure out how to lie, and cover up their crimes, and how to trick their victims into wasting the meager power left to the victims on such things as the demonization of anything other than the actual criminals who actually cause hell on earth for the innocent victims while the criminals collect all the surplus power to purchase.

I am only half through this movie. I don't think that the propagandists will ever get to the actual problem, it appears that they will continue to focus attention on wild goose chases, or mistake affects for causes, etc.

Reality check (and I'm putting off other things to do):

When these people are speaking about money and when these people are reporting the facts concerning money they are reporting half truths. These people are reporting things that are true but only true when speaking about specific forms of money and in particular the form of money these people are talking about is what I call legal crime money.

You can call the money these people are talking about anything you want, the word on the money is dollar.

The dollar form of money is the money these people are talking about.

The dollar is debt based, sure, but the dollar remains to be a thing that can purchase other things. The dollar unit has a measurable amount of power with which to purchase a measurable quantity of something else.

A starving person can buy food with a dollar. A freezing old man can buy fuel for heat with a dollar. If you want to call the dollar that the freezing old man uses to buy heat a debt based dollar, go ahead, but remember that the freezing old man without a dollar and without heat is likely to freeze, without some other power available to the old man.

When these people talk about interest they are talking about the dollar and the ability of the dollar to buy interest, a power to purchase more dollars. There have been and will continue to be other forms of money whereby the money buys negative interest, and such money is designed to discourage people from storing, holding, or in a derogatory sense: hoarding money - whereby the money produced and sold to the consumer is money that has more power to purchase the first day it is produced and that money has less power the next day after it was produced and that money becomes worthless, on schedule, and at a time it is designed to be unable to purchase anything. Consumers buying such money, by whomever they buy it from, whenever, are consumers that know better, and they know not to keep it, they spend it, and pass it on like a hot potato.

Forming a perspective that is too narrow is a choice. Why do people ignore obvious solutions to obvious problems?

If the money is bad, get good money.

What is the problem?

The problem is, apparently, a case of ignorance.

Those idiots actually say (I'm not going to waste more time quoting verbatim):

Make no mistake...the system...is to blame.

Who do they think created the system?

Who do they think maintains the system?

Who do they think are the actual people who actually have the legal license to own everything?

Do they really think that the money trail stops at innocent people who are also victims of the system as they order torture, as they order mass murder by way of aggressive wars for profit, as they order the dumping of raw poisons into the drinking water supply of their victims, as they order the legal money supply to be cut in half, then doubled, then cut in half, and then doubled to create and maintain the business cycle.

Those people are idiots, or they are employees, but not employees of some vague and nebulous system, they are employees of actual people who actually hired them to read from the script they were given.

Either they are ignorant, or they are themselves criminals, as they add to the cover up, and as they misdirect any power that could have been employed toward avoiding victimization by those very criminals who commit those very specific crimes.

I have viewed little more than half of the propaganda piece and it is hard for me to imagine the authors, producers, writers, or actors in this move coming up with anything worth viewing - but I can certainly be wrong so I will see this through.

My choice.

The system won't make me watch it.

"Strategic Access"?

This thing is becoming humorous.

When I grow up I want to work at McDonald's like my mom.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Feb 1st, 2011 03:08 pm
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Cart's don't pull horses by accident.

Criminal Charges Must Be Laid - Former Finance Regulator

The legal license to add and subtract from the supply of purchasing power (legal dollar units of money) is the horse.

The horse pulls the cart.

Who is driving the horse?

If a victim has access to law, true law, a victim can use law to avoid further victimization - at least.

Victim A employs law, and then victim A is no longer victimized.

That is one of more than one possible method by which this Crisis can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated.

There isn't a monopoly on the number of ways this "Crisis" can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated.

Victim B can stop using the money (dollars) and begin using some other form of money - case closed.

Now the reader has 2 possible methods by which this Crisis can be unraveled and prevented from being repeated.

The problem with both methods is the same problem every living organism must face whenever a living organism is faced with a problem. Does the living organism have a sufficient amount of power to use in the work of investing that limited supply of power in the work of gaining more power, and then, once more power is gained, and only then, the living organism has the power required to solve the problem.

Take both example methods by which the "Crisis" problem is solved by any person alive today.

A. Law
B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money)

How about solving the first choice, first, since that is the nature of the message offered in this REAL News report.

Criminal Charges Must Be Laid - Former Finance Regulator

Look here please:

Person A decides to access law. Who is person A?

How about any person who is now paying monthly mortgage payments on any property in America whereby the value of the loan is more than the value of the home. Person A reduces the money he pays to the lender, voluntarily, by that exact discrepancy. Each monthly payment is reduced, voluntarily, according to the injury caused by the criminals who caused that injury.

Example:

Person A pays 2000 dollar units of money for a 200,000 dollar home.

Then the legal criminals cause the down cycle and now the home is worth 100,000 units of legal money, but the victim is still paying for a 200,000 dollar home.

Person A volunteers to personally adjust the discrepancy and begins paying off the 100,000 dollar home with 500 dollar per month payments, and Person A sends a note to the owner of the mortgage informing the owner of this New Deal, asking for agreement, or failing to agree, Person A adds: "see you in court".

Does Person A have the power to avoid this injury legally?

I offered an example of how law can be accessed, and any other competitive method of accessing law is certainly "on the table" as far as I a concerned. I am merely inventing one way, so as to move the discussion along, and get to the point.

If Trial by Jury worked, as intended, the case offered above could be a trial case, one case of a future flood of similar cases, and imagine that you are also on this jury in this trial as you sit in judgment of this case as this Person A solves his power problem by accessing law.

Is law universal? Is law the same law for Person A as it is for Person B - no exceptions?

It could be admitted by any living, breathing, rational human being that the answer is definitively no, measurably no, conclusively no, accurately no, and no without any false front, no without any smoke and mirrors, no without the least bit of ambiguity, and no without double speak.

No, law isn't the same for you and me, we do not get bailed out when we commit fraud.

We could, if we access our power, as a majority power, and a majority power that actually produces power, not a power that steals power.

Trial by Jury works that way.

Person A has 12 randomly selected (not cherry picked) other people judging Person A. How many other people are on the Jury, during the trial to find out if it is OK for Person A to refinance the loan amount down to a realistic value, and thinking: "If he can do it, I can do it too."

How many victims are there?

How many criminals are there?

HERE is the score card in case someone has no power by which to answer the two questions above, and do so accurately: follow the money.

If it is true that Trial by Jury exists, law, actual law, universal law, law that is by the people, for the people, and of the people, proven to work better than the competition, in each case so far, then the accurate measure of how many victims there are relative to home many criminals there are, are found on the random selection of jurors in each case, a mathematical statistical certainty, with few exceptions. Trial by Jury isn't perfect.

Law isn't perfect, never has been, and it will never be perfect. People aren't perfect, therefore law made by people, of people, and for people can't be perfect.

Natural law is perfect. Try the law of gravity out, and see if it fails once.

That is solution A, how about solution B?

A. Law
B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money)

Competition is a natural law, some people call it Darwinism, and some people confuse Darwinism with a specific man made law, and they do so on purpose, to get away with things, like crime, like stealing, like torture, and like mass murder.

People who confuse Darwinism with a specific man made law may get away with the extinction of the human species, that would assume, however, that there is life after death: getting away with that crime would include suicide - all inclusive.

Competition can be confused with a specific crime called: "kill or be killed" or "survival of the fittest" or some other such terminology pointing to the actual confusion between man made law and the natural law explained within the work of Darwin. 

When a criminal hatches the plan to injure an innocent victim, it is a matter of convenience, or even a matter of expedience, to cover up the crime with such confusion as the confusion of Darwinism with man made law, where the law maker makes any law that says: I kill you, or injury you, before you have a chance to injure me, or, the law I make excepts me from that law, and the law I make applies only to the specific people I list, as I apply my law inequitably, excepting me, and excepting anyone I choose to except, and as I punish whomever I choose, and as I reward whomever I choose, as I take the power from my victims, and as I then purchase loyalty with that stolen power.

The crime game can become very sophisticated, to such a point as to include a global cyclic method by which power flows to the criminals from the victims.

A score card is available, and it isn't ambiguous, it is accurate, and it allows anyone, anytime, to follow the money as the criminals perpetrate that very elaborate crime, in real time.

So, competition, a natural law, natural selection works this way, is second on the list of things to do, if human beings wish to do, this thing, this solving of this problem, this so called "Crisis" problem.

Again:

A. Law
B. Competition (choose the better money, and thereby avoid the costs associated with choosing the worse money)

I think Trial by Jury, or Law, would work very well, and the example offered exemplifies how law could work to solve this so called "Crisis".

The people who have the license to add and subtract from the legal money supply own the law, they have control of the horse, and they are pulling the cart.

They don't like it when people compete for control of the horse, pulling the cart.

They have law.

The own it, and they have owned it since, at least, 1788. The names change, they are the group that I call legal criminals. They use law to eliminate competition.

Competition works better than law.

Solution B on the list, and there can be as many competitive solutions as there are seconds in eternity, such is the nature of competition, I've just offered solution A, and solution B, so as to narrow down the choices, and arriving at a deciding point, either A or B, there isn't a C at the deciding point. If noting is done, then A wasn't on the list. If doing nothing is done, then the list, just before the deciding point was:

A. Do nothing
B. Not A

It didn't matter what was on the list, after the deciding point, since nothing was done.

B, or competition, can solve the problem, in each and every case, and it can be exemplified here and now, and the same problem as the problem with problem A occurs, in each case.

The real problem:

The problem with both methods is the same problem every living organism must face whenever a living organism is faced with a problem. Does the living organism have a sufficient amount of power to use in the work of investing that limited supply of power in the work of gaining more power, and then, once more power is gained, and only then, the living organism has the power required to solve the problem.

I don't have to quote myself, that would be silly, I just cut and pasted.

People can choose a better money. Walk away from the home, or the Crisis, and get a loan to buy another home, and get a loan that is denominated in a denomination that isn't a denomination that is run by a band of frauds, and then pay off that which you have borrowed, and keep your good faith and credit intact in that way.

Why not?

[url=http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.htmlHenry Ford wrote:[/url]

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.

The revolution occurs over night. People simply drop the low quality expensive stuff and they begin using the higher quality stuff at the lower price

No, yes, maybe?

I think, seriously, that I must be from another age, or another planet, sometimes, but I know, in my heart, and in my mind, that it takes effort, diligent effort, and a whole lot of suffering, to get past the falsehood, but it can be done.

Other people can do it too.

Get past the falsehood, you might like it.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Feb 4th, 2011 02:46 pm
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Annonamous

Last week, the Egyptian security apparatus cut off Internet access and even cell-phone service across the country in response to protests that have rocked the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. Many of the demonstrations were actually orchestrated using social-networking services like Facebook and Twitter.

In response, the group of hackers had been helping protestors circumvent the recently lifted web blackout. When service was restored, Anonymous began “Operation Egypt.” It went after the web portals of the Ministry of Information, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and even the “president’s” National Democratic Party site. And it succeeded. All of the regime’s targeted sites, including the cabinet’s, remained down on Thursday.


The power struggle is always a question of numbers because the cost of power required by each individual is divided by the number of people adding to the power supply.

1 person alone is limited in power and that power can be X.

If it takes 10X or much more power X to the 10th power, for example, then 1 person is powerless against many when many can pool or combine or collect their individual power into one massive power supply sufficient to accomplish the targeted task.

The rationale behind compassionate or moral government is the protection of the individual, weak, or minority from criminal attack by overwhelming criminal powers exceeding the defensive power of the individual, the weak, or the minority.

When a moral government, a compassionate one, one based upon the ideal of protecting the innocent, powerless, and weaker from the criminally stronger among us, goes bad, is when the operators of the government employ the power of government toward the elimination of competition by criminal means, or by, in a more specific, and less ambiguous, definition: by injuring the targeted innocent, on purpose, and for profit.

1. Law = legal power is absolutely equal, no exceptions, all are as powerful as everyone else, and known as universality.

2. Crime = willful injury of innocent victims by criminals as criminals define such things as crime by what they do, not what they say.

The false rationale, therefore, is half true, as the criminals employ law to except themselves from the power of law, to gradually remove all defensive power that could conceivably target the criminals with one exception.

1. True law = the collective power of the many employed toward the defense of the few from the criminal power

2. Legal crime = legalized criminal power as criminals take over the operation of law and employ law toward the elimination of competition

3. Competing legal criminals = the power of numbers reapplied to the power struggle between competitive groups of legal criminals

The false rationale, used by legal criminals, is the rationale that says "we need to be worse than our enemies", or some other such apology for torture and mass murder becoming legal, or much sooner the false rationale merely apologizes for a small subsidy transferred to one competitor.

The false rationale employs the true rationale as a cover story, when the actual design of law alters from the true rationale toward the criminal one.

1. True rationale = protect the weak, innocent, power-less people, from the strong, criminal, power-full people.

2. False rationale = criminalize the true rationale by using the power collected from the true rationale storage fund toward the criminal rationale whereby the criminals operating the law power use that power to except themselves from that very power = eliminate competition.

3. True reality = another bigger and more powerful legal crime organization may over-power the smaller and less powerful crime organization.

The reader may be confused by my comments and in particular the confusion at this point may be a confusion over what my comments have to do with the topic of people who have shut down the internet web sites of the Egyptian government after the people running the Egyptian government have shut down the internet access to the people of Egypt.

If the reader is confused by my comments relative to the topic then I can add one more comment in an effort to tie things up.

The true rationale is the only path to greater power collected and stored into a fund, without that type of government working, without a non-criminal organization in play, there isn't any increase in power flowing to that collection of power into the supply of power that the people running the government use to run the government.

That is a very serious thing. That must be understood. Not having that thing understood, is a powerless state of being in the face of criminals, and in the even greater danger as innocent people face organized crime, and in the even greater danger as innocent people face legal crime.

The innocent people are the only people who have the capacity to increase the supply of power available to anyone for any reason including the rationale of protecting the innocent from harm by criminals, and including the rationale of eliminating competition.

Without innocent people working together, toward greater supplies of excess wealth, power, there can only be the power supplies produced by individual people, working separately, alone, and powerless.

A. A single person, working alone, can only produce, at best, enough excess power to survive, and no more.

B. Two people, working together, can more than double the supply of excess power and begin creating a supply of excess wealth, power, to reproduce and thereby ensure the survival of the species.

This is very simple stuff, in the light, and out from under the rock, the veil of falsehood, produced by legal criminals who operate a criminal government.

No criminal government ever earned one cent of excess power, all the power spent by legal criminals is power earned through voluntary cooperation by innocent victims, stolen from them, and then used against them, as the legal criminals set about excepting themselves from that very power that was formerly collected into a fund for the purpose of defending against crime.

The first act by which a supposed governor excepts himself, or someone else, from the power of moral law, is the first criminal use of that moral law, and such act destroys competition - weakens a potential competitor, and strengthens the criminal committing that first crime or strengthens any other person receiving that subsidy, potentially overpowering the potential competitor.

A. All competitors are shackled by law to compete with other competitors in the work of supplying the highest quality at the lowest cost/price, in moral law zones, where moral law is practiced, and where moral law renders everyone equally shackled by moral law.

B. Competition is gradually eliminated as law is employed by legal criminals in the work of transferring all power to them from the source of power, which is the power produced by innocent people, and the only way to accomplish this is to eliminate competition.

Criminals do not exist in zones where moral law is maintained by innocent people who produce a vast supply of surplus wealth and a vast supply of power.

legal criminals can't exist within or even without moral law, therefore the observer is empowered to know the facts in any given situation on earth, such as the one in Egypt.

If the people in Egypt stop sending power to the legal criminals who are running the Egyptian government the Egyptian government will no longer have power flowing to them through those mediums, those channels, and those sources.

American people send power to the legal criminals running U.S.A. Inc. LLC The Dollar Hegemony, and through that channel, power can still flow to the legal criminals running the Egyptian government.

How to:

How to know, for sure, if a government has turned from moral government and if a government has turned toward legal crime.

A. Torture is legal
B. Mass murder is legal
C. The people running the legal crime government confess their crimes by their actions, not their words, and they use the power of government toward the work of eliminating compettion

If torture is legal, I rest my case, and there is no rational excuse possible, for a victim of torture, to excuse torture, while the people financing, or the people actually performing torture, can make up any excuse they desire, so as to enable further torture, in their own minds, as well as in the minds of the victims being tortured by actual torture, or by the torturous condition a mind must be in once a mind begins to excuse torture by any excuse imaginable.

Once the torture bodies begin to pile up in mass graves as a result of on second over the limit of torture for each victim, the evidence abounds, and all the person has to do to prove who is guilty of the crime is follow the paper trail back to the source.

Person A in pile A was tortured and murdered by torturing mass murderer B.

Person seeking the truth:
"Why did you do it?"

First person caught red handed (literally):
"I'm just following orders."

Person seeking the truth:
"Who ordered you, and, by the way, how much did you get paid?"

First person caught red handed (literally):
"Here is my check, there is the person signing it."

Person seeking the truth:
"Thanks, that is a good start."

Institutionalized punishment is arguably as ineffective as torture, as a means by which innocent people can defend against victimization by criminals, so please don't assume that my perspective signs onto that methodology. I don't.

I don't sign onto, for example, the idea that an eye for an eye works, morally.

The attack on the criminal government by the person or people running Anonymous can be better understood, from my perspective, if the reader takes some of their time, energy, and power, to peruse the following link:

Modern politics defined

Discussion is against the law, so you are on your own.

Thanks for the soap box.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Feb 4th, 2011 04:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Robert Fisk on site


Because the army is against Mubarak, which I think it pretty much is now, does not mean that the army is going to support wonderful, free, open elections in Egypt. It will be nice to think so, but I can't think of an army that's ever actually done that in history, certainly not in Egypt. So I think that these are the questions that are going to come up.


Note: I found 2 apostrophes in that quote and I replaced the cut and pasted symbol with the symbol generated by this forum and tested it, it works, the forums software obviously misreads cut and pasted symbols.

The words in quotes inspire me to comment.

Comment A comes from a literary work produced by someone named Lysander Spooner and the tile of the work is Trial by Jury.

The relevant quote from Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner follows the links.

 Trial by Jury

[url=lhttp://www.barefootsworld.net/trial02.html]The History of Magna Carta.[/url]

This "law of the land" seems not to have been regarded at all by many of the kings, except so far as they found it convenient to do so, or were constrained to observe it by the fear of arousing resistance. But as all people are slow in making resistance, oppression and usurpation often reached a great height; and, in the case of John, they had become so intolerable as to enlist the nation almost universally against him; and he was reduced to the necessity of complying with any terms the barons saw fit to dictate to him.

A. Absolute Dictator (King John in this example)
B. The Barons (The Army of that time)
C. The Law of the Land (The People of that time and the measure of their collective power)

The Army of that day dictated to King John demanding Magna Carta, as the official law of the land, including Trial by Jury.

Trial by Jury gave the power of veto to each individual citizen.

Relevant quote 2:

The question here arises, Whether the barons and people intended that those peers (the jury) should be mere puppets in the hands of the king, exercising no opinion of their own as to the intrinsic merits of the accusations they should try, or the justice of the laws they should be called on to enforce? Whether those haughty and victorious barons, when they had their tyrant king at their feet, gave back to him his throne, with full power to enact any tyrannical laws he might please, reserving only to a jury ("the country") the contemptible and servile privilege of ascertaining, (under the dictation of the king, or his judges, as to the laws of evidence), the simple fact whether those laws had been transgressed? Was this the only restraint, which, when they had all power in their hands, they placed upon the tyranny of a king, whose oppressions they had risen in arms to resist? Was it to obtain such a charter as that, that the whole nation had united, as it were, like one man, against their king? Was it on such a charter that they intended to rely, for all future time, for the security of their liberties? No. They were engaged in no such senseless work as that. On the contrary, when they required him to renounce forever the power to punish any freeman, unless by the consent of his peers, they intended those powers should judge of, and try, the whole case on its merits, independently of all arbitrary legislation, or judicial authority, on the part of the king. In this way they took the liberties of each individual - and thus the liberties of the whole people - entirely out of the hands of the king, and out of the power of his laws, and placed them in the keeping of the people themselves. And this it was that made the trial by jury the palladium of their liberties.

There is much more to that work done by that person Lysander Spooner on this subject whereby an Army did, in fact, hand over the power of government to the people instead of handing power back to the King during a revolution; when everyone was against the dictator who was dictating criminal injury of innocent victims.

That is historical reference 1.

That historical reference occurred within the home country of the person who claims not to know of any historical occasion whereby an Army hands power over to the people.

This claim:


Because the army is against Mubarak, which I think it pretty much is now, does not mean that the army is going to support wonderful, free, open elections in Egypt. It will be nice to think so, but I can't think of an army that's ever actually done that in history, certainly not in Egypt. So I think that these are the questions that are going to come up.


That did happen in England, no less.

Historical reference 2a:

Inventing a Nation

Historical reference 2b:

American Revolution's Final Battle

Historical reference 2c:

Epilogue to the American Revolution

Historical reference 2d:

The Other Founders

Historical reference 2e:

1776

Summary:

The revolutionary army handed power over to a republican form of government modeled from the Swiss example then known as The Articles of Confederation, The 13 former Colonies, etc.

Please note that Washington was already employed by a number of people running a congress during the revolutionary war where the British aggressors (for profit) were forced into defeat, the same British whose Trial by Jury was corrupted into a powerless condition as explained in detail by Lysander Spooner, and that the tipping point back into despotism occurred in America, the 13 Former Colonies, under The Articles of Confederation, in 1788 when the Nationalists hiding behind a false front of Republicanism followed through with their plan to Nationalize the republic into one dictatorship known as U.S.A. Inc. LLC.

Anyone wanting to to know the facts concerning the shift of power away from The People (Washington and the congress at the time gave The People the power, including Trial by Jury, to The People once the Army took that power away from the King in England) and back to the new despots, may take my word on it, or the words in those books, it is a documented fact.

Reference 2f:

Patrick Henry speaks in opposition
    

How does your trial by jury stand? In civil cases gone - not sufficiently secured in criminal-this best privilege is gone. But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the power we put in their hands.


The group who will take over in Egypt will either allow The People to gain the power to nullify any law through Trial by Jury or The People will be powerless.

If The People do not gain that Trial by Jury power then they will have fewer options in their future when dealing with legal crime, such as legalized torture, and legalize mass murder, and lesser crimes made legal by the legal criminals running the government that does not include an effective Trial by Jury where any individual person can veto any law in each case tried by an effective Trial by Jury.

Despots since King John know the power given up with Trial by Jury. The People don't, and that is a fair and accurate assessment by way of aggregate measure.

I know.

You can too.

You now have the power, the power is contained within those references. People cannot expect to have power handed to them, power must be earned, given, or stolen. God may give it, I suppose, I didn't wait for that to happen. I've been given the power of reason, that should be enough, yes or no?

Oh, there I go asking a question, within the vacuum, as discussion is against the law.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Feb 5th, 2011 03:10 pm
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Do not respond: conditioning

We are so good even our enemies believe our lies

I've devoted a lot of time and effort to the question of how to reach the American mind concerning US foreign policy. To a large extent what this comes down to is trying to counterbalance the lifetime of indoctrination someone raised in the United States receives. It comes in news stories every day.

On January 27, the Washington Post ran a story about the State Department personnel who were held hostage at the American embassy in Tehran, Iran for some 14 months, 1979-81. The former hostages were preparing to hold a 30th anniversary remembrance the next day.

"It was wrong on every conceivable count," said L. Bruce Laingen, who was the charge d'affaires. "It was absolutely wrong. ... That is my most vivid memory today." Former political officer John W. Limbert agrees, saying that he "would take any opportunity" to tell his captors "what a terrible thing they had done by their own criteria."

What criteria, I wonder, did the man think his Iranian captors were guided by? In 1953, the United States had overthrown the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh, resulting, as planned, in the return to power from exile of the Shah. This led to 26 years of rule by oppression including routine torture as the Shah was safeguarded continuously by US military support. Is this not reason enough for Iranians to be bitterly angry at the United States? What was Mr. Limbert thinking? What do Americans who read or hear such comments think? They read or hear distorted news reports pertaining to America's present or historical role in the world every day, and like in the Washington Post article cited here - there's no correction by the reporter, no questions asked, no challenge put forth to the idea of America the Noble, America the perpetual victim of the Bad Guys.


Do not respond - to respond is outside/against the law.

If you respond: be violent, or else - really?

Truly?

Who thinks what, and why?

The power struggle is won non-violently, it is an easy math problem.

A = The People
B = Torturing Mass Murdering Dictators financed by The People

A > B

How many of A are required to over power B and what action is required by that number of A to overpower B?

Ax > B

The number of people required must be more than about 3%, since 3% is about the number of people in the B (Torturing Mass Murdering for profit) group, and that murderous, and torturous B group is better armed, and they have no perceivable conscience (observing acts perpetrated by B not believing in what the people in the B group say - per se - some confess, most don't, they lie because it is necessary to lie in order to perpetuate torture and mass murder as a means of earning a living), and so 3% is probably not a sufficient number of the A group (The People, powerless victims, tax payers, producers of wealth, the slaves, the workers, the mob, the cattle, the sheep, etc.) to overpower the B group non-violently.

The number of the A group needed must represent a greater power in the eyes of the legal criminals in the B group, a sufficient number of people in the A group renders any hope of keeping power by the B group: hopeless, in the eyes of the members of the B group, the torturing, mass murdering, legal serial killing, legal criminal group membership.

Ax > B when B has no hope of staying in power since x is too many people.

Think about that number.

I'll quote then offer a measure of that number that can make sense to the reader.

Nearly two weeks into what is a truly historical convergence of humanity, technology and politics in Egypt, Western (and Israeli) interests have concluded that what is needed is a military dictator subject to Western leverage, and one imagines the CIA and DIA corridors are buzzing with questions of "Who do we know?" and "How can we help him?" That it will be a man, ideally a "strong man" who can "lead the country" is a given for American policy-makers, if they can get their way.

Instead of what is discussed within the stale and frightened halls of our own stultified government, Americans ought to reflect on the words of Saint Augustine, a man quite familiar with the Mediterranean and North Africa, as well as extreme state thuggery: "An unjust law is no law at all." De La Boetie observed that to reject unjust laws and the unjust state that enforces them, a people need not be exceptionally courageous, but rather to simply withdraw their consent. He wrote, over four centuries ago,


The number of people in group A (peaceful defenders of liberty) must be sufficient to the task of maintaining their own power to increase their own power, short of that number the A group is dependent upon the parasitic group B.

This can be seen by examples of hypothetical numbers of people in group A.

Example:

Ax > B when x is the entire number of people in group A; which is roughly 97% of the population.

In that example the entire group known as The People go to bed tonight, and early in the morning they entire group, from East Coast to West Coast, in a wave of sudden and irreversible wisdom, each person in each bed, wake up knowing that everyone in group A no longer supports, in any way, the torturing mass murdering serial killing group.

The only change, non-violent, is that the credit card used by Group B is cut in half, they have no more money from The People, to spend on torturing and mass murdering, or food, shelter, or anything else, and they then, the entire group B, has to find an actual paying job, where they actually have to do what the customer wants, and failing that they must either, the entire B group must either depend upon charity, or resort to unfunded crime - no more free lunch for them.

If there is violence, the violence will be members of group B fighting each other for control over what they have managed to horde in their own stores of power, wherever that may be, and violence perpetrated by the remaining B group criminals who continue their crime spree, victimizing more innocent victims, but no longer financed, in any way other than whatever those remaining criminals can take from their current victims, at that time, since the flow of power from The People via the fraudulent money monopoly pipe line will have been cut off by the rest of The People during that wave of sudden and irreversible wisdom passing each person from East to West as the Sun illuminates the globe on that new morning.

Now the reader has a scale to work with in each readers own estimate of the actual power struggle at play now, and always.

Ax < B when x is 3% or roughly the entire population of the B group

Ax > B when x is 97% or roughly the entire population of the A group

What is the tipping point number of x - as a percentage of the entire population of both A and B within a given area, such as Earth, or Egypt, or U.S.A. Inc. LLC, or America?

The quote:

...there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude.

Therefore a question begs for an answer as such:

What money will The People use to maintain their power to increase their power once they stop using the legal crime money, once they cut the credit card that finances legal torture, legal mass murder, at home and abroad?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 7th, 2011 04:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Markets

Anyone,

I could discuss this topic with someone who has an angle of view whereby their view is precise and factual concerning the true motives behind actual actions performed by specific people in reference to these Real News stories.

I'm going to pretend to be discussion the topic by quoting from Bill Black.

Bill Black says:

So the first part was the interest rate crisis, when chairman [Paul] Volcker decided to break the back of inflation by dramatically raising interest rates.

I would have said:

"Hold on there, Bill, I don't know why anyone would ever say such a thing, since the facts don't add up on that angle of view, that sounds to me like a huge lie."

Bill Black might say:

"What lie?"

Joe:

"Bill, don't you know that inflation isn't a problem, and interest rates aren't a crisis, so long as you have the legal license to create legal money, do you have it?"

Bill Black might say:

"I think I know where you are going there, but I want to stick to the topic, and not get too far away from it."

Joe:

"Readers, most of them I known, lost you at that claim you just made concerning "breaking the back of inflation" and "interest rate crisis". Why don't you speak without resorting to double speak, people can then know what you are talking about, actual people, not legal criminals, regular working people, the people who actually produce surplus wealth, you know, the people who actually create enough wealth to actually afford the luxury of having a government of any kind whatsoever."

Bill Black might say:

"See...how far away from the topic can you get?"

Joe:

"Not far at all, the supposed interest rate crisis isn't a crisis at all, not if you accurately identify the group of people who have the legal power to change the interest rate, so why not spend one moment of your time discriminating better?"

Bill Black might say:

"It was an interest rate crisis, these are the facts."

Joe:

"It was not an interest rate crisis, there you are mistaken, by roughly half. You are half true, and therefore you are perpetuating double speak. Double speak is produced for a reason, a very specific reason. Why do you support such falsehoods in that way, why don't you break the back of falsehood instead of supporting it?"

Bill Black might say:

"Can we get back to the topic?"

Joe:

"So long as it is clearly reported that the group of people who have the power to add or subtract dollars from the legal dollar total number of dollars have that power and that to them there is no interest rate crisis, none at all, the reverse is true, the interest rate is exactly where they want it at that time, since they have the power to raise or lower the interest rate, a function of having the power to add or subtract from the total number of dollars."

Bill Black might say:

"Can I get back to the topic?"

Joe:

"Please do, but one more time, I'll quote your words and then one more reinforcement of the pertinent facts."

Your words:

So the first part was the interest rate crisis, when chairman [Paul] Volcker decided to break the back of inflation by dramatically raising interest rates.

Joe:

"There was no crisis, it was, as it is now, a moment in the cycle, as the legal money makers cause economic depression, or bust, and from the viewpoint of the legal criminals who create that cycle, it can't be viewed as a crisis. It was not a crisis. That is a fact. It was no more of a crisis than inflation is a crisis, since inflation is the upward or boom part of the cycle, created on purpose, and therefore also not a crisis.

"The confidence scheme is covered up by words such as "crisis" and "inflation" and other falsehoods, so as to perpetuate the legal license to commit this specific legal crime, where the legal criminals who have the license to add or subtract to the legal number of dollars abuse that power and create a business cycle, for profit, at the expense of the people who work and create wealth. The wealth created by people who create wealth flows down this one way circuit to those people who have the legal license to add and subtract from the supply of legal dollars, and they use that power to commit these specific crimes that are hidden behind these lies, these half truths, that you perpetuate, by your choice to use these words.

"Please go on."

Savings and loans, especially in the era of the savings and loan debacle, made home loans to people.

If someone is reading this, and someone is thinking of asking a question at this point, I'll speak for you, and I'll ask the pertinent questions at this point. Note how Paul Jay is speaking for the people, trying to get Bill Black to speak words that people can understand too."

Joe:

"Hold on there Jay, hold on Bill, can it be understood that the average working person can't borrow one dollar for the purchase of a necessary home without having to pay back two dollars on average?"

Bill:

"That moves us way off topic."

Jay:

"Quickly, answer the question Bill, Joe may be going somewhere here, somewhere worth going, a long shot, but possibly worth the investment."

Bill:

"Yes, on average, an average person has to pay roughly twice the cost of a home, in interest payments."

Joe:

"So, who receives that added value, who banks the wealth that equals one extra home for each home built, while average Joe works and pays for two homes, and Joe owns one of them, who owns the second home, the Savings and Loan people?"

Bill:

"Can we return to the topic?"

Paul:

"We need more time to explore that answer, let's return to the topic."

Joe:

"Why? Why rush ahead. Who benefits from half truths?"

Paul:

"Continue with the topic, please, Bill."

Bill:

"Hold on, Joe may have a point, so let me back up."

And savings and loans borrowed very short, as we say: deposits were short-term. Their assets were very long-term.

Joe:

"Yes, that is my point, the high interest rate only works when the people are fooled into the false belief of an ever expanding economy where a high interest rate is affordable because, and only because, asset prices keep going up, and up, and up, and up, and therefore someone can afford to pay three times as much for a house today because the price of the house will be three times as expensive in 30 years.

The legal criminals charge a medium interest rate to the Savings and Loan people, effectively one extra house price, and then the Savings and Loan people charge the average Joe another extra house price.

Math works better to illustrate how that works.

Legal Criminals get back the money they loan plus the cost of one house.

Savings and Loan people get back the money they loan plus the cost of two houses, they keep one house, and they pay the Legal Criminals two houses, one house of borrowed money, and one house profit.

Average Joe borrows at a high enough interest rate to be so high as to force Joe to make enough wealth to pay for three whole houses.

Joe works to make:

1 House to live in.
1 House to pay the Savings and Loan people for the privilege of borrowing money
1 House to pay the legal criminals as protection money, an offer that Joe can't refuse.

Joe borrows to buy 1 house, and Joe works to pay off the cost of 3 houses.

Joe won't see an interest crisis so long as inflation keeps going up, and up, and up, and up, in lock step with wages, going up, and up, and up, and up, no crisis, no cause for alarm, accounting is easy, just add zeros.

Joe needs a house, the house cost this much, the savings and loan people get the cost of one house too, and the legal criminals also get the cost of one house, Joe pays for all three.

No problem. Everything is as it should be, things are working fine, Joe keeps working, and Joe doesn't argue over the trivial things like working 30 years to pay for his house, plus the extra 2 houses.

Average Joe, not me, I see the crime in progress, but that is just me."

Bill:
"Can we get back to topic."

Jay:

"Yes, the topic is Reagan."

Joe:

"Please, just to reinforce, before returning to the topic, the point I wish to make here is that the people who earn credit, the people who actually create wealth, should, by any measure, earn a very, very, very low interest rate because they prove, over and over again, their capacity to pay back all the money they borrow, and if they are borrowing from themselves, as the false story is told to them often enough, then why don't they pay themselves back once they earn the cost of the home, plus the cost of a second home, plus the cost of a third home?

"If the average Joe can afford 3 homes, because the average Joe can produce enough wealth to build 3 homes, why can't Joe keep all 3, and the answer that will be dodged here, is the obvious answer that the legal criminals are running a racket, and the legal criminals make Joe work harder so that Joe can afford 1 home while the legal criminals collect the surplus wealth by way of charging high interest rates, enough interest money to pay off the savings and loan people and pay off the people who have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total number of dollars.

"If Joe had the legal power to add to, and subtract from, the legal number of dollars, without all those middle men, they Joe could stimulate the economy by working for his own home, and then working for a home for his 2 kids, and then end up, after 30 years, a retirement in one home, without a mortgage payment, and both of his kids could then have homes without mortgage payments, and those kids could then afford school, and further stimulate the economy, instead of having all Joe's surplus wealth, over 30 years worth, going to the legal criminals who run the legal extortion racket that can be called The Dollar Hegemony, U.S.A Inc. LLC, The FED, or "The Interest Rate Crisis".

"Please go on, I think that the point made above is a point worth making, and worth reinforcing until such time as the victims gain the power required to end the perpetual crime in progress."

The second thing is what economists then called the competition in laxity or the race to the bottom.

Joe:

"Hold on please, I have a few comments on that point."

"The race to the bottom is something. The race can be seen as a crisis by some people, call them the losers. The race can be seen as a bonanza by other people, call them the winners. The point here is that the winners have names and they are the people who are at the end of the paper trail if someone curious wants to find them.

"If the losers want to find them, to find out how better to play the game, so as to become winners next time, then they too can follow the money trail, and find out how that money trail operates.
 
"The point here is to point out, again, and reinforce, again, the point where the dollar supply is added or subtracted by the people who have the legal license to add or subtract from the dollar supply.

"People can accuse me of doing bad things, typing the same thing over and over again, but people can't convict me of adding trillions to the supply of dollars one day, and then the next day subtracting trillions from the supply of dollars, since I don't have that power, and therefore I can't abuse that power, and if my guilt here, of typing the same thing over and over again, is bad, what do you think will be the result of the abuse of that power to add to and subtract from the total dollar supply, over and over and over and over again?"

"The result is something called a business cycle and the winners win all the way around that cycle, and they do so because they know when it will be going from bust to boom and then back to bust, each time, because they cause it, that is how they know those facts, they cause those facts, over and over and over again, perpetually, on a schedule, a schedule they know, and a schedule that their victims can't know, because if their victims know, then the fraud can't work."

"I have many more comments concerning how the victims are fooled, but I'd rather reinforce the understanding of how the victims can avoid the whole mess."

Bill:

"Can we get back to the topic."

Jay:

"Yes, back to Reagan."

Joe:

"The average Joe can avoid all of that, and this is important, this is the real news here, as the average Joe, and all of those people who constitute the average, regain control over their own capacity to produce surplus wealth. Once the people regain  that power they can then figure out how to maintain that power, to keep it, and to defend against criminal abuse of it, and not before regaining it, that is placing the cart before the horse. The real news here is to reinforce the accurate understanding that the criminals have taken the power of spending surplus wealth created by the people and they use that power to perpetuate crime - legal crime.

"It is absurd to spend one more moment discussing the things criminals do as if those criminals were anything other than criminals, unless the motive for such an absurdity is to perpetuate these crimes - forever."

"Please continue, and I have to back up this work up to this point."

So that means that there's no oversight about level of risk whatsoever and no oversight how much backup you have for the loans you have out there.

Joe:

"I have to stop here, again, and point something out, something that may be real news to many people, as it was real news when I first found out about the news I am going to report."

Jay:

"We may never get to the end of this report, but go ahead, this is the Real news, after all."

Joe:

"Competition is the best regulator, and the fact that the regulators fail to regulate when the people hire them to regulate, misses the point entirely.

"The thing that people think is the government isn't the government, it is the legal crime business, and it is run by a monopoly power, a power that destroys competition, because the monopoly power will have no power in the face of competition, and to illustrate this point all that is needed is a few words on what does happen when competition is the force that regulates in reality, real reality, not false reality.

Bill:

"Please do use few words, I'd like to get back to the topic."

Joe:

"If all the average Joe workers out there could log onto the internet from home, or walk into a bank down the street, today, and at this competitive bank the people at that bank have a loan for sale to Joe, and all the average workers like Joe, all the average Jane workers too, anyone wanting a loan, anyone with a proven capacity to pay back every cent of every dollar borrowed..."

Jay:

"Few words, please."

Joe:

"Right.

"Right now, all the average workers, suddenly have a choice, right now, to buy a new home mortgage loan, and the interest rate is zero.

"Since this is now a discussion, one that I am in on, I can ask, at this point, the relevant question: won't that competitive product regulate the banking market right now, and reduce all the costs charged to all the average workers who are now paying, and paying, and paying, for regulation that doesn't regulate, all those average workers are paying for regulation that does the exact opposite, doesn't that one illustrated product, that one form of competition, end the cycle of legal crime from that day, that that competitive product hits the market, onward?"

Bill:

"I'd like to return to the topic."

Jay:

"Yes, the topic is Reagen."

Joe:

"If the motive behind hiring these legal criminals is to get them to regulate themselves, an absurdity, then it is past time to fire them for lack of performance, for a performance record that reads like a "How to commit the perfect crime" manual, and it is past time for someone, anyone, to point this fact out, to be the first, or second the notion, or third, or at least get in the right line, not the wrong one.

"If the motive behind hiring these legal criminals is to get them to perpetuate the business cycle because the employers profit from the business cycle, then by all means keep them in business, and forget about any notions that may compete against such business, because that one business wins by that default methodology.

"Don't ever think thoughts that expose both the single worst legal crime and the peaceful avoidance of most of the legal crimes in progress that result from that one single crime."

Bill:

"The topic?"

Jay:

"Continue."

Joe:

"By all means, continue."

JAY: So do you draw links, then, between this deregulatory culture and today? In other words, are the roots of this crisis to be found in Reagan's legacy?

BLACK: To be fair to Reagan, the roots could be found far more the intellectual roots in the Carter presidency. President Carter had far more substantive deregulation then did President Reagan. Carter famously deregulated large aspects of civil aviation and of trucking.


Joe:

"The missing regulator there is a working Trial by Jury.

"Whenever someone, anywhere, commits fraud, a victim has the power to publicly announce that fact, and set in motion a series of events that end with a decision made by each of 12 jurors unanimously affixing accountability in each case whatsoever.

"Bill Black is complaining about competition - to the bottom. Is he complaining that there isn't any power to avoid being victimized by these competitors as these competitors fight over each other to find the quickest way to commit fraud?

"Competition among people who do not commit fraud isn't the same thing as competition between people who commit fraud.
A = competition to be the more effective criminal fraud
B = competition to offer the highest quality product at the lowest cost?

"Competition B makes competition A mute, incapable, without capacity, profitless. When the highest quality money at the lowest cost is found by way of competition the legal crime money monopoly business doesn't pay.

"Crime doesn't pay, unless the victims pay into it. Is this Real news, or more of the same business as usual?

Jay:
 
"Perhaps that subject can be reported in another report, this in a report on Reagan."

Bill"

"Can I continue?"

So what happens next is the disaster. It's not that President Reagan kicked off the savings and loan crisis; it's that he made it vastly worse, because savings and loans were recovering from the interest rate crisis as interest rates fell sharply through the 1980s.

Joe:

"Please correct that error."

Bill:

"What error?"

Joe:
"Interest rates didn't just "fall", they were lowered by the people who have the legal power to add and subtract legal dollar from the total money supply, and that isn't a trivial correction, that goes right exactly through the heart of the beast, the evil beast, the cause of all this legal torture, and legal mass murder - not at all trivial."

Bill:

"Who invited this conspiracy theorist nut job into this discussion?"

Jay:

"It is an open forum, you get what you pay for?"

Joe:

"The point can be made very clear with the same hypothetical illustration of how competition works to regulate, and end, a legal money monopoly where the people running the legal money monopoly have the power to raise or lower interest rates - interest  rates don't just fall, like rain falls, or like leaves fall off trees in the Fall."

Bill:

"Interest rates were lowered. How about that?"

Joe:

"Thanks"

Bill:

"You are welcome."

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Feb 11th, 2011 04:43 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
North Dakota Tells Wall St. Not Only Game In Town

Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars.

Anyone (or no one),

Numbers are important, accurate numbers more important to some, false numbers more important to others.

If a bank, state run or not state run, has published, for public access, numbers, and the numbers are accurate, then that can be a case of lawful, moral, human conduct.

If a bank, state run or not state run, has published, for public access, numbers, and the numbers are false, false on purpose, then there is a person, or persons, involved in criminal conduct.

The enormity of the numbers involved in banking suggest to me a need to be diligent in the process of judging the accuracy of the numbers, because chances are that someone somewhere, or a group of people somewhere, are falsifying the numbers so as to gain at the expense of the people who are hoodwinked by those numbers.

When, it seems to me, the people running the bank, state run or not, refuse to provide accurate numbers, the cat is out of the bag, and the people who refuse to provide accurate numbers confess by their refusal that they are criminals, and they know it, I know it, and the only ones who don't know it, obviously, are the people called the mark, the victims, the targeted market.

Let us be very clear about this report by the people running The Real News: The Federal Reserve people are criminals, they refuse to publish accurate numbers, even when congress people demand those accurate numbers, and that supposed Bank is a monopoly bank, a state protected bank (if not run by "The State" per se), and a competitor exists in the form of a separate and sovereign State Bank in North Dakota.

A. The Federal Reserve

B. State Bank in North Dakota

Numbers are important.

A. The Federal Reserve:
Cost - Income = Profit

B. The Bank of North Dakota
Cost - Income = "over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars"

Got that?

How about a better perspective on the scale of the numbers involved in this banking business, state run or not state run, criminal or not criminal, legal crime or not legal crime?

I do this often enough to empower me with a sense of scale, a knowledgeable point of view, a way of seeing the forest, so to speak, an not the trees.

America is home to about three hundred million people.  

300,000,000

American people live in houses, and suppose one third of Americans will someday seek and then gain a mortgage for a home.

100,000,000

That is One Hundred Million Mortgages.

Now suppose that the average home mortgage is One hundred thousand dollars.

100,000

Now there can be a simple way to know the scale involved in this banking business by knowing that each home mortgage transfers at least one extra home price from the borrower to the lender as interest payments or the cost of the mortgage. In other words the borrower works to pay off the cost of 2 houses, the borrower keeps one house worth of money, the actual house, and the borrower sends another whole house worth of money, interest payments, to the people running the bank.

Now we can use math to find out how much money can transfer from American home borrowers to the people running the banks that lend the money to the American home borrowers.

People borrowing = 100,000,000 = One Hundred Million people

Power flowing to the Bankers per person = 100,000 = One Average Home Price

100,000,000 x 100,000 = Total Interest Payments sent to the people running the banks

Math is easy when working with zeros: just add up the zeros.

100,000,000 = 8 zeros
100,000 = 5 zeros

100,000,000 x 100,000 = 13 zeros

10,000,000,000,000

Back to the relevant quote:

Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. And that's a state- -remember, North Dakota has a very small population. It's only got 600,000 people. So it's actually provided a surplus on a very regular basis to the state and has served as a very productive channel for development.

What is half a trillion?

500,000,000

That is Five Hundred Million: half a trillion

Here is the 30 year income stream going from The People in America to the bankers:

10,000,000,000,000 <------American mortgage target market
-------500,000,000 <------Half of a trillion

Readers can now know the scale of the numbers being discussed as people discuss the differences between a criminal fraud being perpetrated by the people running The Federal Reserve and the competition running against that fraud.

A. The Federal Reserve crime spree
10,000,000,000,000

B. The Bank of North Dakota
500,000,000

All the reader has to do is connect the dots and ask: what if?

What if the National government regained control over the legal money business?

What would the people running the National government do with all that power to purchase?

How about making the scale of this power even more understandable by using a neat math trick called percentages. What is the percent difference between the power sent to The Bank of North Dakota compared to the power sent to The Federal Reserve criminals - power sent to them, from The People (borrowers sending interest payments).

What percent of 10,000,000,000,000 is 500,000,000?

The web has a neat Calculator page

.005%

In other words: Small Potatoes

The target market in North Dakota is .005, small potatoes, compared to the target market in The Nation as a whole.

That is only measuring (by very rough average) the National home mortgage market relative to this report on the measure of "profits" gained by The Bank of North Dakota after expenses.

Now there is a very real need to quantify the measure known as expenses, or costs.

How much does it cost to run the Bank of North Dakota?

If it is a "not for profit" venture, then all income above cost is returned back to The People - yes or no?

Back to the relevant quote:

Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars. And that's a state- -remember, North Dakota has a very small population. It's only got 600,000 people. So it's actually provided a surplus on a very regular basis to the state and has served as a very productive channel for development.

Income - expenses = net profit profit

If the separate and sovereign state of North Dakota people can generate more power than they consume why can't other separate and sovereign states do the same thing?

A Republic is designed to work competitively as each separate and sovereign state exemplifies how best to provide effective government to The People, and then The People can vote with their feet, and move to the better separate and sovereign state, within the Republic.

Since this Nation, U.S.A. Inc. LLC, is a National government, not a Republic, the money power encompass all the Unionized states, and no state is separate, and no state is sovereign, within the National State, as designed by Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton, and others. The idea then, and the idea now, is to create and maintain one monopoly banking power, and from that power all legal money is produced by specific people given the legal license to produce and maintain the National supply of legal money.

If the reader can quantify the power involved here, with my illustrations of math, then the reader must also account for the fact that The Bank of North Dakota, is inferior, and subject to, the higher power, where the dollar is produced, and therefore The Bank of North Dakota must send a portion of its earnings to that higher power in the form of interest.

It will be interesting, to me, to see if something is done, or what is done, by the people running The Federal Reserve, as The Bank of North Dakota example gains currency by this exposure, this Real News Report, and other avenues of information flow, as Real News travels from person to person in due time.

Back to the report for me.

Hold on, I see something very important.

Ask:

Do the people running The Bank of North Dakota create and maintain a business cycle by which The People are alternately feed too much purchasing power (by way of loose monetary policy, liar loans, etc.) and then not enough purchasing power (by way of tight monetary policy, excessive interest rates, etc.) so as to BOOM, and then BUST, the natural flow of economic activity, and thereby know, on schedule, when the boom will turn bust, and when the bust will turn boom, and therefore when to know when to sell at top dollar, and when to buy at bottom dollar?

yes

no

If they do that, if they do create and maintain a business cycle then they, the people running the bank, can move all titles to all wealth to them.

In order to do that, it seems to me, the people doing that have to have the power to create money out of thin air, not just accumulate sufficient wealth and then operate a banking monopoly whereby a business cycle is created and maintained.

I think that the power to create and maintain a business cycle must follow the seizure of a power by which a person or a group of people can add to or subtract from a legal money supply.

The Bank of North Dakota has to get dollar from either The People (tax payers) or The Federal Reserve (people with the legal license to add to or subtract from the total dollar supply), The people running The Bank of North Dakota, as far as I know, do not have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total supply of dollars.

That is possibly a very important point to consider.

Middle men don't get to bail themselves out, and  middle men don't get to raise their own salaries, and middle men don't get to give themselves bonuses, since middle men don't have the legal license to add to or subtract from the total number of dollars - the one and only unlimited credit card.

This one:

U.S.A Inc. LLC

Compare that to this:

Well, first, it made money in 2009 when almost all the banks in the country lost money. It returns half of its profits as dividends to the state, and that's been about- -over the last ten years it's been a third of a trillion dollars.

Know the scale, and by that means know the stakes.

Words are powerful, false words only have power over the people who believe in lies.

Well, they like to say that they go a very fine line between competing and cooperating.

Competition forces quality up and price down. People can know this fact, and know it well, or fail to know this fact, and by that failure they can pay higher cost for lower quality stuff - be my guest.

In the money business there are many examples of competitors who have provided higher quality money at lower costs and I will relink one:

Negative Interest Money

When a competitor provides the very highest possible quality money, what will that money be - exactly/

When a competitor provides the very lowest cost money, what will be that price - exactly?

Competition forces the answer into being real, not theory.

Banking frauds, the legal ones, can't allow money competition, it can't be allowed, because that force would then force banking frauds out of business on the very first day that the consumers have a choice.

Why is this not easy to see, and why is this not common knowledge - common sense?

I think that it must be understood, accurately, that knowledge of this sort is against the law. Law has been taken over by the criminals, what else explains reality here?

There is no Crisis. All the suffering, all the destruction, all the torture, and all the mass murder perpetrated by law is crime, by law, man made, on purpose, for profit, and if the victims are asking for permission to know these facts, they will be suffering for a long, long time.

This is a very good report, from my view, worth the effort to view it.

So the critique that would come from the sort of libertarian side, I guess, would be governments just don't know how to run banks, and this will end up being something- -you know, a boondoggle of one form or another.

I ran for congress as a libertarian in 1996. I can speak from a libertarian viewpoint.

The argument against state run banks is such that the person doing the arguing is wanting to point out to anyone who will listen that the people running the state are people who will abuse their power in such a way as to make competition illegal.

If the people running the state don't abuse their power then it is easy to measure that fact.

How?

If you want to know, then I can provide the answer, and the answer comes from a libertarian perspective, not a quasi, or pretentious, or false libertarian perspective.

Libertarians are moral people, or they aren't libertarians - do no harm.

From that position, as a do no harm libertarian position, the force of competition remains in force, as people voluntarily avoid using force to do such things as: make competition illegal.

When competition works there will be a measurable increase in the quality of stuff, anything imaginable, and the higher quality stuff will be less expensive, less costly, sold, or even given, at a lower price.

That is how someone can know, with an accurate measure, if the people running The State, are abusing their power: just ask:

Is the quality of things going up?

Is the price of things going down?

If The State Bank of North Dakota is providing a higher quality banking service, at a lower price, compared to the competition then competition is in force, despite all efforts to outlaw competition.

All things are relative.

A. The Federal Reserve example
B. The State Bank of North Dakota example
C. The City Bank of Worgle Austria (1930s)
D. The State Bank of China

Where is quality going up, where is price going down, why is quality going up, and why is price going down?

If a State Bank is run by people who allow competition, adapt to new and better methods of providing the best for the least, then whose to say that is bad, and compared to what?

If a State Bank is run by people who make competition against the law, they can then use their power over money to transfer wealth from everyone who creates it to only them, only the few of them inside that network of legal criminals, and there is a score board for such things, and it isn't a crisis, it is exactly what it is by design. It is working exactly as it is designed to work.

How can that be a crisis?

The score board:

Low quality very high cost for many, high quality low cost for very few

All things are relative - dependent upon ones unique perspective.

I do not represent every libertarian. I do know the base of libertarian ideals - do no harm.

It really isn't complicated.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Complication serves a specific interest.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Feb 12th, 2011 06:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Time for a Reality Check

Please consider reading the article above, and then consider reading my response following:

Do you understand the problem?

Will you understand the problem better if the problem is presented in a simple and reasonable manner?

1. Living organisms must produce more power than the power the living organism consume.

2. The Sun powers all life on Earth, without which, no Sun, no life on Earth.

3. The power from the Sun exceeds all possible power requirements by all living organisms, including mankind, on Earth by a very, very, very wide margin, so long as the Sun continues to burn.

4. Human beings can now convert sunlight into electric power cheaply.

5. The cost of 1 watt of electric power, on average, from Solar Power Products is less to the average consumer, by about 10%, than the price, on average, charged by the average Electric Company.

If anyone, anywhere, has any evidence contrary to the above listed facts, then please consider posting the correction, and the source of the information that proves the correction - otherwise I will proceed, after offering a few observations supporting the above facts, and I will proceed to explain the problem in a common sense manner based upon those 5 facts listed above.

1. Oxygen power is one of the sources of power required by human beings as human beings struggle to survive, cut off that supply and human beings no longer survive. Food power is another, and food power requires more expense, more work, more investment of time and energy, and more cost for human beings compared to oxygen power, so food power helps support the first fact on my list of facts that help the reader understand the problem. I can also use math:

Power produced > Power consumed = Life
Power produced < Power consumed = Death

That is a fact, and important one, and one that helps the reader understand the problem.

2. The Sun is already the source of power that is consumed in the work of creating oxygen on Earth, take away the Sun power, plants die, where do you think oxygen comes from on earth? Take away the oxygen supply, where do you think human beings are going to get the needed supply of oxygen, or the needed supply of plant food, or the needed supply of oxygen consuming animal foods. No Sun and human beings will spend a whole lot of effort replacing that power source, for a short time, all life on Earth ends quickly.

3. If every extra source of power that human beings have at their command was spent today and every day from this day forward only toward the work of increasing the power human beings store, for later use, just in case the sun goes out, the amount of power stored can never equal a small portion of the power already raining down on Earth from the Sun, but, and this is important: the power human beings could store, if that is what human beings decide to do, would be a very, very, very, large amount of power. The Sun power could move all the water in the oceans up to the highest mountains on Earth, Damned up, and then allowed to flow back, by gravity, through electric generators. That is an absurd example used to illustrate the actual power supply that exists, what could be done with the actually power supply that exists, if the idea is to use the available power supply in such a way as to store as much power as possible in the event that no more power would be available - from the Sun.
People may have a very hard time understanding this fact, but people will have an even harder time refuting it, unless the introduction of deliberate falsehood is chosen as a means of "refuting" the facts.

4. One of the cheapest forms of converting solar energy into electric power is by way of using mirrors to reflect sunlight onto a liquid and then storing the hot liquid, and then using the hot liquid to boil water, and then using the pressure of steam to run electric turbines. It is expensive to move the electricity from that cheap power station to the many people who use power from that station. Solar Panels make power at the point of consumption, cutting out the middle man, cutting out all the wires needed to move electric power from the Electric Company to the customers.

5. If one human being can now call up a phone number where the person answering the phone guarantees a lower electric bill to the person calling, if they go solar, then it is an established fact that Solar Panel Electric Power is now cheaper than Electric Company Electric Power, in that place, right now. The average cost per watt world wide is not known by me, the facts are the facts, and the facts show up on each bill payed by each consumer who now sends a sum of money to an Electric Company each month, where going solar will, in fact, reduce that cost per month. If it is guaranteed that that bill will be less, by going solar, then the cat is out of the bag, the fact is now known, and knowable. Go solar, the bill is less per month, the facts are what they are, in each place where that fact is a fact, in fact.

Unless someone can refute those facts, the following words are presented as valid additions - unraveling the problem:

Currently the laws made by man against man are such that a person making electric power at home cannot sell electric power when they generate too much electric power at home. Try it, see what happens, and consider reporting back here.

If those laws change and if any person anywhere can begin producing more and more power at home, more than the power consumed at home, then what happens to that extra power, if the laws are changed to allow that person to sell power back to the Electric Company for a profit, what happens, and what happens next?

Things become more complicated at this point, involving such things as the legal title, and therefore the legal control over, The Grid.

The facts that can be understood, the simple facts, include these:

1. More, and then more, people will produce more power at home, sell the excess, and by that method more people will convert electric power into money (purchasing power) at home - when doing so is no longer against the law.

2. More people producing power, more power will be produced.

3. If more power is produced, power price will reduce.

4. If more power is produced, and the price of power reduces, there will be an increase, by that fact, in the value of each unit of money.

5. Fact 4 above is true because power (such as electric power) reduces the cost of production.

Here is where the reader may have lost the trail, and here is where I can gather that person back up and point that person back on the trail, right on the trail, looking exactly where the solution to the problem becomes very, very, obvious.

The reverse of this power solution is illustrated by an example of the power problem when the reader recalls what happens when the supply of oil power drains out and that source of power becomes scarce.

In reverse order:

1. Less power, in this case less oil power

2. Less oil power from sources in America or anywhere else, less oil power

3. Oil power price goes up (Who is going to argue this fact?)

4. The value of each unit of money plummets as a direct result of less power supplied to the people who use power to produce all the things that money buys

5. Fact 4 above is true because power reduces the cost of production and therefore less power increases the cost of production. Less power = higher power prices = higher costs = higher prices = lower money value per unit.

What happens in reality when our supplies of power are reduced? This is a known fact, the prices on everything go up, and therefore the amount that 1 dollar will buy is less, and therefore the value of each unit of money is less - and the reverse is true.

More power produced, money is worth more, because power reduces the cost of production.

That is a direct result of this:

Power produced > Power consumed = Life
Power produced < Power consumed = Death

The problem in the link is expressed as those people producing that News Item are able to express the problem. Those people do not identify the abuse of law as a means of eliminating competition.

Why not?

If each person were given the legal power to profit from The Grid, by selling power produced at home, and thereby convert Sunlight into Electric Power and then convert Electric Power into money, what would be the problem then?

Please consider these facts, or find errors in these facts, the supposed problem isn't a problem, there is an obvious solution, and it is a peaceful, powerful, economic, political, and environmental solution.

Easy as American Apple Pie.

End falsehood first.

Back to the News Item:

The issue of control mainly refers to controlling the load generated from solar energy assets, especially in situations of high PV (photovoltaic) deployment, a uniquely Californian problem in the U.S. For instance, San Diego Gas & Electric's programs to encourage small businesses and homeowners to adopt solar energy have been so successful that the utility has circuits with more than 40 percent PV penetration. There are certain instances in which so much solar is generated in the circuit that the voltages exceed acceptable ranges, which affects power quality. To address this issue, the utility can either upgrade the circuit system (a costly undertaking) or prevent circuits from over-penetration by: 1) limiting PV penetration on a circuit to 20 percent (PG&E automatically flags solar permits in circuits with more than 20 percent penetration); or 2) curtail or throw away excess energy.

The obvious missing element in that report right above is the thing called storage.

Here is where I can help put the reader back on the right track again, if that is at all possible. Storage can be understood from many angles of view including but not limited to The Electric Grid, a basic electric circuit in a radio, a hydraulic circuit such as the hydraulic circuits in Bull Dozers and Heavy Equipment, Money flowing in an economic circuit, and blood in the human body.

How about money?
If there is a number of dollars on Earth and that number is x and one person begins storing dollars in one bank and as time goes by that one person manages to store half of the total number of dollars on Earth in that one bank, then everyone else must work with the other half.

How about the human body?
If someone gives blood to the blood bank then someone obviously has extra, unless that someone dies from giving blood, and that extra blood is stored at the blood bank, and then when someone needs blood, there is stored blood in a blood storage unit, a blood storage unit that won't die if too much blood is taken out of storage.

How about The Grid?
If The Grid included 2 cars in each garage where each car was an electric car and most of the time one of those cars sat in the garage hooked up to The Grid, then there would be many, many, many little batteries storing a very large total amount of stored electricity.

How about more information on the problem and solution of The Grid?

If someone could sell electricity, by law, to The Grid, from home, something that is now against the law, then someone could invent and then use one of many ways by which their own home power generating system stores electricity at any time when they choose, such as a time when the price they can sell electricity is low, and they prefer to sell electricity when the price is high, so they store it right at that low demand moment, and then they sell it right at the high demand moment when prices go sky high.

Does that sound at all familiar - in reverse?

If there is no demand for storing electricity, someone might ask why, and the answer might turn out to be the abuse of the power of law toward the immoral, and unjustified elimination of competition.

Or not.

When laws are not abused in the work of eliminating competition, creating monopolies, there will be a natural demand for the production of power producing products, used at home, and power storing products, and both in one thing.

Case in point:

There are devices that use electric power to make Hydrogen gas out of water. Electricity is used to separate water into Oxygen and Hydrogen. H two O becomes Hydrogen and Oxygen, not water. Now a person can store electricity in the form of Oxygen and Hydrogen. Hydrogen can then be used to generate electricity, or heat the house, or some other use, when needed.

Data supporting the case in point

A home power producer, someone who decides to compete with the Electric Company, may want one of these types of devices, so as to store, and then sell, or then use excess power they create at home - if laws weren't abused so as to eliminate that competition.

Who would make all those power producing and storing products demanded by all those people who decide to make a living in the power producing business once competition was no longer against the law?

What would happen to the price of an hour of labor once the number of working people dwindled to a trickle, as everyone found ready employment in the power producing and power storing business once the laws were no longer abused and used toward the work of eliminating competition in the power producing and power storing business?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Feb 14th, 2011 03:36 pm
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The History of Military Dictatorship in Egypt

You know, that was seen by Washington as some kind of communist state and closely allied to the Soviet Union, so part of the Soviet system.

Who is "Washington"?

The false front, the false advertisement, or the cover story has been East vs. West, Capitalism vs. Communism, etc.

The Real story is the power struggle, absent the names, so as to see the actual measure of power.

Washington is, since 1913 at least, The Federal Reserve.

The actual power is a power to purchase. A member of The Federal Reserve has the legal license to increase or decrease the total number of dollars, since 1913, at least.

That is a powerful source of power, and that power can buy dictatorships, if someone commanding that much power to purchase desires a dictatorship.

The story here, this History of Egypt, misses something important. I have viewed the Real News report up the that quote above and so far there is no reference to something called Islamic Finance.

The Power Struggle can be expressed as:

A. The Dollar
B. The competition

Islamic Finance is a part of the competition.

If an Arab country, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Panama, breaks away from, escapes, or otherwise disconnects from The Dollar power they are then faced with a situation whereby dollars are no longer available - at a cheap price.

Lacking easy access to dollars is lacking easy access to oil. If the country breaking away from The Dollar have oil, like Venezuela, or some other valuable currency such as a canal, a thorough fare, a toll road, a short cut through Panama, or a short cut through Suez, then that country has power to buy dollars or power to back their own new and competitive currency.

The Dollar has The Federal Reserve System by which The Dollar supply is managed.

What, and who, manages the supply of legal money in the Arab world, and specifically what, and who, manages the supply of legal money in Egypt?

Why is this important?

If Egypt undergoes a regime change similar to the regime change that occurred in Iran - out with The Dollar puppet Shaw, and in with the new guys, then the new guys will need a replacement for The Dollar.

Iran has oil.

Egypt has the canal that allows oil to be shipped economically, or inexpensively compared to going around Africa, or through pipelines over land, and therefore through countries where regimes may charge too much for passage.

The power struggle will therefore shift power, significantly, toward or away from The Dollar power, as passage through the Suez Canal either backs group A or group B.

Group A is The Dollar
Group B is the competition

Islamic Finance is one of many options available to the new guys running Egypt.

Which will they choose?

If that choice isn't even reported, then the report is missing a key piece of the puzzle.

If the new guys want military hardware, or parts for the military hardware they have, can they buy from The Federal Reserve, U.S.A. Inc. LLC, Washington, and The Dollar Hegemony if the new guys are not fully on board with the laundry list of demands issued by Washington, The Federal Reserve, U.S.A. Inc. LLC, and The Dollar Hegemony?

If they can buy military hardware, oil, and other things from subsidiaries of U.S.A. Inc. LLC, Washington, The Federal Reserve, and The Dollar Hegemony, what currency will they use to buy those military hardware supplies?

Who supplies Cuba, and Venezuela, and Iran with military hardware?

A. The Dollar Hegemony
B. The competition

Who offers the best stuff, at the lowest cost?

Islamic Finance charges no interest.

Interest is the cost of borrowing money.

Capitalism is the method by which price is determined or fixed at "that which the market will bear".

If Islamic Finance charges no interest, then Islamic Finance does not fix price according to capitalist dogma.

Which competitive monetary policy is the higher quality monetary policy at the lower cost; and therefore which competitive monetary policy would gain the most market share if the market was a free market?

Here is where the capitalist propagandists run into their own falsehoods, their contradictions are exposed, and the Real News is right here, as people may want to know the truth about the power struggle between socialism and capitalism, East and West.

A. The Dollar Hegemony
B. The competition.

The application of force, military (hardware or physical force) and political (software or psychological) toward the elimination of competition is the force that disqualifies a market as a free market and this comes straight from capitalist dogma.

To commit fraud is to apply political force toward the elimination of competition and end what was a free market before the competitor was rendered power-less by victimization.

A subsidy is a very good example of political fraud.

Competitor A receives power from the political force while competitor B does not receive power from the political force, rendering competitor B power-less and rending competitor A power-full - ending competition.

Competitor A can then lower his price and still balance the books, while competitor B cannot. Competitor A can then increase quality by investing the subsidized power to purchase while competitor B cannot.

This is all straight from capitalist dogma.

What about money?

The moment any law is made by which one money is more powerful, by law, than another money, is the moment that law is used to end monetary competition, even if the one money made more powerful by law is gold.

Lawful money is a political quality of money, and a powerful quality since lawful money is the money required to pay when taxes are required to pay, and anyone without lawful money will be guilty of tax evasion - plain and simple.

Therefore lawful money, according to capitalist dogma, ends the free money market, as one money, the lawful money, is subsidized, and made more powerful by forcing people to use the lawful money, and forcing people to pay higher costs if they choose the unlawful money.

Once political power, and/or military power, is used to end competition in money, by way of subsidy, by way of making one money more powerful than another money, by way of punishing those who don't have lawful money, once that is done, the money made lawful no longer has the force of competition working toward higher quality and lower cost.

The sky is the limit as to how low the quality of the lawful monopoly money can go, and the price (interest rate) for the lawful money can also go as high as the sellers, producers, The Federal Reserve, want to charge for that monopoly money.

Any person in America, or anyone anywhere on the Globe called Earth, if allowed to have a choice between money A and money B where the two have an equal ability to purchase, and money A cost nothing to borrow, and money B cost 10% interest to borrow, in a free market, would anyone choose the higher cost money, and if so why?

A. The Dollar Hegemony product
B. One example of the competition


Islamic Finance News

At least $500 billion in assets around the world are managed in accordance with Sharia, or Islamic law, and the sector is growing at more than 10% per year.

Here is where readers may loose interest due to a perceived insurmountable complexity; however this is easy to see.

A growth rate of 10% can be compared to the often repeated dogma behind many over-population doom day reports where the report is used to scare people into believing that the human species is doomed. Too many people, not enough stuff, because the number of people are growing exponentially.

Malthusian growth model

An increase of 10% per year is a rate of increase that doubles in size every 7 years.

Caculator

10% = double every 7 years

A. The Dollar Hegemony
B. The competition

Despite all efforts to create and maintain a monopoly power, by forcefully eliminating the competition, using fraud and violence, using political and military power, despite all that expense the force of competition remains powerful, and this is also part of the capitalist dogma.

Capitalist dogma contradicts itself, the actual people contradict themselves, in money (and labor) markets. There are many capitalists who say one thing for all other markets and they say the opposite thing for money and labor markets.

The price of money, according to capitalist dogma, is determined by market forces, and therefore the best money at the lowest cost will be the money that gains the most market share, and that best money, at the lowest cost, will always be the money of choice, who would choose the worst money at the highest cost, ever, unless forced by trickery or by threat of violence, or by actual violence, forced to "choose" the lower quality and higher cost money; an offer they can't refuse?

If the reader is a capitalist, or if the reader has access to a capitalist that is willing to speak truthfully, then either look in the mirror, or call up your capitalist friend, and ask him which money is the best money.

The capitalist inside will short circuit, or the capitalist on the phone will short circuit, and the answer will never appear - ever.

If the capitalist inside says that the best money is gold, or if the capitalist on the phone says that the best money is gold, then that can of worms will only delay the inevitable short circuit - it is cover story.

The gold versus paper money fight is another example of evidence leading to the accurate identification of people who produce this type of conflict so as to divide and conquer the target market.

The Real News here is that the free market does exist despite all the power that has and is being expended in the work of eliminating free choice.

The free market is free choice, the free market is never present when a choice is based upon deliberate falsehood or deliberate threat or use of violence.

Protesters who have had enough falsehood, fraud, threat of violence, and use of violence may want to combine their power, if they have command of their power of numbers, toward the creation and maintenance of the best money at the lowest cost.

1. The Dollar Hegemony (a tool by which boom and bust is perpetuated)
2. Islamic Finance (Interest charges or usury is against the law)
3. The competition (including negative interest money)

Ask the questions following:

1. Which military hardware will the new Egyptian regime choose to buy?
2. Which money will the new Egyptian regime choose to buy?
3. Will the Egyptian regime choose capitalism or socialism?

What will be the answers? The first 2 questions will be factual, the third question requires a look in the mirror to find the answer.

I'm returning to the Real News report.


You know, that was seen by Washington as some kind of communist state and closely allied to the Soviet Union, so part of the Soviet system. And the United States faced Egypt through its main region- -and oldest regional ally, which is the Saudi Kingdom, which we shouldn't forget, every time, that the Saudi Kingdom is by far the most undemocratic, the most anti-women, the most obscurantist and fundamentalist state of the whole region, and that compared to Saudi Kingdom, Iran, even Iran is a beacon of democracy and women's liberation


When that person says "we" as in "we shouldn't forget" he may know, without a shadow of doubt, that some people must forget certain facts, because certain facts destroy the false front that certain people construct as certain people construct false front to accomplish certain things.

East vs West

Capitalism vs Socialism

Despotism vs Democracy

Austrian Economics vs Keynesian Economics

The construction of certain things require work, willful work, and deliberate work, and work that has a design, and work that has a purpose, such as the purpose: to conquer.

A. One Division
B. Two Division

We may very well not want to forget some things, others of us can't stand to know some things, to do so would be earth shattering events, and to do so, to know, would be horrific, and terrifying, to see one's own accountability is, to some, unthinkable - against the law.

Outlawed.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Wed Feb 16th, 2011 01:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Economist Jeffrey Sachs on the Budget: "Do we really have to have our own Egypt here in the United States?" [Video] Bloomberg

The message there appears to be a problem with a false or misleading solution.

Problem:
The National Government has been taken over by people who are "on the take".

Solution:
Raise Taxes, spend more money

I say that the problem is a non-problem and this is reasonable. Who wants to raise whose taxes, and who then wants to spend that money gained by raising those taxes, and what is that money going to purchase?

Take any single expense and ask why would the person wanting to raise taxes want to raise taxes instead of merely having the person wanting to raise taxes keep their own money and then allow them to spend their own money on whatever they want to spend it on.

If the money is wanted for improving a road, why can't someone spend that money locally, where they would most likely be using that road? Why send the money to "Washington", or U.S.A. Inc. LLC, or The Federal Reserve System, or here:

Rediculously BAD investment

Why would anyone send money there, money that could benefit someone?

This idea of "raising taxes" as a solution to any problem is ludicrous.

Person A sends money to a group of people who have legalized torture and mass murder for profit and then Person A expects to realize some measure of benefit by that transfer of power from them to the torturing mass murderers?

The money, the power to purchase, transferred from all the people who create that power (the good faith and credit of the American people) to the people who are spending it, is power used to secure the power to take that power.

The supposed solution is the problem.

Criminals have taken over the power to spend the wealth that is created by the American people, and they spend that money on aggressive wars for profit, the same crimes committed by the German legal criminals known as Nazi's and those legal criminals were hung by the neck until dead for having planned and they perpetrating aggressive wars for profit.

Criminals collect all the power that can be squeezed out of the American economy and they spend that power torturing and mass murdering innocent victims in places where oil power can be seized, and where banking interest can be seized, and where power in any form can be seized, including food power, water power, gold power, diamond power, the power of wealth, human labor power, any power whatsoever.

If anyone wishes to test the their theory out, do so, and see what happens.

Problem:
The National Government has been taken over by people who are "on the take".

Solution:
Raise Taxes, spend more money

Keep sending them money, send them more money, send them more money, complain about things such as "how they spend that money" and "how poor we are after we have sent them all that money" and see how well your solution works for you.

Criminals have taken over the power to spend the wealth that is created by the American people, and they spend that money on aggressive wars for profit, the same crimes committed by the German legal criminals known as Nazi's and those legal criminals were hung by the neck until dead for having planned and then for having perpetrated those aggressive wars for profit, those cases of mass torture, and those cases of mass murder.

Imagine this:

Problem:
Legal criminals are torturing and mass murdering on my dime

Solution:
Use money that isn't designed by the legal criminals and therefore sever the connection to the legal criminals - forever.

This:
Rediculously BAD investment

Becomes this:
0

Zero

The flow of power from those who create wealth to those who spend that wealth on perpetual crime ends.

What happens in the imaginary scenario? Compare the imaginary scenario to the proposed solution to the proposed problem?

They are "on the take" and they are not using the power we send them to benefit us, boooo hoooooo, woe is me, what can we do, send them more money?

What?

Problem:
They don't listen to us, they keep using the money we send them to prop up Dictators all over the world, to torture, to mass murder, and we are beginning to understand that this is not right, and they still don't listen to us.

Solution:
Protest like some of the victims are protesting in some of the places where our power has been used to commit heinous crimes against innocent victims, not limited to mass torture, and mass murder?

Really?

How well has that worked for them?

If there is enough power to force the legal criminals to be nice, and force them to stop doing really bad things, and force them to spend our power on us, to benefit us, then there is enough power to design and then use our own money, and sever the connection we have to them, and then they have to get real jobs, and then they have to do what every other honest working person has to do, they have to actually please their customers.

Right now, their customers are criminals, just like them, people who profit from aggressive wars for profit, and profit from legalized torture, and profit from legalized mass murder, and it may be a good idea to get up, got to the bathroom, and look in the mirror, and report back here, please, and tell me, and anyone else, what you see.

Are you willingly sending your power to people who torture and mass murder on your dime? Is that what you want? Did you hire those people to torture for you, and mass murder for you, and are you one of their customers, and are they pleasing you, to no end?

Are you happy now?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Feb 17th, 2011 12:57 pm
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
War With Their Unions


Anyone,

Here I see an opportunity to expose the lies, at the core of the lies, and continue my war on falsehood.

The right versus left argument is in place for a reason, it is constructed and maintained for a reason, and that reason is clearly understood as a political tactic known as Divide and Conquer.

The legal criminals use the power they steal to finance both sides of a conflict and they gain more power during the conflict. The people fighting each other may see the conflict they are in as a living hell, or a Bust, an almost total loss, a very bad state of affairs, and only worsened when the viewpoint is seen by the losing side.

The winning side is relatively less worse off only compared to the losing side.

Meanwhile the legal criminals see that part of the cycle as their Boom side, or up side, recording record profits, as both sides become very needy, needing shoes to cover the soldiers feet, at Valley Forge, or the Predator Drones in the Middle East, or Anti-Aircraft Missiles for Osama Bin Laden as he fights as one of the Enemies of our Enemies and therefore "our" friends.

Who is inside that "our" group?

It is past time to make a top ten list, American's top ten legal criminals, the serial killers whose list of victims are more massive by exponents compared to their illegal competition.

Who signs the order to torture, legally, and who signs the order to mass murder legally? When that person is facing a jury, for torturing the innocent, and for mass murdering the innocent, will that person seek the "I was only following orders" defense too? Oh wait, they exempt themselves from the laws they enforce, and give themselves raises, to keep up with their need to raise our cost of living.

Of course these people lie. Why do you think these people were hired? They represent the people who gain power by creating conflict. They have the power to boom any group of people and they have the power to boom any other group of people, and they have the power to pit one group against another group, and then they have the power to charge each group to fight each other, selling hardware, for example, and then they have the power to sell the survivors on both sides more things, at the highest price, to clean up the mess.

A winning side, or losing side, being boomed by these legal criminals, see their lives boom, explode, suddenly begin to gain power, to enrich, to expand, to energize, and to grow, and even here, at this point in the cycle, the legal criminals continue to rake in the power, to receive the power, to gain the power, to become more powerful, as their power is loaned into the winning sides, or losing sides, economy.

People don't call foul on the things I write. Why?

I've done my homework.

Look at the next two links and know that the stories in these links are two halves of one story, and the same story repeats over and over and over again.

WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION

WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER

Who is Wall Street?

If every person in America woke up tomorrow and began, as planned, to use any money other than The Dollar would Wall Street have any power whatsoever?

Wall Street is The Dollar, it is The Federal Reserve Systematic Fraud by which The People in America are fooled into making the people called Wall Street very very powerful as The People in America create power and send all the excess power they create to the people running The Federal Reserve Systematic Fraud.

Where is all that money? Were are all those dollars?

I don't have them. Who does?

What is being done with all those dollars?

I am speaking about the excess dollars. There are more dollars than the number of dollars needed by each person needing dollars. How many dollars are there, where are they, who has them, and what are they going to do with them?

The Federal Reserve people recently (2008) doubled the number of dollars.

Where did that excess go?

Do you have it? No, you don't, and if you had double the total supply of dollars you would certainly have too much, you couldn't ever spend that much money, ever, no matter how long you lived, yet, someone signed the order, and someone set in motion events that caused, in 2008, the creation of as many new dollars as the number of dollars already on Earth.

They will boom something, somewhere, and you can't. If you want to boom something you have to get a job, you have to do what the customer wants, if you don't someone else will, and then you have to find a job where you do what the customer wants, and then, after taxes, and after hidden taxes such as "inflation", you may have one excess dollar to spend, because here, in America, the Federal Reserve People are busting, they have America on the down cycle at this time.

Where is that money going to go?

If they do have, in their plans, and on their list of things to buy, with that new money, double the supply in 2008, a new Boom cycle in America, what will the buy?

If they make zero interest loans to all those people who are now paying twice what they can pay for a home if the move next door, then all those people can stay where they are and just cut their payments to the bank in half.

That would put the power to purchase right back into the hands of the people who make power, people with good credit, people who earn their power to purchase, and what would those people buy?

Would those people buy depleted uranium projectiles with which to kill natives who occupy lands over oil, so as to keep on killing, and torturing, for years and years even after the oil is gone?

No, they wouldn't, not if they thought about it, how would that honest working American, with good credit, deliver that depleted uranium projectile to the destination - take a vacation, travel, and deliver it by hand - send his oldest son?

The new money, double the money supply from 2008, could be loaned only to people who need a no interest mortgage loan, to cut their living expenses, month to month, and have enough money to pay for, well, how about Solar Panels and a brand new electric car?

Dad:
"Hey, son, instead of sending you off to hand deliver that depleted uranium projectile to torture and mass murder the natives residing on oil lands we have considered a better investment opportunity. We can buy 2 electric cars, fuel them at home, and you can drive one as a taxi cab. What do you think?"

Son:
"Well Dad, really, I hear that vacationing in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or Iraq, or even Iran, in the possible near future, is all the rage."

Mom:
"Nancy Grace would be so proud, even if you came back in a pine box, ohhhh, dear son, there isn't any glamor in driving a taxi cab - do go."

Why keep reading from the script, what is the point?

The paper trail leads back to the dollar.

The fight isn't left against right, unless you make that the fight, and if you declare war on falsehood, your power will stay at home.

If socialism is bad, dear right wing conservative fellow citizen, explain the military - what is it?

If capitalism is bad, dear left wing liberal fellow citizen, explain the justification for taxation?

When The People do know that they are on the same side, the legal criminals then have to find a real job, just like everyone else, and they then have to please their customers, because someone else will do the right thing.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Feb 17th, 2011 01:47 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Obama's Budget: Freezing the Poor

LIHEAP offers block grants to states so they can offer financial assistance to low-income households in order to meet home energy needs, mostly for heating. Most of its recipients are the elderly and disabled. The program is currently funded at more than $5 billion. Obama is calling for that to be slashed to $2.57 billion-roughly half. This life-or-death program, which literally can help prevent people from freezing to death, represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the proposed $3.7 trillion annual budget.

Compare this with the proposed military budget. "Defense spending" is a misnomer. Until 1947-48, the Pentagon was officially, and appropriately, called the War Department. In the proposed budget released on Valentine's Day, the Department of Defense request is $553 billion for the base budget, an increase of $22 billion above the 2010 appropriation. The White House has touted what it calls "$78 billion" in cuts that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is considering. But as the Institute for Policy Studies notes: "The Defense Department talks about cutting its own budget-$78 billion over five years-and most reporting takes this at face value. It shouldn't. The Pentagon is following the familiar tradition of planning ambitious increases, paring them back and calling this a cut."


The reader could expand on that theme, and apply that type of knowing, that understanding, to a wider vision, and do so by spending some time, some energy, and some power toward the perusal of a thing called:

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

C A F R

Someone most certainly knows where all the money goes, to suggest otherwise is a curious suggestion. Who suggests otherwise, and why do they suggest otherwise?

Consider thinking from a very basic, base, and solid foundation, then peruse the subject matter tabled by Walter Burien, plopped on the table like a torturer might plop a severed limb onto your dinner table, to wake you up, let you really know what is going on, on your dime, and that foundation is this:

Honest, hard working, polite, agreeable, cooperating, innocent, People can, will, and do, create a whole lot of excess wealth. People can even create so much excess wealth that they can build Pyramids in their spare time, and they were powerful enough to be able to do that well before the invention and use of labor saving things like motors and motor fuel, or computers, or the internet.

The reason for this human power, this human capacity, and this human ability by which people can produce much more than they consume is, at least, three in number.

A. Division of labor (I bring home the food, you cook it)
B. Specialization (I get really, really, good at, bringing home the food)
C. Economies of scale (If I bring home enough food in one trip for 10 people, good, but if I bring home enough food for 1000 people, even better, since the cost, or the expense of the trip is divided by 1000 instead of 10)

All of those powerful advantages empower humans to be very good at creating and stockpiling excess wealth, for a rainy day, or to conduct aggressive wars for profit.

A. Honest working people increase their standard of living by investing their excess wealth toward more efficient ways of producing more wealth with less effort.

B. Legal criminals steal the excess wealth, use that power toward the maintenance of that power, to steal, including the financing of both sides in perpetual conflict, and the perpetuation of a boom and bust cycle whereby the excess wealth always flows from those who create it to those who steal it.

That is, in the words of Albert Einstein, as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Here:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Why are things made to be too complicated, on purpose?

A law that can only be understood by the enforcers is a law that will only benefit the enforcer?

How about an even simpler understanding as to why things are made too complicated, on purpose, and this quote comes from someone who earned his authority on the subject.

Alexandr I Solzhenitsyn

Let us not forget that violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with LYING. Between them there is the closest, the most profound and natural bond: nothing screens violence except lies, and the only way lies can hold out is by violence. Whoever has once announced violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose lying as his PRINCIPLE. At birth, violence behaves openly and even proudly. But as soon as it becomes stronger and firmly established, it senses the thinning of the air around it and cannot go on without befogging itself in lies, coating itself with lying's sugary oratory. It does not always or necessarily go straight for the gullet; usually it demands of its victims only allegiance to the lie, only complicity in the lie.

The truth is one half, what is the other half, what constitutes the overly complex half, why is there fine print?

Who writes the fine print, and why, and if you asked them, would they answer with the truth, and who expects known liars to do anything but lie, who banks on them telling the truth, this time?

Who is fooling, who is fooled?

The capacity of producing and storing excess wealth exists, more wealth than can be imagined, what is the limit?

Falsehood.

Falsehood covers up all the other limitations.

Who produces falsehood, and why?

The prize in view is that unlimited capacity to produce and store excess wealth, and having seized that goal, what limits the laundry list of things to do to get it?

Torture is on that list, made by the people with that goal driving them.

Mass murder is on that list too.

The limit may be an end to the human species, as that too may be on the list of things to do, as each competitor who is after that same goal reaches for it.

Who has nuclear war, on the table, on their list of things to do, and if you find that person, what have you found?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Feb 18th, 2011 12:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The economic reasons

A.K.A. War Rationale 101

This is about as accurate a confession for legal crime as anyone can imagine into being. Those who confess have to actually tell the truth - don't you know?

Torturing someone into confessing isn't confessions, torturing someone is torturing someone, confessions are confessions, linking the two together, as in torturing someone into confessing, is torturing the truth so as to make the truth unrecognizable, for some reason.

On to quotes from the link:

The cable, titled "Shin Bet Talks Gaza Economics," was written by David R. Burnett, Economic Counselor in the US embassy in Tel Aviv. It describes a briefing given to Embassy officials by senior members of the Israeli Shin Bet*, on how Israel uses the banking system in Gaza to increase the political influence of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Gaza, by attempting to starve the Hamas government of cash.

Starving is a form of torture. Try it, see how happy you are as the life drains from your body, and as the body begins to feed upon itself. How happy might someone be as someone watches their children shrink instead of growing, because they starve.

This document demonstrates that the Israeli government is in fact strangling the Gazan economy in order to turn Gaza into a captive market for Israeli products and maintain demand for the Israeli shekel - all in the name of "fighting terrorism." It also demonstrates that the international community - and especially the US - have allowed this policy to continue.

One reason is as good as another, so long as the acts inspired by reason continue, the reasons are mere words. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?

Someone signing the orders, following orders, or making up orders on the spot, adding a stamp of approval, or authoring new orders, does so, and acts follow, and the current reason, excuse, rationale, cover story, or argument now may be out-dated the next second, the next minute, the next hour, the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade, and the next century, while the acts remain the same.

A. Plan on injuring innocent people.

B. Execute the plan.

When the injury ends the life of the innocent victims, what do the family and friends of the murdered people think and do as a result of such a thing?

When the injury merely starves the innocent victim, so as to extract from the innocent victim, a pound of flesh, what does the victim and the family and friends of the tortured victim think and do as a result of such a thing?

C. Plan to deal with the innocent victims who survive the injury.

Where is plan C?

Where are the Wiki-leaks exposing the confession by the legal criminals as they plan to deal with the obvious results of their crimes upon their innocent victims?

The Shin Bet estimates that Hamas uses US$40 million (13.8% of its budget) for military and security needs, and invests the remainder in administration and civilian projects.

A parasite feeding too much upon its host will be a parasite that kills its host.

A decision time will be reached.

A. Keep feeding and kill the host.

B. Reduce feeding and allow the host to live.

C. The parasite isn't a parasite, the parasite is a torturing mass murderer intending to kill the innocent victim by way of sucking all the life out of it, and cause the innocent victim to die a torturous prolonged slow agonizing death, on purpose, for some reason.

In America there was a problem called The Indian Problem. There was a solution.

In Germany there was a problem called The Jewish Problem. There was a solution.

In Israel there is an Arab problem? What is the final solution planned and executed in that case?

In America their final solution didn't work, perhaps not as well as planned and executed. Now the Indian problem remains, and now the new solution includes licenses "given" to Native American political leaders for legal tax "differed" gambling.

Native Americans persevered; remarkably. Many were wiped off the face of the Earth, the last of the Mahicans long gone.

In Germany their final solution didn't work either, depending upon who does the measure of success, I suppose. Did the planners and executors of their final solution, in the Nazi example, get what they set out to get, did they get it, or did they not get it, according to their own stated goals, and according to the actual results of their actions. Can they confess while hanging from ropes around their necks? Would anyone believe them if they confessed?

Do the victims get to measure the case? If they live they can, conceivably. How well did that final solution work, according to the victims of it?  

Now the shoe appears to be on the other foot and a new Jewish problem emerges, and now the new solution includes Jewish political leaders, Zionists, adopting the Nazi final solution programs, apparently verbatim.

What was the Warsaw Ghetto?

How is the Warsaw Ghetto any different, principally, morally, rationally, reasonably, and arguably from what the Zionists have planned for, and are doing to their targeted "problems" who happen to be living where the Zionists want to live?

A. The problem is x

B. The solution is to remove x

C. The solution causes x to be less than willing to accept that final solution for some strange reason?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Feb 18th, 2011 03:28 pm
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Power to avoid, or power to punish?

Why did the Egyptian police state not starve on the vine, forcing Mubarak's depraved cronies in the military, police, and bureaucracies to go home and make livings for themselves that did not involve robbing, killing or intimidating ordinary Egyptians?

The actual title to that news item is:

Monetary Revolt: The Silver Bullet To Kill a Despised Regime

That news item is published on a right leaning news outlet, or an economy leaning news outlet, a perspective that focuses the power of thought more on physical or economic powers and less on political or psychological powers.

The left could be seen as the power of mind, and the power of psychology, and the power of politics.

The right could be seen as the power of matter, and the power of physics, and the power of economy.

What power does the economic right side access when that power accesses news media?

News

Media

News = software, information content, ideas, perceptions, opinions, reasons, thinking, psychology, argumentation, cooperation, agreement, deals, offers, politics, and the stuff flowing through the connection from one human mind to other human minds in time and space.

Media = hardware, bits, bites, letters, sentences, text, sound waves, images, structure, paper, pens, wires, roads, satellites, avenues, networks, physical matter, physical laws, economic laws, facts, accurate measures, and the stuff that connects one human mind to other human minds in time and space.

It is always a good time to point out how matter always moves and matter never stops moving.

Life is current.

Why did the Egyptian police state not starve on the vine, forcing Mubarak's depraved cronies in the military, police, and bureaucracies to go home and make livings for themselves that did not involve robbing, killing or intimidating ordinary Egyptians?

Someone leaning left aught to be able to appreciate the question, it seems to me.

How much better might one appreciate the right answer?

How about the accurate answer for those who refuse to lean the least bit toward the right answer?

I comment while reading, so I'll read onward, looking from the edge of my seat, for the accurate answer.

The facile answers to these questions that have been seized upon by the media involve the Egyptians' supposed respect for the military, and the funding that has continued to flow into the country from the United States. Both of these answers are unsatisfying, and ultimately question begging.

Someone grieving over a tortured or murdered innocent loved one, or someone on the schedule for today's torture session, or today's murder victim list, to be executed in due time, may beg for a little less flow of dollars from where dollars come from to where dollars are going when dollars are purchasing employees willing to execute those things on those lists of things to do.

All things are relative, such as who begs for what, and why one person may beg more than another for virtually the same thing.

I get put off by many of the right leaning authors, inspiring me to take a defensive posture, it seems to me.

I'll read on, the answers may be worth the effort required to receive them.

The real reason for these men's ability to keep their jobs and effectively maintain the Mubarak-inspired police state is that the Egyptian people neglected the most important aspect of protest in the modern world; monetary protest.

I am almost falling off the edge of my seat now. This writer obviously understands the whole picture - the power struggle. I'll read on expecting to find words that reinforce my own understanding, briefly, that people sharing a common goal of avoidance are people that won't reach that goal without the power required to accomplish the goal.

People need water power, or they suffer and die of thirst.

People need food power, or they suffer and die of hunger.

There can be no secondary goal achievable without satisfying the primary goals first.

I'll read on.

In the modern world of fiat currencies printed by governments like Mubarak's, it is not enough to say "get out and stop oppressing us," even if millions of people are saying it. It is not enough to storm the presidential palace and string up the dictator like a hog, as the still-oppressed people of Romania know all too well. It is not enough to demand elections, and it is not enough to demand freedom. Instead, what is ultimately needed is to cut off the beast's funding and starve it to death. No dictatorship, junta or even republic in the world can survive if it cannot finance itself. The mantra of the revolution ought to have been "Down with Mubarak money!"

Someone familiar with my work may wonder why I am very disappointed with that news item, that quote of that news item, that message in text above, and I can explain.

The People don't have to protest. Once the people solve their own money problems the people thereby change course from dependence, from subjugation, from victimization, and onto whatever people do once they are no longer having their life's power sucked out of them, one drop of blood at a time, one cent at a time, one dollar at a time, one ounce of power at a time, and the consequence, not the goal, is that the parasites are left with fewer choices.

The problem I have with the news item is such that the author appears to set the goal as: "Down with Mubarak money!"

That places the cart before the horse.

Cart: "Down with fill in the blank money"

Horse: "Up with monetary competition"

Monetary competition forces money to be better and cheaper. The reason why The People are powerless against their oppressors is simple, understandable, and easy to fix.

The people do not have access to better money, cheaper money, money they can use to do the things that people do, when people have better money, cheaper money, things like prospering, things like increasing the standard of living, and things like decreasing the cost of living, by cooperative effort, by specialization, by agreement, by division of labor, by invention, by adaptation, by economies of scale (dividing fixed costs by more people paying fixed costs thereby making things cheaper to make), and all the things people will do, which, by the way, avoids the situation whereby people are powerless in the face of now powerless oppressors.

Plan A.
The people power < oppressors power = oppression of the people by oppressors

Plan B:
The people power > oppressors power = not A  

How do the people accomplish "Down with fill in the blank money" when people do not have the power they need, when people do not have the power they gain when the people have the best money that money can buy, the stuff they need to prosper, and how can that happen when monetary competition is against the law.

Who makes the law that makes money competition against the law?

What is the value of that law, if it is made, if the people merely decide, as one, on one glorious day, to avoid that law, and allow monetary competition to force money quality up to the highest possible quality, and force the cost of money to the lowest possible cost?

My right wing friends, of which there are none currently, do not confess the truth about money.

They lie, and liars are not my friends.

I will read on to see if there is more value in this news currency authored by this right leaning economist authority type.
 
My hopes of finding accurate currency flowing through this medium outlet are now much less hopeful, after reading that very bad news, about how this author misdirects people with false information.

False by roughly opposite - not half. Not half true, it seems to me, opposite of the truth.

A. Protest and demand a new money, coerce other people into enforcing new money.

B. Voluntarily agree to allow monetary competition, start allowing it, and then the force of competition forces money to become available whereby the highest quality money at the lowest cost is produced by whomever wins that competition, as that competition continues, and as that force works to do what that force does, as all the consumers of money choose the better money, the better money at the lower cost.

A is opposite of B.

A is not half true. A is false, A is a bad plan, one not worth executing.

Plan B is opposite of A. Plan B voluntarily forces people to avoid crime, by setting examples of good behavior.

Good wins.

Bad loses.

Why would anyone ever suggest to anyone else to follow a plan whereby Bad wins and Good loses?

I don't know. Someone doing that would have to confess their true reasoning.

I am going to read on, despite having my hopes destroyed by the words so far written by this right leaning authority on political economy.

The protesters thus ought to have made dumping the Egyptian pound and adopting a non-governmental currency the central plank of their protest. They should have enjoined their fellow countrymen to sell their Mubarak money for gold or silver or anything else that's real, and the value of the pound would have plummeted instantly and massively, which would have spurred even more selling. The patriots who participated in this monetary revolt would have protected themselves from losses by getting out of the pound, while the traitors to freedom in the regime and those who supported the regime by holding onto Mubarak's pounds would have lost everything. Moreover, the police and military that are paid with Mubarak's crooked paper money would see an instant and massive de facto pay decrease. This would have forced Mubarak's central bank to print even more money to finance the military, police and all other bureaucracies, which would have turned the Egyptian pound into toilet paper. The coup de grace of the monetary racket would then be for the protestors to simply use the worthless paper the junta and Mubarak printed to pay their taxes. A hefty dose of their own crooked monetary medicine would be all that is needed to collapse the regime without even one shot being fired (by the protesters, anyway).

That to me is the half truth, which is better than the opposite of truth, and to explain I can offer some words.

The oppressed will protest oppression with each example of each person choosing a better currency, but there is very little power in a single choice by a single person avoiding oppression in that way.

A. Protest oppression
B. Choose to use a better money

The false or opposite of truth part is the part where the goal of a person is to protest. The whole truth is the truth by which a person decides to take the power he, or she, has and use that power to better his, or her, own situation.

The half truth is the part whereby the author leaves out the vital part whereby the single person has to find someone else to agree with the choice to take power and use power as a shared goal.

I can't, alone, decide to use better money; there is no power in it.

I have to find at least one other person to agree to use better money, and then there is power in that mutual agreement.

Both of the people agreeing to that choice to take power into their own hands make power and both have power by that choice. That choice isn't a choice by which one person gains power at the expense of someone else.

That choice, between two people, mutually gaining power, is minuscule, power-less, compared to all the other people who still choose to be oppressed by the blood soaked, fraudulent legal monopoly money, whereby power flows through that monetary pyramid scheme, from the people who create wealth to the people who produce and maintain that fraudulent monopoly money crime spree.

A. Many, many, many, many people linked into an ongoing crime spree where the power of the victims continues to flow toward and power up the legal criminals who run their legal monopoly money syndicates.

B. Two people finally changing their goals from "protesting" or trying to force someone else to bend to their will and instead: adopting the goal of mutual agreement, and all the good things that can begin from that new beginning.  

A > B

A is very power full (the power of numbers), while B is two people.

Getting from A > B and getting to A < B requires more than 2 people choosing Plan B instead of Plan A.

Plan A: Force other people to bend to your will, by deception, by violence, or by any means necessary.

Plan B: Agree to allow competition in money markets and thereby force the best money at the lowest cost into the money market

The right leaning authority offers half of the truth, sometimes.

I will read on.

There is no doubt that the collapse of Mubarak's money printing and taxing racket would entail much short-term hardship for Egyptians.

That is the same guy who accused someone else of question begging. If any group of people on Earth decide to adopt plan B instead of plan A they immediately reap the benefits of that decision.

The problem remains to be the same problem and that problem is created and executed by the people who will do things that secure their money monopoly power, they will decide to enforce their money monopoly power, they will destroy competition.

That is a serious problem and a problem that must be considered by any group of people who voluntarily decide to allow competition in money markets.

Here is one very good example:

Worgl Austria Stamp Script Negative Interest Money

That example of monetary competition was forced out of business. That powerful example of monetary competition was outlawed by a higher, and very criminal, legal power.

The power of numbers did not work for the force of competition in that example. The power of numbers, numbers of people, worked for the legal crime people, the monopoly power, in that example.

Two more examples that illustrate the power struggle between the voluntary collection of people choosing money competition, on one side, and the collection of people choosing to make monetary competition illegal on the other side are two very good examples in American History.

A. Shays's Rebellion 

B. The Whiskey Rebellion

George Washington, turn coat to the cause of liberty, assembled an army the size of the one he had when he had defeated the British, Washington then used that Watermelon Army to crush that example of monetary competition, as The People chose whiskey as a form of monetary currency, a choice inspired by the fraud monopoly money powers as it drove gold out of the colonies as the criminals began sucking the life blood from the people who created wealth in the colonies.

The choice of severing all connections to the legal criminals, once the legal criminals outlaw competition in money markets, becomes a cause for the legal criminals to act, and the act they choose is to torture, and to mass murder, or do anything necessary to enforce their monopoly once their monopoly is in force.

The power of numbers must be secured by The People before the people can become powerful enough to avoid the power of legal crime.

That is the whole, ugly, truth.

I'll read on, despite the familiar spin being put on this "news" item.

Freed from the shackles of a currency that constantly loses value against their food, they could finally start saving and investing for the benefit of themselves and their children. Indeed, they would stand alone in the world as a people that finally possessed a money that their government could not manipulate, depreciate and confiscate.

The familiar spin here is the false association between government and legal crime.

A government can be voluntary, or non-criminal, and this is a proven fact. Any agreement of any kind between any number of people constitutes a government. Why does that mutual agreement, in any case whatsoever, not constitute a human government?

If the argument is such that government is hereby defined, by me, to be, and only be, as I say it is, and I say, not to ever be thought of, or spoken of, in any way, by anyone, ever, or suffer punishment for that crime of saying, otherwise, that government is, and always will be, involuntary, or it isn't government - then that is an argument.

What would be the point of such an argument?

A. Voluntary government
B. Not A

If I say that two people agree to act according to a mutually beneficial set of actions, and they mutually agree not to act out a mutually understandable set of actions not to be acted out, then I'm describing something specific, and the label I used to describe what actually happens is just a label, the thing actually happening actually happens even if I stop calling it one thing and even if I start calling it Fried Chicken.

A. Fried Chicken
B. Not A

The thing is what is it, the thing isn't what I call it.

Why argue?

The spin spun by the right leaning author is a familiar plan followed by a familiar execution of the plan and the plan goes like this:

Bad thing A is called: Bad thing

The thing I don't like is called: The thing I don't like.

If I substitute the label of one thing for the label of the other thing I can spin the truth into something false and I can attach bad sentiments onto the thing I don't like.

Example A:

Sentence A:
I don't like The thing I don't like.

That is the truth.

Now the plan is to substitute one label for another label, so as to execute my plan.

Sentence A is spun as follows:

I don't like the Bad thing.

What is the reader going to think when the person writing is writing about "The thing I don't like" and the writer is using the false label instead of the true label?

Example B:

Sentence B:
Crime is bad

Spun sentence:
Government is bad

or

Spun sentence:
Socialism is bad

or

Spun sentence:
Money is bad

or

Spun sentence:
Capitalism is bad

or

Spun sentence:
The gun did it.

Bad bad bad gun.

People who murder and torture massive numbers of innocent victims have a vested interest in blaming their plans, and blaming their actions on anything other than their plans and their acts.

Does that make sense?

Was that once common sense?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Feb 20th, 2011 06:18 pm
  PM Quote Reply
19th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Power struggle defined

Anyone (or nobodies),

The powerful criminals who have seized the power to take power use that power to take more and more power and they must because failure to do so will threaten their power to take power.

If the powerful legal criminals who have seized the power to take power, by law, from the tax payers, which are, by definition, the people who create power, wealth, value, and excess power, power left over after power is consumed, and failure is on the horizon, for them, for the legal criminals, then they will increase the rate at which they siphon power, take power, steal power, transfer power, from their target markets, from their tax payers, from their victims, so as to empower them sufficiently enough to regain, reestablish, and perpetuate the power to take power.

The victims cannot be allowed to be more powerful than the power required to maintain victimization.

As soon as the victims are allowed to gain power, the very moment the victims gain power, power that could have been stolen, power that could have been transferred by law, by the legal criminals, is the very moment that the power to take power, by law, is threatened.

The victims cannot be allowed to have control over power, in any way, in any form, whatsoever, to allow that to happen will threaten the legal criminals power to take power.

This is the fundamental, base, and accurate viewpoint of political economy.

Tax payers < law enforcers = political despotism

The competition between political economies, such as despotism versus republicanism, can then be seen, from that base understanding, as the force that transfers power back to the people who create power, the tax payers.

Taxes go from the people who create wealth to the people who enforce law by a mechanism, call it whatever you wish, call it Fried Chicken, and it remains in place, and working, so long as the people who create wealth grow weaker and the people who collect taxes grow more powerful.

The force, or the power, that moves power from tax collectors back to the people, is the force of competition. People choose something better.

political despotism < political (choice) universality = political competition

political despotism > political universality = competition is effectively against the law (despotism)

Why does economic power flow from the victims to the victimisers - in the first place?

In nature such a transfer of power occurs as a parasite feeds off of a host. At what point does a host become weaker than the parasites that consume the host?

A tax payer can employ a parasite, or pick off the parasite, or fire the parasite, once the parasite begins to threaten the host, once the parasite is no longer useful to the host, assuming that the parasite did manage to convince the host that the parasite was useful to the host,in the first place.

That power to choose is competition. Competition is very powerful.

If the parasites are able to convince the host that the parasites are the hosts brain, the host will never expend any power toward the avoidance of being connected to the parasite. The parasite becomes the hosts brain in actual practice.

When the tax payers are convinced into a false belief that their power to think belongs to the people they pay taxes to, the affect at that moment, that tipping point, is the creation of the power by which power flows from the victims to the victimisers perpetually. It is a significant moment, and some say it is a point at which there can be no return.

I disagree.

Who thinks that the democrats are our only hope against the wrongs done by the republicans?

Who thinks that the republicans are our only hope against the wrongs done by the democrats?

Who thinks that the payment of taxes to the tax collectors, no matter who they are, democrats or republicans, criminals or saints/gods/benevolent dictators, are necessary payments, and anyone failing to pay, is cause for vehement punishment rained down upon that criminal tax evader?

Who thinks that war is good for the economy?

Who thinks that the failure to bring about Armageddon is a failure to fulfill the prophesy, and therefore eternal damnation?

Where do people get these thoughts? What is the source of these lies?

When the legal criminals gain the power to be the brains of their victims, effectively think for their victims, their victims will no longer command the power to avoid victimization by those victimisers.

Discussion is against the law.

Competition is outlawed.

The only thoughts allowed are the thoughts that maintain the power by which competition is against the law.

That is a Utopian Fantasy, for a legal criminal, someone able to create legal money whenever they want, without limit.

If one network of people, anywhere on the planet, or in the universe for that matter, regain their control over their own brains, and by that power are able to avoid victimization, that one network of people will prosper, grow in power, exponentially, and present, to the human species, to the world, and to the universe, a competitive example that will render any criminal network powerless by that force of competition.

Competition is very powerful.

1. Network of people held together by voluntary association

2. Not #1

Which group will anyone choose to join?

Which group gains the most market share?

Which group gains more power?

How many people are dying to get into North Korea?

How many political enemies were dying to get into Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia?

How many people went to America once America became a competitor on the world stage, as a voluntary association, a voluntary association in competition with less voluntary associations?

Who decided who can join the voluntary association and who decided who cannot join the voluntary association - ever?

Once inside the voluntary association: who decided what the volunteers can do and what the volunteers cannot do, once inside the voluntary association?

At what point does the voluntary association become less voluntary compared to the competition?

What do the volunteers do at that point, if they have a powerful choice, a competitive choice?

At what point do the people no longer have a choice to seek and gain a voluntary association to join, on earth, when the place where they exist is less than voluntary compared to the place they can live?

The only way that legal crime can work is by effectively removing the power of choice from their victims. As soon as the victims have the choice to join a more voluntary association, one that does not cost them as much, the victims will vote no to the less voluntary, more expensive option, and the victims will no longer be victims, by voting yes to a more voluntary association.

If the choice is never known by the victims, the legal criminals are not threatened.

A. The Dollar
B. The competition

Not one person in millions of people think about choosing a better option - why?

Dollar by de-fault

The dollar is thought about, by millions of people, as if the dollar was air, or Uncle Sam, or America, or The good ole' U.S.A., apple pie, freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of property, or even happiness.

Why?

I ask many people that question and I have yet to get an answer.

What happens if money becomes a legal competition, like automobiles, computers, cell phones, or restaurants?

People I ask: visibly short circuit.

I can offer a few illustrations of what can happen, and the wheels in the brains of the people I ask stop turning.

I ask the unthinkable.

See if your brain short circuits. Be competitive - please.

Suppose that the legal criminals allow 3 competitors, only, and this can be seen this way:

A. Republican based money competitor - License to produce legal money #1

B. Democrat based money competitor - License to produce legal money #2

C. One more license based upon a competition between competitors who submit a bid to win one more license to produce legal money #3

1.
Legal money license #1 could be a legal gold standard money.  
Whatever the Republicans can dream up, or the republicans can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud.

2.
Legal money license #2 could be a legal stamp script money such as the example in history found in Worgle Austria before WWII.
Whatever the Democrats can dream up, or the democrats can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud.

3.
A National referendum, run on a Web Site, encrypted voting, one vote per American citizen, view and choose between the bids offered by various people, and companies, bidding for the one remaining license to produce money.

Possible companies that could put up bids include:

1. Skype
2. Google
3. Paypal
4. E-Bay
5. Verizon
6. Microsoft
7. The Real News Network
8. Power Independence

I can't speak for any other person, but I can speak for myself, and I would place a bid whereby I offer 2 new monetary products to the people of America.

Here then are illustrations of the possible choices offered in competition to the people of America once competition is no longer against the law in the market of money:

1.
Gold standard or The Federal Reserve System of fraud offered by Republicans

2.
Negative Interest, or subsidy money, or The Federal Reserve System of fraud offered by the Democrats

3.
Any one of a number of choices including but not limited to the following 2 products offered by one bidder seeking the third and last choice offered by national law enforcement.

Product 1:
No interest home mortgages to any current low risk borrower so as to turn in your current interest mortgage for a no interest mortgage and thereby transfer power back to the honest workers who actually produce wealth in America

Product 2:
A 1 percent interest loan to the same low risk borrowers (high FICO score) for the purchase of power increasing products such as Solar Panels, Electric cars, to name just two products that are proven to increase power production compared to the current competition - in reality.

Supposing, for a wild moment, that someone has not suffered a bout of Pavlov's Dog syndrome, and supposing that someone has not had their brain locked up at this point, the reader may be working at fitting these various puzzle pieces into place, and having a few pieces that won't fit anywhere.

Consider taking just one piece at a time and fit one piece into the puzzle. Take, for example, one person with one choice, as one person decides to vote for one money.

I've set up a scenario above to offer that one choice at one time in one place.

You, for example, are at the computer and you click on the web page that takes you to the National Referendum on Returning Competition in Money Markets, and you can see, much in the same way as seeing who owes whom on the National Debt Clock Web Page, you see which competitors are getting the most votes, and you can vote for the one you want to have the new license to compete in money markets.

You fit this puzzle piece in place yourself, and you do so right now.

You are the authority on political economy right now.

Which do you choose?

Hypothetically:


1.
Legal money license #1 could be a legal gold standard money.  
Whatever the Republicans can dream up, or the republicans can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud.

2.
Legal money license #2 could be a legal stamp script money such as the example in history found in Worgle Austria before WWII.
Whatever the Democrats can dream up, or the democrats can offer business as usual and they can choose to keep their Federal Reserve System of fraud.

3.
A National referendum, run on a Web Site, encrypted voting, one vote per American citizen, view and choose between the bids offered by various people, and companies, bidding for the one remaining license to produce money.

Now suppose, just to move the building of the puzzle, the whole picture, along in one more increment, one more step, fit one more puzzle piece into the picture, and fit the one piece into the right place, just suppose, just for now, that you choose to give a legal license to print legal money to Skype, because you see that they have the best bid, and they will charge the least tax payer money, they win the competition, as far as you are concerned.

You have, supposedly, already talked to other people and other people say to you that they are going to choose business as usual.

You can see that the current number of people choosing business as usual is considerable, as the web page reports the current winners and losers.

Many people are choosing Republican gold standard money.

Many people are choosing Democrat subsidized money or negative interest money.

Many people are choosing Skype money, many are choosing Pay-Pal money, many are choosing Real News Money, but you don't look at that money just yet.

Suppose you begin to entertain the idea that you can buy down your current mortgage, at no interest, and you can buy Solar Panels and a few electric cars at 1 percent interest if you choose the option provided by Power Independence - if they get the last license to offer competitive money.

What goes through your head when you contemplate that option, that option whereby you consider pocketing the savings on mortgage interest payments, electric bill payments, and gasoline bill payments, every month of every year from now on until mortgage interest is even lower, and electric costs are even lower, and gasoline costs are even lower than the current situation in reality?

What stops that choice from being a choice?

How about thinking in terms of the power of numbers?

How much power flows from the people who earn power to the people who collect that power at a central power collection point, such as a Bank?

Each mortgage moves the power cost to build one house from the buyer to the seller, each time, and each time one entire extra home cost is moved from the buyer to the seller of the mortgage. The Bank is paid (over time) the cost of building one extra home, a home that does not exist, as each person buys one home.

If you choose the no interest home the power you pocket is the cost of that one extra home, you keep that power, the bank does not keep that power.

That is one person.

How many people would  choose that option if that option was a competitive option?

What power is there in numbers?

How can that power be quantified, and measured accurately?

The next link I link attempts to answer that last question, and I have to ask you, and please be as honest as you can be, and the question is:

Do you trust the accuracy of the following legal authority of the measure of the power of numbers: is the following accurate in your view?

U.S.A. Debt Clock

Do you think my words here are not to be trusted, and do you trust the people who create those numbers?

Mortgages are said to be: Upside Down

Isn't that interesting?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Feb 21st, 2011 06:29 pm
  PM Quote Reply
20th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6258
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Not A Republic

JAY: So what exactly--what can--what privacy can they break down, or what do they have access to?

Much is contained in that Real News report worthy of comment, in my opinion.

On the subject called privacy there is an angle of view worth mentioning.

Living organisms survive because living organisms adapt.

Adaptation is necessary for life.

Failure to adapt to inevitable changes in the physical world is failure to survive as a species, the result of failure to adapt is extinction.

If each individual example of a species suffers from a power by which the individual must think and must act according to a very narrow prescribed set of thoughts and actions the species will die off, for failing to access the power required to adapt to the inevitable physical changes that will occur in actual reality.

This can be seen by way of illustration or actual physical measurements.

Some early species of humanoid failed to adapt, other species of humanoid adapted, the result is the human species, and that is a measurable fact.

An illustration can be provided by imagination, and this is itself a form of adaptation, rocks have no imagination, ants may be capable of a simple form of imagination, I, being human, can imagine the following situation:

Each person is exposed to a power by which each person knows what they must do or failure to do what they must do results in severe punishment, punishment that is so severe that the person will be weaker following the punishment, and the person will then be even less able to survive as an individual, as a result of the punishment, the punishment that will occur if the person does not do exactly what he must do to avoid being punished.

The imaginary illustration continues:

Each person is exposed to a power by which each person knows what they must not do or failure to not do what they must not do results in severe punishment, punishment that is so severe that the person will be weaker following the punishment, and the person will then be even less able to survive as an individual, as a result of the punishment, the punishment that will occur if the person does that which the person is forbidden to do.

The above is my imagination applied toward the medium called written language, those are words above, I invented those words, but those words describe historical reality, read for example the book titled The Gulag Archipelago

Actual physical reality, in human history, illustrates the problem that is the base problem underlying the so called "privacy" issue.

When the list of things that must be done narrow down in scope from a very large number of optional choices of many, many, many, things that must be done, the list can, conceivably, and actually, become a very short list of only a few things that must be done.

1. You must work, failure to work is death by gun shot, or beating, or freezing to death, death by thirst, or death by starvation.

In the cases reported by Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn the list had two things that must be done.

1. You must work
2. You must starve to death

The empire employees in those cases were ordered to dish out less food than the food they knew was the minimum amount of food required to survive, even without forcing the workers to work.

So, the reader may wonder, how does this relate to privacy, you are all over the map.

I'm not guilty. I am not all over the map.

Along with the vary narrow list of things that must be done is the list of things that cannot be done and the point here is to point out that the power to enforce these lists works against the power to adapt as each individual is forced to narrow their own creativity, their own power to invent new ways, new methods, new ways to adapt to changes in the physical world, because each individual is exposed to a power that works directly against that inventive power.

The power of peer pressure, for example, works on an individual in such a way as to force the individual to follow a specific set of actions and to force the individual to avoid a specific set of actions and if those sets of actions are followed then the individual spends his or her life following a specific set of actions. Fear, as a negative, and conformity, as a positive ("belonging" to the group), are specific measurements of the force that keeps individuals doing only specific things, and forces individuals to consume life following a specific method, absent the force of adaptation.

As soon as one person steps out of line, is the very moment one individual employs the force of adaptation, an adaptive experiment is performed by that one individual, the one individual who steps out of line.

If all the other members of the species are poised, ready, willing, and able to immediately destroy the one individual who steps out of line, or so much as contemplates stepping out of line, then the power to adapt is completely destroyed in each case that it could occur if it was powerful enough to occur.

If each person contemplating some act must first pass the gauntlet of known prohibitions and expectations the power to imagine will be inversely proportional to the power exerted against it.

Think, if you can, if you still have a brain that can think. What allows you to imagine new things, and what power destroys that capacity to imagine?

If every second of every day an individual is fearful of what other people may do and what other people may think, then when will that person ever have time to imagine something else?

If every second of every day an individual is totally committed to the work of gaining positive feedback from other people, absolutely consumed with making sure that everyone is pleased with everything done by this imaginary person, when will this person ever have time to imagine anything?

Privacy is the stuff that exists between a person's ears when they are able to set aside the force of peer pressure and are then able to imagine, and are then able to adapt, and are then able to invent, and are then able to know new things.

To turn that understanding, about privacy, into an imaginary person who is hiding something, some bogey man, an imaginary child porn cannibal terrorist torturing serial killer, hidden behind every unopened e-mail, is to suffer greatly from the force of peer pressure - it seems to me.

Privacy can be a simple issue.

What business is it of yours? Don't you have more important things to do, than to be going through everyone else's business?

Privacy can be, as I have illustrated, a much more important thing, a power worthy of securing, a power that empowers adaptation, and allows individuals the required means by which the species can adapt to the physical world.

Too much peer pressure will kill off the human species, and there are plenty of examples in human history that prove this fact out, not just the example reported by Solzhenitsyn.

If every person copied the example of The Gulag, if that became the short list of things allowed, and the short list of things that must be done, or else, then our species wouldn't have lasted to today.

Some people, like Solzhenitsyn, managed to adapt - despite all the forces forcing him to conform.

The privacy issue is a power struggle between that which the group exerts upon the individual, the collective power of all the individuals combined, as that collective power is seen in the mind of each individual, and on the other side opposing the collective power is the individual power to adapt. How can this be seen more accurately, more competitively?

If each individual were nothing but willing and able to conform exactly as each other individual expected, demanded, and exerted force so as to make each other individual conform, there would be no question as to privacy. Each person did, and does, exactly as each other person did, and does, and no one, ever, stepped out of line.

That set of things that is within the set of things that are acceptable, to all, can be a very large set of things, or a very small set of things, but the point is, here, for you to consider, is that the set of things is set at that set, and as soon as one person steps out of line, at that moment, there is a new thing done, an adaptation experiment.

One person might say: The world is round, not flat.

One person might say: The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, really, what are you people doing to each other that leads to this kind of shared false perception?

If the reader is inclined to think, even for a second, that the privacy issue is about people siding with the terrorists, protecting the terrorists, being terrorists, then the reader may want to question that thought and reevaluate it, despite any pressure from any quarter suggesting otherwise. The Emperor isn't wearing any cloths - figuratively. The President of the U.S.A corporation is literally a torturing mass murderer as guilty as sin, by his own confessions, as twisted as those words may be, the facts are measurable as the victims scream, the blood runs, and the bodies decompose and stink to high heaven.

Who decides what the collective opinion will be on any issue whatsoever?

1. You
2. Not 1

Will you take a poll?

The power of everyone else bears down on each of us, and that power can reach a destructive level; yes or no?

How about this poll:

Torture is:

A. Not so good for the one being tortured
B. Torture is great, it keeps us safe from terrorists
C. A form of entertainment
D. Understood to be immoral, not morally justifiable, and ineffective as a means of gaining accurate information.

There are people who are demanding access to things that were once considered to be private things, things that are none of anyone's business, for good reason, or for no reason whatsoever, once these things were considered none of anyone's business, and now some people are demanding access to these private things.

Who are those people?

Who is demanding access to everyone's private things, including demands to inspect all your cavities?

New poll:

Who wants this power, this exclusive power, to do whatever they want whenever they want, without limit, to anyone they choose?

A.
I want that power

B.
I want that power and I want everyone to have that power too.

C.
I want the republicans to have that power, not the democrats

D.
I want the democrats to have that power, not the republicans

E.
That is what criminals do, in fact, in actual reality, but don't ask them to confess that that is what they want, and don't ask them to confess that that is what they do, their confessions occur when they act, when they volunteer to do whatever they want to whomever they want, despite the tortured screams, of protest, produced by their victims during those crimes.

Life is current.

JAY: So what exactly--what can--what privacy can they break down, or what do they have access to?

Another comment I have concerns the reference to The Founding Fathers.

Paul, is that it basically is a landmark between two ideas of a republic and an empire. I think we're an empire at present. In a republic, the ordinary rule of life is freedom for the individual. That's what the Declaration of Independence says, that the sole purpose of government [is] to secure rights to unalienable life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the government must establish a very, very strong case to justify invading liberty before that can--the right to be left alone can be invaded. The empire is different. The empire assumes the government can go in and invade and surveil you and make you transparent to the government, unless you can show tyranny is the next step. That's the opposite of what the founding fathers said. They said, no, in a republic, the preference, the goal of the government is freedom first. The government has to satisfy that high threshold of danger in order to encroach.


I have a few problems with that report by that authority on the subject. I may be overly presumptuous to be saying that that person is an authority on the subject, he appears to me as being an authority on the subject, so I'm going with that presumption.

1. The U.S.A., by way of The Constitution, is a Nation State, and it is so by design, and it is not a republic, it is not a republic by design.

2. Actual people think things and do things, governments can't think, and governments can't act.

On the later problem I have I can say that it is a matter of convenience to say that "The government did this" or "The government did that" instead of making a list of the actual people who did this or the actual list of people who did that, such as:

Alexander Hamilton, and a list of other people conspiring with Alexander Hamilton, perpetrated a fraud upon the rest of the population, the victims that has since become known as The U.S.A., and Alexander Hamilton, and his cabal, hid behind a false front of Federalism, and that list of people created a Nation State disguised as a Federal Government, on purpose, for profit.

The differences between a republic and a nation state can be illustrated in two examples.

Example 1 has 2 parts, and example 1a illustrates a before nation state example and example 1b illustrated an after republic scenario.

Before America turned from an experimental republic and turned into a nation state there was a historical power struggle known now as Shays's Rebellion.

Example 1a (before nation state):

1a. Shays's Rebellion   

After America turned from an experimental republic into a nation state there was a historical power struggle now known as The Whiskey Rebellion

Example 1b (after the republic experiment was criminally usurped - regime change - coup de grace):

1b. The Whiskey Rebellion

During the experimental republic the law of the land allowed for, or didn't out-law, rebellion in cases of excessive oppression by a separate and sovereign state government. How could the experimental republic make such a thing against the law when the experimental republic was created as a result of rebellion against excessive oppression by the people running the government?

The rebels of Shays's rebellion were claiming that the criminals running the Massachusetts State government took over the money supply, debased it, drove all the gold out of the state, forced the people to use whiskey as a competitive money, and then these legal criminals had the audacity to tax whiskey and order, get this please, order that those taxes must be paid in gold. Talk about oppression!

Well, the experimental republic worked exactly as it was meant to work, since the surviving rebels, including Daniel Shays, fled to Vermont, after losing their fight to restore moral law in the separate and sovereign state of Massachusetts.

The criminals running the Massachusetts government sent an order to the people running the Vermont government to hand over the rebels, to be punished, for the crime of rebelling against an oppressive government, and the people running the Vermont government, another separate and sovereign state within the republic experimental government, basically told the criminals running the Massachusetts government to pound sand.

Daniel Shays's, and the rebels, didn't commit any crime, they rebelled against a criminal oppressive government where the people running the criminal oppressive government were running a currency debasement fraud, and using that power to purchase, incidentally, to invade Canada, wars of aggression for profit, and failing to gain the booty, and going broke in the process. Who in their right mind would stand for that nonsense, let alone pay for it?   

Danial Shays's, and other rebels, were celebrated war heroes, who had rebelled against the British Government, drove them out, and were then made criminals for doing the same thing in the rebellion against the tax on whiskey in Massachusetts.  

The reason why the republic worked is the reason why competition works to force higher quality and lower costs. Vermont offered a higher quality government at a lower cost, within the republic, and Daniel Shays's voted with his feet, when he knew, beyond a shadow of doubt, that he was no longer represented, in any way, within the Massachusetts state system of monetary fraud, as a means of financing, an perpetrating, criminals wars of aggression.

That is the before nation state illustration.

The after republic illustration concerns a repeat of the same currency fraud occurring in almost all of the states within the experimental republic as the currency manipulators drove out the gold and as the people invented new forms of currency such as whiskey to replace the gold they needed but didn't have as a result of the manipulations done by the currency frauds who were running various state governments within the experimental republic, and then a secret meeting was conducted behind closed doors, out of the public eye, to hatch a plan to nationalize the experimental republic, and create a law that can enforce a currency monopoly power nation wide, thus ending all competition, leaving no one able to vote with their feet from one oppressive state to one less oppressive state.

Once the national law was in place George Washington, the first national military leader dictator in chief, assembled an army as big as the one he had used to defeat the British, and he employed that power to crush the rebellion, for good, and that law remains the law of the land.

Here is the law:

Section. 8.  

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Here is the president:

Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation

Relevant quote:


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;

Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.


What spirit was crushed - exactly? Ask: what was the spirit of 1776 all about?

Here is the stuff of republicanism:

The Declaration of non-victimhood

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Having the people of the government make laws that monopolize the currency, and therefore abolish the stuff people must have to prosper, makes people unhappy, and adding insult to injury the people running the government use the power they steal to enforce their power to steal, to torture, to mass murder, to conduct aggressive wars for profit, and lesser crimes, and this dynamic, ongoing fraud, causes the people running the government to be more powerful than the people they oppress, one unit of purchasing power at a time, ultimately arriving at a score board that looks as absurd as this:

Patent absurdity

Any thinking person, using their own brain, can see that the above is a patent absurdity, anyone "believing" in that score board is akin to someone "believing" that the naked Emperor is wearing the most fashionable and flattering attire.

Onward to example number 2.

I've shown the historical example by which the republic was a working experimental republic and then the experimental republic became a nation state and now I will show the most obvious second example by which the people running the nation state secure the nation state as one all encompassing nation state, and proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the nation state is a nation state, and the nation state is not a republic, by any measure whatsoever, hithertofore.

Example 2:
Not at all civil - false label covering up the legal crime of the century

The actual facts surrounding the controversial subject of slavery were confessed during the secret proceedings leading to The Constitution and those facts became known as The Dirty Compromise.

The Dirty Compromise was a legal crime perpetrated so as to cause The Constitution to be the enforced law of the land, enforcing, and perpetuating, slavery, and The Dirty Compromise was merely a stay of impending future conflict, the impending future conflict erupted in the legal crime that became known, by way of false advertisement, The Civil War.

Legal criminals wanting a nation state in place of an experimental republic in the North wanted more power over the nation state and legal criminals wanting a nation state to replace the experimental republic in the South made a deal, to divide the power, the power over their victims, and these criminals hatched their plan that became The Constitution.

Here is the law that divided up the power the legal criminals took over their victims, including all the slaves, everywhere in the Union (aka national government), and here is the law that made sure that no slave could vote with their feet, and leave one state in the experimental republic, if they could, and move to a less oppressive state in the experimental republic:

Legal crime 101: as good as any example in the sordid history of man-unkind

"to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge."

Read it, and weep if you must, but know if you can, if you still have the power.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 09:43 pm Page:    1  2  3  4  Next Page Last Page    
Power Independence > Good News > Good News > REAL NEWS Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems