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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Comments for Meetup  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Oct 29th, 2013 09:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I wrote the following on the National Liberty Alliance meetup page.

I do not now associate myself with either Masters of Slaves. My parents never did, they taught by example. I have never associated myself with Masters or Slaves. I never will. I will always find a way to separate myself from such nonsense. If that cannot be understood, then I see a serious problem. Clay (if I remember his name right) tried to help bring to light a serious error, an error I see too. If I were standing on a fluid foundation I'd welcome the generous help offered to inform me of my perilous position.

I can explain in detail here, where I have already done so here, again.

There is a highly productive (competitive) advantage for the Federation over the Republic form of government.

The FORCE that FORCES that highly competitive advantage is the FORCE of individual intelligent and moral choice.

The Republic, by design, is MONOPOLISTIC, meaning a precise meaning, and not having an ambiguous or fluid meaning, as a Republic enforces the end of competition as there can no longer be any challengers offering a competitive form of government. Once a Republic becomes one, it will last for as long as it can manage to destroy competition, and once it can no longer destroy competition, the Republic falls.

A Federation, on the other hand, is similarly, by not exactly, disposed of: indirectly.

A number of Republics join voluntarily into a Federation, therefore all but the very last Republic must fall, or secede, before the Federation falls.

If there remains to be two Republics, and those two Republics voluntarily associate into a Federation, then the Federation remains in FORCE.

Here is where John at the meetup could have listened and could have learned something valuable - perhaps.

Gerard, similarly, may have been able to listen, and learn.

The concept of divide and conquer, having the defenders divided up, made weaker, arguing among themselves, is not, I repeat NOT, the concept of division of POWER.

Divide and Conquer is OFFENSIVE FORCE applied upon targeted (innocent) victims by Masters seeking Slaves, or Masters of Slaves seeking to weaken the defensive POWER of the Slaves.

Division of DEFENSIVE FORCE, or "Separation of Powers," is NOT the same thing as Divide and Conquer  (OFFENSIVE FORCE) whereby the voluntary sum total of volunteers find ways to keep their DEFENSIVE POWER divided into DEFENSIVE AUTONOMOUS INDEPENDENT SELF-SUFFICIENT, and COMPETITIVE (NOT ANTAGONISTIC), UNITS.

Where is this best seen as a competitive force for the preservation of DEFENSIVE POWER?

The American Revolutionary Army BEFORE the Monopolists infected that Voluntary Force with their Master/Slave DOGMA and their Master/Slave DICTATES and their Master/Slave ENSLAVEMENT of the Volunteers into CONSCRIPTS.

Look here:

Generalissimo Washington

Quote:
Washington Transforms the Army

In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.

To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.

At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.


I have done my own research into how Military Formations work, in particular the German Air-force during World War II, and the work done by the American pilot named John Boyd.

The MYTH that the German Soldiers (airmen included) where robotic followers of orders placed into a rigid hierarchy is as false as any case where the actual point of fact was such that the method by which the German Military remained very effective was a method similar to a Free Market. The term meritocracy may help explain how such a METHOD, which may seem MAD, whereby the METHOD to the MADNESS was a METHOD by which the most effective among the members of the group were earning their way into leadership positions in the group.

In particular, the German airmen were led into battle not by the highest ranking German soldiers but by the soldiers who proved to be the most efficient, most effective, at that position of leadership.

The concept is not new, not earth shattering news, and in our own Military there is the case of John Boyd whose example of the same meritocracy might illustrate, or educate, those needing to know.

I suggest the following book to be read - please.

BOYD

Returning to the concept of Republic VERSUS Federation there can be a relative comparison done, from many angles of view, as to how one works compared to the other one, in either Defense or Offense, and therefore in either Independence or Dependence.

An invading army of conscripts and mercenaries land in New York, New York as this army of Aggression seeks to enslave the so called Rebels and Insurgents, as the King wishes, so that these conscripts must obey, without question, those orders that please the King, and these mercenaries must obey those same orders if these mercenaries want to collect their own profits, their own pay, their own investments.

On the land where the English Invaders of War for the Profit of the Few, war that is aggressive, war that is paid for by the targeted victims called Rebels and Insurgents, and their families pay dearly too, on that land, of those free, the order of battle was MANEUVER WARFARE.

Did you read the book I offered as a book that you should read? Did you read the book titled BOYD?

No?

You are now set to argue with me on this point?

The so called Rebels were Volunteers who Volunteered to stop farming, stop making a living, and instead of making those earnings, those profits, they banded together into Voluntary Defensive Military Bands, something that was still COMMON KNOWLEDGE among the Frontiersmen, Settlers, and something perfected through the HELP of the Native Population, whereby the ART OF WAR is a well sharpened knife, sharpened through use, sharpened through practice, sharpened through Trial and Error. 

Try if you will to enslave soldiers and hire murderers for profit and try as you will to inspire them to TRUST each other in battle, try as you might to do so, you might find out how the concept of MIGHT MAKES RIGHT falls apart, even when your INVOLUNTARY forces outnumber (a larger MOB intending to RULE by aggressive force), tray as you MIGHT, to order those slaves and those mercenaries to FIGHT, those same conscripts and mercenaries may find their TOOLS and there METHODS unable to meet the competitive challenge of Volunteers fighting for Liberty.

Why?

As soon as the Assembled MASS of conscripts and mercenaries are ORDERLY FORMED into a band of marchers like a Marching Band in a parade, is as soon as the many divisions of divided autonomous units hiding in places of advantage,  and cover, use their advantage to cut the Marching Band of Criminals down.

You may not see the point, but why not? Your eyes are fogged over, you are certainly not stupid.

A number of Constitutionally Limited States MIMIC, in point of fact, the concept of a Voluntary Army of Volunteers Volunteering to Defend Liberty against a larger Marching Band of Monopoly Driven Obedient Slaves who are "just following orders without question," as that MONOPOLY Driven Obedient Marching Band of Slaves being driven by those Masters is that Consolidated Government where instead of many Constitutionally Limited States (Republics themselves) Volunteering to be a Federation Defending Liberty, instead of that DIVIDING, there is instead an INVOLUNTARY association created in the form of a Monopoly of ONE so called Republic.

What kind of NEWS is this Joe guy selling?

It was not me who blew the initial whistle.

Secret Proceedings

Quotes
The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

[and]

But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention.

That was in reference to the so called Con Con, which was not originally advertized as a Constitutional Convention, it was the Victorious Group (Nationalists/Monarchists/Slave Traders/Central Bankers) who wrote that false history.

During the so called ratification (Usurpation) those Founding Fathers on the side of Liberty (as opposed to the so called Founding Fathers working for England/Monarchy/Consolidation/and Monopoly Central Banking) spoke out, blowing the whistle as they were able to do, despite the effective efforts by the so called "Federalists" stirring up The Mob of Public Opinion with their "Federalist Papers" which turned out to be Campaign Promises to be quickly broken as soon as those same "Federalists" created and then commanded their version of Despotism.

Against the Con Con Con Job

Quote
Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.


That brings my effort here to offer a competitive viewpoint back to the principle of Dividing the Forces of Defense into Competitive/Independent/Voluntary/Units INSTEAD of Consolidating all the Competitive/Independent/Voluntary/Units into one Involuntary, single, non-competitive, monopoly, of ONE so called Republic.

1.
A so called Republic of ONE that acts no different than any other Despotism, as it, this so called Republic sets to destroy all competition and it does so immediately upon become ONE FORCE that has ONE Duty, which is to Defend itself, and that is the only thing that it does, ever, each time it is tried.

2.
A working Federation whereby the divided (separation of powers) autonomous units are working to prove to each other divided, autonomous units, which unit is more competitive compared to each other unit, as to how best Defend Liberty.

This is not my exclusive understanding based upon my own inventive, adaptive, mind.

Example:
Madison Turns his Coat from Red to Blue

Quotes
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.


In that same book, where Madison turned his coat from Red to Blue there are these competitive words:

Quote
But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."


How could the Nationalists/Monarchs/Central Bankers manage to maintain their Fraud (central bank) and their Extortion Racket (direct taxation of all the victims in the former Federation) when the victims invent their own money in competition with the Fraud money produced by the fraudulent Federalists?

They (the so called "Federalists") could not maintain a Central Banking Monopoly if the Slaves invent ways to NOT BE SLAVES to a money fraud.

Making money at home (whiskey) had to be CRUSHED.

How did Hamilton and the Central Banking subsidiary of The Bank of England managed to CRUSH the money competitors in the former Federation of American Constitutionally Limited States?

Generalissimo Washington Rides Again

Hamilton unleashes the Dogs of War in the form of a CONSCRIPTED army of Slaves to then take that National Army of Aggression for Profit, invade a former Constitutionally Limited Republic of Pennsylvania, so as to collect a Tax on Whiskey payable in Gold?

George Mason was absolutely accurate in his warning concerning Direct Taxes being enforced by a Monopolistic National Despotism?

Out with the English Dogs of War collecting taxes for the Central Bank of England and in with the new Dogs of War collecting taxes for a subsidiary of the Central Bank of England?

And "we the people" are now regaining our Spirit of Liberty so as to support the same thing: A Monopolistic Nation State dominating former Constitutionally Limited Republics?

Why?

Quote
From the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plow, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!


Why would we be so stupid as to gain Liberty only to then give it up for a song and dance routine?
 
ADDITIONAL OFFERS OF OPINION

Root Falsehoods  

"For Plato and Aristotle, 'the good' was naturally not to be pursued
by the individual but by the polis."

I see a root falsehood in that sentence. I am not claiming that there are people who "believe" such lies, but many people allow their thinking to be driven by such lies, perhaps it is a form of insanity.

The root falsehood is such that the idea of creating a THING to be held accountable for the actions of individual people just so happens to be very convenient for those individuals who perpetrate the worst crimes beyond human imagination upon the largest numbers of people beyond accurate human calculation.

So the root falsehood just so happens to work very good at covering up the crimes of the worst human beings ever to disgrace the human gene pool, so my thinking is such that the connection between the root falsehood and the actual criminals themselves is not a coincidence.

Case in  point:

The Prince

In my copy of The Prince are these words written in the introduction:

"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."

Note: "...the aim of the state..."

A State is a Legal Fiction. Rather than listing all the people, all the individuals, each one, name by name, on a list, rather than that, there is a Legal Fiction used to identify all those people in that "State" in FACT.

So the use of that FACT, the use of that Legal Fiction is merely a convenience, an economic adaptation, a competitive way to convey meaning.

I can say California when I want to point toward all those people in California, and I don't have to list each name, so I use a Legal Fiction.

The root falsehood occurs when I blame a criminal invasion of another area where people live: blame is focused on that Legal Fiction, not on the actual criminals.

I can say, that the aim of California, was to destroy and enslave those people on that list of people who were once alive in Mexico, who are now all dead, or those who survived are now used as slaves by California.

No one in California, no one on the list of names, are held accountable, because California is responsible for murdering and enslaving all those innocent people.

How convenient can it get for those who profit from the aims of the State?

I do not sign onto the concept that the root falsehood just mentioned above is in any way a coincidence.

I recognize the fact that there are very evil people alive today, and very evil people alive throughout human history, whereby root falsehoods like the one just mentioned, are known to be falsehoods by those specific people on a list of people who have actual names, like, for example, Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

The name just rolls off the tongue.

How about good ole' Fr. Heinrich Luitpold Himmler S.J.?

Competitive offers of "History"

Names alone are incapable of telling the fully disclosed accurate account of what actually was done by the will power of that specific name of that specific individual.

"Virtue and the good life were polis- rather than individual-oriented."

I see accurate perception in that sentence, a root of factually based meaning. I can explain, even though I do not think, and I do not believe, and I do not trust, that my competitive offer of my viewpoint will be listened to, or agreed upon.

The human species is created in such a form as to statistically recreate new individual examples of human beings whereby the individual is created with a human conscience; therefore the species is hard wired (figuratively) with the means to produce good life.

You can, of course, take or leave my offer of a competitive viewpoint concerning the sentence quoted.

"All this means that Plato's and Aristotle's thought was statist and elitist to the core, a statism which unfortunately permeated 'classical' (Greek and Roman) philosophy as well as heavily influencing Christian and medieval thought."

I see no reason to call criminals anything other than criminals, so your use of the root word State, to point toward criminals, and then call those criminals "statist" is non-competitive in my view. You help the criminals cover up their crimes, in my opinion, in each case where the criminals are pointed at, and the criminals are then called something other than criminals.

You can continue helping the criminals all you want, what business is it of mine?

"Classical 'natural law' philosophy therefore never arrived at the later elaboration, first in the Middle Ages and then in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of the 'natural rights' of the individual which may not be invaded by man or by government."

I am not inspired to argue with your limited sources of historical information that you use to form your conclusions. I trust that you will not accept any alternative sources of information as being competitive sources of information; therefore there is no point in me offering competitive sources of information.

Getting past your versions of history that may, or most likely are not, based upon accurate history, I find the following words to be inspiring a competitive response from me to you, or to anyone else who may be reading our conversation (thankfully one that is not accelerating into character assassination):

"The arts are frowned on, and the life of the citizens was to be policed to suppress any dangerous thoughts or ideas that might come to the surface."

My response to that sentence is to offer in return a quote from a very valuable source of words.

Nobel Lecture

Quote
We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.

And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood, not to support false actions! Let THAT enter the world, let it even reign in the world - but not with my help. But writers and artists can achieve more: they can CONQUER FALSEHOOD! In the struggle with falsehood art always did win and it always does win! Openly, irrefutably for everyone! Falsehood can hold out against much in this world, but not against art.


Here, following, again is the root falsehood of holding a thing accountable for the actions of individual human beings:

"...of the state's positive law over the natural or divine order..."

I don't buy such nonsense; no thanks.

I'm not accusing anyone of "believing" such nonsense, I merely see the nonsense in the sentence, so I point it out, and I reject it.

"By the beginning of the seventeenth century, royal absolutism had emerged victorious all over Europe."

Again, no thanks, there were people, actual people, and those actual people managed to perpetrate very evil crimes by hiding their crimes behind false "good" reasons, or whatever, I'm not buying into the game of blaming the actual crimes done by the actual people on a nebulous entity, or thing, known as "absolutism," however I can entertain the idea that there was, and is, a person, or group of individuals, who invent, and reinvent, and then use, and then reuse, the concept of perpetrating crimes behind a false front known as Brand X (absolutism) or Brand Y (nihilism), so long as it works to accomplish the job (hide the criminals perpetrating the crime) the flavor of the false front, or the color of the false flag, is incidental.

The bodies still pile up even after the false flag is changed from red to blue and then back to red again.

"... state privilege..."

Here again there is the use of a Legal Fiction which is fine, so long as it is understood that there is no such THING, therefore a state cannot gain, or be given, or lose, or have taken away, any such thing as privilege, while, on the contrary, as a point of demonstrable fact, the actual people perpetrating crimes, and calling their crimes "privilege" happens in time and place, sometimes the victims of those crimes perpetrated by those criminals may actually be led to believe the lie too: believing that crimes are "privileges" taken by a thing known as a "state".

I don't believe such nonsense.

Criminals perpetrate crimes and they have a routine going whereby the criminals hide their crimes behind false fronts and false flags.

Which false fronts and which false flags work best; what qualities of the front or the flag are best to suit the purpose of hiding the crimes?

"...alleged necessity for piling up bullion in a country..."

I'm not so fast at discrediting the practice of collecting things into a central location if that is what you are doing with those words.

When criminals collect what they steal into a central location then the discredit is shared by the thieves who perpetrate crimes and by the victims for failing to defend against those crimes; there is no cause (in my view) to discredit the practice of collecting things into a central location.

____________________________________________________________
In fact, mercantilism was all of these things; it was a comprehensive system of state building,state privilege, and what might be called 'state monopoly capitalism'.
_____________________________________________________________

If it is crime then I call it crime, I might call it "state monopoly capitalism" if I wanted to help the criminals hide their crimes.

I don't.

"But state absolutism means that the state must and maintain allies among powerful groups in the economy, and it also provides a cockpit for lobbying for special privilege among such groups."

It, whatever name you want to parrot, or if you want to put an accurate name on it, is crime, and it is not a new human (criminal) invention, so I think I get the point.

"With SO MANY people that derive their “station in life” from the government in these times it is virtually impossible to get people to listen to these ideas, people dependent on the State will tune out because they do not what to be accused of being part of the problem."

Here is where the "government shut down" routine can be understood accurately instead of falsely. The criminals and their minions realize that their game is up. The minions, or slaves, or cooperators who cooperate in the process of perpetrating crimes upon their targeted victims, the victims who always are the people who produce anything worth stealing, find out (the minions find out), in real terms, that their "hosts" (victims) can no longer afford to be connected to the "parasites" (criminals and minions) and the realization comes in the form of a sudden shock whereby the well runs dry. The Natural Law known as the Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, as the number of criminals being incorporated into the crime group grow too numerous to feed upon the shrinking supply of victims (producers), and here at this time it may be a good idea for the remaining producers to wise up, and learn from that shocking realization that is being realized by those minions in that criminal group.

A producer certainly "feels the pain" but perhaps not in the same way as one of the minions may feel the sudden shock of having their gravy train come to a sudden halt.

The competitive, voluntary, producer continuously looks for competitive earning potential despite the sudden loss of a job, which is ongoing, as the competitive, voluntary, producer may be constantly looking for a better earning job, even while employment is currently producing income, so the shock is not sudden, and the shock is not devastating - there is no shock, it is business as usual within what still exists as "the animated contest of freedom."

For a member of the criminal minions, those not at the top of the criminal structure, the sudden loss of booty handed down from the more powerful criminals to the lesser powerful criminals leaves the minion, each one, leaves each minion, helpless, powerless, devastated, alone, in deed, because of the nature of the criminal organization; which is DEPENDENCY upon it (the criminals higher up), which is in turn a DEPENDENCY upon the independent (voluntary and competitive) producers.

Here, a person can say, is the HOST group, right here, and "it" produces though voluntary, free market (what remains of it in Liberty), competition: meaning that there is a list of names of INDEPENDENT producers working cooperatively and competitively (adaptively not antagonistically) in a free market to produce more today than was here yesterday, so there is an output which can be called surplus wealth, earnings, property, profits, or booty, depending upon word choices chosen to point out what now is where once there was nothing.

Here then is a criminal group, and "it" steals, meaning that there is a list of names of DEPENDENT criminals who DEPEND upon the HOST group, and who DEPEND upon the absolute necessity of the criminal group creating ever greater lies, ever greater threats, and ever greater destructive violence which is absolutely required in ORDER to maintain the connection between the criminal group and the HOST group: whereby the booty flows from the producers to the criminals and their minions.

So the most powerful criminals have figured out how to shock their minions into a frenzy of feeding upon each other and such things are exemplified with the current so called "government shut down" which can be called a "government shut down" if you happen to believe in such nonsense, while I call it what it is instead.

It is not a "government shut down" it is, in point of fact, a method by which the more powerful criminals set their minions one against the other, so as to reduce the numbers of minions being fed by their crime organization once the (natural) Law of Diminishing Returns sets in, in FACT, when the output of booty is not enough to feed the bloated numbers of criminals and minions.



 

ADDITIONS II

From the Horses; Mouths?
 
I have been allowed to be the California State Common Law Grand Jury Organizer within the following group:

National Liberty Alliance State Organizer List

I attend the National Monday Meetups.

Last night was a typical effort to find agreement in principle and purpose.

My responses to last nights Meetup are offer to anyone who cares to know here:

Power Independence Blog Liberty Day Challenge

That is my Blog, which will be replaced by a new entry.

Here is a more permanent record:

Power Independence Forum National Liberty Alliance Topic

The concept is not only sound, it is legal, not arguably legal, it is legal in the true sense of the word, whereby law is a concept shared by people, throughout history, to be a voluntary association among volunteers who volunteer to find competitive methods of maintaining Liberty.

Liberty is a tough concept to convey to a well practiced lair, or a minion in the service of criminals.

Criminals know what Liberty is, and it is known by criminals as something to be feared, something that must be destroyed, if crime is going to pay well.

My suggestion offered to the Topic starter is to start learning more about ancient common law, which is not the FALSE Common Law which is a counterfeit version of the original.

Anyone who becomes confused about common law (the real thing which is synonymous with Liberty) is probably a victim of the efforts of criminals whereby criminals have produced many false versions of common law, so as to censor, block, crush, destroy, render powerless, the actual efforts of volunteers who volunteer to defend liberty in competitive ways that expend the least cost yet remain to be effective ways to defend Liberty.

I've found more than one source of information that serves to be a competitive example of evidence documented how common law (the original employment of Trial by Jury based upon sortition) became a false version, or a Usurpation, whereby the voluntary association became an Involuntary one.

Here is one:

Exhibit A

Quote
Before 1066 all laws were local and enforced in the manorial, shire and hundred courts. Under the Normans, Royal Courts began to emerge from the King's Council (Curia Regis). These did not take over the jurisdiction of the local courts immediately, but over a long period of time the local courts lost jurisdiction over cases and thus lost income. A practice was started of sending judges around the country to hold assizes (or sittings) to hear cases locally. This enabled the judges, over a period of roughly 200 years, to take the best local laws and apply them throughout the land, thus creating law which was `common to the whole country ie, common law.

Originally the King's Council carried out the three functions of state, namely legislative, executive and judicial. It dealt with all cases in which the King had a direct interest, like breaches of the peace. Eventually the courts split off from the Council and formed the main common law courts. The Court of Exchequer, which dealt with the collection of revenues, was the first to separate, in the reign of Henry I (1100-1135). The Court of Common Pleas stayed in Westminster Hall to deal with disputes between individuals, while the King's Council travelled round the country. The Court of King's Bench separated sometime after 1230. Justices of the Peace (or magistrates) originated from a Royal Proclamation of 1195 creating 'Knights of the Peace' to assist the Sheriff in enforcing the law. They were later given judicial functions and dealt with minor crimes.

and

The Court of Equity (or Chancery) became very popular because of its flexibility; its superior procedures; and its more appropriate remedies. Problems arose as to the issue of injunctions: the common law courts objected to the Chancellor issuing injunctions restraining the parties to an action at common law either from proceeding with it or, having obtained judgement, from entering it in cases where, in the Chancellor's opinion, injustice would result. Consequently, a certain rivalry developed between the two courts and this came to a head in the Earl of Oxford's Case (1616) 1 Rep Ch 1 in which the common law court gave a verdict in favour of one party and the Court of Equity then issued an injunction to prevent that party enforcing that judgement. The dispute was referred to the King who asked the Attorney-General to make a ruling. It was decided that in cases of conflict between common law and equity, equity was to prevail. From that time on the common law and equity worked together, side by side.

Note the dates.

The following is a very important work done by Lysander Spooner (a person living in America who was later called an Anarchist):

Trial by Jury

Quote
FOR more than six hundred years - that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 - there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a "palladium of liberty "- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government - they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

Note the date.

If you read the whole work done by Lysander Spooner you will be informed as to the methods by which the criminals retake control of Trial by Jury, turning a Voluntary Association into an Involuntary Association. Then you can see how free people are inspired to expend all the costs required to move their behinds from England to America, and they take with them the concept of Trial by Jury - based upon sortition.

Now, at this time, people have no place to run, and no place to hide, no place to go and start defending Liberty in a New World.

What does that leave?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Thu Oct 31st, 2013 05:51 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
In the effort to be more precise with offers of information the following link is added as the Record of the Monday National Meetup for 10/28/2013

National Liberty Alliance Monday Meetup 10/28/2013

My offers of information began at time 43:00

On the subject of "What are we fighting for, who are we fighting against, and how best to reach the goal?"

If we are fighting for Liberty, then we can't be fighting for our power to defend against our enslavement SO AS TO THEN become masters of other people who we make into slaves.

If we are fighting in defense of Liberty (no slaves) then we can't enslave people so as to reach our goal, we can't enslave people once we reach our goal, and we can't enslave people after we reach our goal, if, in fact, our goal is to defend Liberty (no slaves).

The Con Con in 1787 was a combination of Central Bankers and Human Slavers ENDING LIBERTY in this country we call America.

If someone listens to the words spoken by John someone may become very confused as to what is a country, what is a nation state, what is a republic, and what is a federation.

If the goal is to confuse people, then the goal can be reached easily.

A country is a place on earth where people live in agreement to defend Liberty as the people in that country govern themselves by consent.

A country is a place on earth where the common bond is a common agreement to figure out what exactly constitutes agreement each new day during each new life.

A country is a place on earth whereby the trials and errors of the people finding agreement become, over time, something known as the law of the country.

Are these words, such as the word country, my exclusive property or are these words, such as the word country, an ancient cultural tradition handed down from generation to generation among free people who find ways to find agreement so as to defend Liberty?

Is the definition of what the word country means, here, here offered to you the reader, my exclusive interpretation of the word country, or is the definition being offered, so as to clear up any confusion, something shared, as in a shared agreement over many generations going back through centuries of time?

Evidence:

Records of Courts

Quote:

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object. "The trial by jury," then, is a "trial by the country" - that is, by the people - as distinguished from a trial by the government.

May a candid world reflect upon the accurate meaning, intended meaning, of the word country, so as to offer something and hope for an agreement that spreads far and wide, at least as far as the boarders of a country.

In other words, the country is not meant to be a word that becomes a Legal Fiction.

If the word country becomes a Legal Fiction then the word country become a "government" so called.

A. Here is the country

B. Here is the government

Which one of the two (A or B) employs, or exists before the other, which then precedes, and then creates, the other one?

A. Here is where the employers exist, within this geographical area on this planet.

B. Here, in this geographical area on this planet, these people here create something that they voluntarily agree to maintain once it is created, and the people's voluntary creation, that they create, and that they maintain, is called by them a "government" so called.

A. Here in this country are all these people who agree to create and maintain something for their benefit.

B. Here is what they create.

Which comes first?

A. The country

B. The government

Who employs, who is then employed?

A. The people who are alive within the geographical area of a country

B. The number less than the whole number who are paid as employees, hired by the whole number (in agreement) whereby the employees are hired to specialize at certain jobs, to reach certain goals, in defense of Liberty, which is the universal, agreed upon, goal of government, without exception.

Those who except themselves, those who do not agree with the concept of forming a voluntary government in defense of Liberty are called by a useful name.

A. The people who agree to form a government in their country in defense of Liberty, ever single person who is capable of understanding simple common sense agrees with the absolute necessity to defend against those POWERS that destroy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, or other such wordings that convey an indisputable necessity BECAUSE there are POWERS that WILL destroy Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, WITHOUT agreement to work toward effective defense.

B. The Employees hired to defend Liberty because the Employees are competitively chosen as the BEST (highest quality and lowest cost) at that work of defending Liberty.

C. Those who do not agree BECAUSE they are among the number of people who constitute one of the POWERS that work to reach the goal of destroying Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

So what is the accurate word for the place where free people live in agreement whereby the universal agreement becomes, over time, a cultural agreement handed down from generation to generation, whereby these people always end up agreeing to defend Liberty? What is the name for that place where free people exist on this planet?

The word is COUNTRY, in context, in history, from England, imported to America, for a candid world to know.

So what is the word the accurately identifies the people who do not agree to work in defense of Liberty AND these people also agree to destroy Liberty, so what is the word for that group of people who seek to steal, rob, rape, enslave, torture, murder, and mass murder innocent people who exist in a country where Liberty exists EXCEPT for the actions perpetrated by these criminals?

The word is criminals.

A. The country (all are doing just fine without the "help" offered by criminals)

B. Criminals invading, stealing, robbing, raping, enslaving, torturing, murdering, and mass murdering.

C. A means by which the POWER of B is less than the POWER of A above.

What is a good word for C above?

1. Government by consent, or voluntary government, or self government, or Rule of Law whereby no one is above the Law, and everyone without exception is processed the same way by the Law, for those who agree with the Law, and despite those who agree to BE CRIMINALS.

2. Republic

3. Federation

4. State

I know that my comments, that I offer, are long winded, however there is a need to communicate accurately, failure to do so can lead to innocent people being punished for no good reason.

 The MEANING behind the WORD is more important than the actual WORD.

Which MEANING is better before choosing which WORD is better when answering the question concerning WHAT is employed by the people in defense of Liberty?

A number of people are hired by a number of people doing the hiring, and these employees are hired to specialize in defending innocent people as innocent people are being attacked by CRIMINALS; whereby those CRIMINALS prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they do not agree to work in defense of Liberty.

If the number of CRIMINALS attacking the number of innocent victims is a small number, then it makes no sense for people in New York to hire defenders of Liberty in defense against 2 guys in California who are currently robbing 1 little girl at a sidewalk lemon-aid stand, whereby the little girl has turned a cardboard box upside down, and the little girl now has a handful of pennies that the CRIMINALS are stealing from the little girl.

The dad walks out and tells the two boys who are stepping outside of the common law of the country, law of the land, and the dad says to the two boys that they best return the pennies fast before the mom finds out what is happening.

A band of 1,000 CRIMINALS land by boat into San-Francisco Bay.

Is that any concern for the people of New York?

If Liberty is defendable in New York by free people then free people can defend Liberty in California.

One Constitutionally Limited Republic is almost as good as another, and when one becomes despotic, no longer capable of defending Liberty, then all the other Constitutionally Limited Republics can figure out a way to help the people in their country out of a jam.

When California becomes a despotic tyranny whereby Liberty is against the law because the CRIMINALS took over that former Constitutionally Limited Republic, then New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Texas, on and on, can offer California victims of Tyranny a place to run, as the runaway slaves runaway from the Tyranny in California, they can run to find sanctuary in other Constitutionally Limited Republics since California is temporarily no longer part of the free country because the CRIMINALS took over in California.

What happens if the largest band of CRIMINALS ever to exist on the planet land by air, sea, and land into New England, California, Texas, Alaska, Washington "State," Florida, and Kansas, all at once?

What can all those Constitutionally Limited Republics, governed by employees hired by the people in this country, do, as a competitive, voluntary, alternative to being overrun, enslaved, by such a large army of CRIMINALS?

Feed them our first born to roast on their fires as they consume everything and everyone in sight?

No.

The concept of DETERRENCE is not a new idea.

If all the people in this country agree to defend Liberty at home, in our towns, in our cities, in our counties, and in our Constitutionally Limited Republics, or States, then it stands to reason that we the people can agree to a voluntary alliance of States forming a voluntary Union known as a Federation.

The Federal government is there for DETERRENCE against very large armies of CRIMINALS, whereby the CRIMINAL army is larger than any POWER that can exist in any of the individual States.

One small Constitutionally Limited Republic (not small compared to a county, or city, or town, or family, or church, or dad, or mom, or 2 boys, or a little girl) may be smaller than 50 Consolidated Regions Joined into ONE CRIMINAL POWER of MONOPOLY FRAUD (Banking or FEDeral Reserve) and EXTORTION (IRS).

The more States that join the Federation the better, as a means of DETERRENCE, as a DEFENSIVE POWER too large to overcome by any other lesser POWER unless the CRIMINALS have become INSANE to the point of absolute FOLLY.

The Federal Government MUST be very limited in POWER because of the real possibility of having enemies of Liberty (also known as CRIMINALS) USURPING that POWER in that Federal Government and then that massive POWER of DETERRENCE is no longer DEFENSIVE it becomes OFFENSIVE instead.

What is the POWER that LIMITS a Federal Government?

Each State pays into, or does not pay into, the Federal Government AT WILL.

Each State is the SOLE, ONLY, LIMITED, source of POWER flowing from States into the Federal Government.

As soon as the Employees hired by the States to run the Federal Government gain direct access to TAX the people of this country (in each Constitutionally Limited Republic), involuntarily, is the exact moment at which Liberty is USURPED, as if crossing the proverbial Rubicon.

So, I am verbose, stupid, divisive, disruptive, on and on and on. But I am not alone.

George Mason against "PROGRESSIVE" involuntary taxation


George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788

Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.
An unfunded Despotic Gang of Criminals does not last any longer that their ability to feed upon themselves.

Take the two boys spoken of earlier as they go from lemon-aid stand to lemon-aid stand, stealing from all the little girls, while the moms and dad are too busy working to pay their false Federal Income Taxes. Those two boys end up rich because the little girls keep on paying their extortion fees?

No, the little girls have to invent a way to cooperate with each other, there has to be many little girls in proportion to the 2 criminal boys, and once unified in defense, the little girls make the 2 boys an offer they can't refuse.

Leave us alone, your revenue stream no longer exists, if you two boys make one more move on any one of us, count your days remaining in our country, for they will be miserable for you, and few in number.

That may or may not be clear enough to convey the concept of Voluntary Taxation (Competitive but not Antagonistic Liberty) versus Involuntary Taxation (Monopoly Antagonistic Crime made Legal or Fraud and Extortion).

A simpler version may work better. Simply put the concept of a Federation is like a ship being built with many bulkheads to be closed when there is a breach to the hull.

Suppose you have a small boat and you are fishing. Your boat springs a leak. If you don't bail out the water your boat sinks. That is a Nation State that may start out as a Constitutionally Limited Republic, but as soon as it springs a leak, it will sink, unless all the States start bailing water, because the leak floods every State at once.

Now suppose that you have a well built ship, where there are many compartments that can be closed off and isolated if one compartment becomes Despotic with a leak that allows the Criminals to flood into that compartment. Now, with this design called a Federation, the employees hired to watch for leaks can close down the boarders of that compartment so as to avoid having the leak spreading into the rest of the boat.

If the compartment is worth saving, then the rest of the compartments can work to repair the leak in that part of their country. Those in the compartment that is leaking, who want to save their compartment, are busy bailing out the water (finding the criminals and dealing with the criminals even if the criminals are in "office"), but those compartments (states) within the ship (federation)  that are not leaking are not consumed with the need to bail out the water, they have no leaks, so the whole country doesn't sink.

The Federation can be confused in this analogy with the country. The country is the ship itself, including all the non-criminal people, meaning the people who are not actively working to sink the ship. On the other hand, there is the Federation, which is not the ship, rather the Federation is the people hired to keep water out of the ship. It is a country, not a ship, so there is no Captain steering the ship, each person steers their own ship. in each compartment. The Federation is only there to keep water out (Defense of Liberty or defense against very large Armies that threaten to sink the ship).

So the idea is to do something with this Ship, this Country, to keep out the water that will sink the ship if nothing effective is done to defend against leaks, or criminals, large or small. Those hired to keep the water out, may fail in one State, or two, or three, and if there are 50 States, 50 compartments, then the Employees have to be really, really, really, bad at their jobs to somehow manage to ignore massive leaks in each State.

But that is how a Federation works.

We don't have a Federation. We had a Federation in between 1776 and 1788 under The Articles of Confederation, but that ended in 1788. What was done in 1788 was the same as having some of the Employees defect from our number and they joined the number of people who want to sink the boat (create Despotism or Crime made Legal). What was done by the defectors, the Criminals, is in this analogy, was that those representatives of the water, the ones who want to sink our boat, sink our country, sink each Constitutionally Limited Republic, sink our Federation, what they did was to remove the dividing walls between each compartment in the ship. All that needed to be done at that point was to make a few holes and everyone sinks at once.

Three holes were put in our former Federation when the criminals took over in 1788.

1. Create an Involuntary Tax whereby everyone, in each former Constitutionally Limited Republic, had to pay that Tax or be subjected to even greater punishment. An involuntary Tax is punishment, a voluntary Tax is an investment in the cause of defending Liberty, so confusing this is a contribution toward sinking the ship.

2. Create a National Debt Pyramid scheme whereby the earned credit of the people in the Nation State is borrowed from those people and then used to buy everything that is necessary in keeping the Extortion racket going, which means that all those people who can be inspired to JOIN the criminal gang will get bonuses, and all those people who dare to question the Authority of the Criminal Gang will suffer punishment. This is such an incredible FRAUD as to work amazingly well, whereby the actual victims are then asking the Criminals if the Criminals will return back some of the money that the Criminals stole, and the victims pay those same Criminals for the privilege of using the money that was stolen by the Criminals, but given back at "interest," to the victims.

In other words, the Central Banking Criminals create fraudulent paper money backed by their ability to Extort money from their "Tax Payers," and then those Central Banking Criminals "loan" the money they stole back to the people they steal the money from, and the people they stole the money from pay the Central Banking Criminals "interest" on that stolen loot that was stolen from the "borrowers."

In other words, the Central Banking Criminals claim that the money they borrow (debt to THEM, it is their DEBT because they are the ones doing the BORROWING) is their money so the Central Banking Criminals then claim that they are loaning the money they stole as if it were their money, and they loan that money they stole back to the people they stole it from, and then they charge interest on top of the fact that they are loaning out the money they borrowed from the people they stole the money from.

So, that is only difficult to convey with words because it actually works that way, and therefore, obviously, the victims are thoroughly confused, or the victims would not let those Central Banking Criminals "borrow" another penny.

So John, and possibly ever other member of The National Liberty Alliance, save for a few exceptions, are deluded into thinking that Washington was on the side of Liberty.

Washington almost lost the Revolutionary War with is capacity to create Tyranny out of Liberty.

That is well documented by Murray Rothbard.

Here

Quote
Washington Transforms the Army

In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.

His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.

To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.


At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.


It would be one thing to be skeptical of information that contends with a prevailing opinion, yet another thing to refuse to listen to reason.

The warnings of George Mason were well founded as to the Monopolistic Nature of Involuntary Taxation. No sooner than the ship of Federation was rebuilt into a leaking life boat (no longer having any insulated compartments) did the Usurpers begin to TAX the people into DEBT SLAVERY.

Here is George Washington's official Edict:

Obey without Question

Quote
And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

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.
In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia the seventh day of August, one thousand seven hundred and ninety- four, and of the independence of the United States of America the nineteenth.

G. WASHINGTON,
By the President, Edm. Randolph

Source: Claypoole's Daily Advertiser, August 11, 1794

Following are sources that help convey the accurate history in such a way as to confirm the reasoning already well said by many people who prefer not to sink the country into Despotism.

Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy


Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government,the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
And from that same book:


"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.
"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."


The word country can be confused with the word Nation State.

Why?

The term common law can be confused with a version of Common Law that is a form of Admiralty Law known as Equity Law, or government by fraud and extortion, or Crime made Legal.

The word Federation can be confused with a person who is called an Anti-Federalist.

Why?

Here are the words of a so called Anti-Federalist

In defense of Liberty


The history of Switzerland clearly proves that we might be in amicable alliance with those states without adopting this Constitution. Switzerland is a confederacy, consisting of dissimilar governments. This is an example which proves that governments of dissimilar structures may be confederated. That confederate republic has stood upwards of four hundred years; and, although several of the individual republics are democratic, and the rest aristocratic, no evil has resulted from this dissimilarity; for they have braved all the power of France and Germany during that long period. The Swiss spirit, sir, has kept them together; they have encountered and overcome immense difficulties with patience and fortitude. In the vicinity of powerful and ambitious monarchs, they have retained their independence, republican simplicity, and valor.
That same person faced similar threats to Liberty earlier in his life when he is quoted as follows:


Mr. President it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?  For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.
Why is the word Confederation and Federation confusing people?

If the meaning is to maintain Involuntary Association then the meaning is offered by criminals.

If the meaning is to maintain Liberty, then the meaning is consent of the governed, which is the same meaning as Voluntary Association, which includes Trial and Error in the effort to invent, produce, and maintain competitive methods of defending innocent people from crimes perpetrated by criminals ESPECIALLY criminals with false contracts, false deals, false words, false meanings, false terms, false flags, false front, false badges, false money, and false governments.

That is why a Federal and not a National Union of Constitutionally Limited Republics is designed to IMPROVE over time, as free market forces WORK in the form of Voluntary Tax Investors seek to invest in the best government (defense of Liberty) that money can buy as they shop for the one place in the country where the people avoid Crime made Legal best, according to their own, individual, estimate of which way is the best way to defend Liberty.

If shoppers are shopping for the best liars, then a Nation State works best as the best method of making your investments in liars pay off for you at the expense of whoever is targeted with those lies.

Investors in liars don't target the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless, what would be the point?

Investors in liars always target anyone who has anything (such as Liberty) worth stealing from them.

 








Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 02:18 pm  
Power Independence > National Liberty Alliance > NLA General Discussion > Comments for Meetup Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems