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

 Moderated by: Joe Kelley, bear
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
1984  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sat Mar 23rd, 2013 01:13 am
  PM Quote Reply
1st Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
With all I have been reading and thinking in regard to the current political, social and economic status of the world,  I decided to reread 1984

 I think you have something listed incorrectly on the forum home page.

Oceania is the FDR/Churchill regime.

However, since Hitler was defeated before 1949 when the book was published and during the period Orwell wrote the book, the other two are not correct. I think Eurasia is the Stalin regime and Eastasia is the Japanese or  probably the Chinese. I have not finished the book, in fact  I only just started,  but I feel obliged to point this out.  Later in the piece you list it correctly.

Am I nit-picking? If you feel I am, let me know.

regarding other stuff..... I am researching and formulating. When I get it organized a little better we can discuss some of the ideas.  I believe it is my mission, my destiny, somehow to help alleviate suffering...  you are a helpful influence. A balancing factor.


Last edited on Sat Mar 23rd, 2013 01:41 am by kurtwaters

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Mar 23rd, 2013 06:06 pm
  PM Quote Reply
2nd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike,

Thanks for the corrections published here, even thou I have this Forum all mixed up, and even though the Search feature on this forum is pathetic, I can find a lot of things when I feel the need for them, and next time I have an occasion to refer to 1984 I can correctly match things up.

I could edit too.

For now I'll move ahead. I have a book to publish, and a Real Estate sign to put up for the Boss.

We have a pack of Maple Bacon from Costco that I want to cook too.

I miss my cousin Mike too much, because you are such a balancing POWER to everyone you meet, and this is not mere conjecture.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Mar 24th, 2013 05:33 pm
  PM Quote Reply
3rd Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike wrote:

Later in the piece you list it correctly.
I went to here:

Front Page of Power Independence

In that piece I list the following links with these names, or titles, on these links:
Oceania (FDR Regime)
Eurasia (Hitler Regime)
Eastasia (Stalin Regime)

If you click on those links you can go to the works of Anthony Sutton where he reports on his findings concerning how POWER transferred in specific ways, by specific people, so as to bring about World War II.

A way of looking at the process, and not specifically the names used to label the "sides" in the process, is to borrow from the person named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

There is a term called The Hegelian Dialectic and it may not have anything to do with the man Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

The concept can be expressed as a formula like this:

Thesis - Antithesis = Synthesis

To me it can be expressed this way:

Productive Power - Destructive Power = Less Productive Power

I like to keep things simple and accurately measurable.

I think it was George Orwell who pointed out the same thing with a new angle of view, and his viewpoint was said to be from the inside of the most powerful circle of the most powerfully destructive human beings.

Human beings that have the power to control other human beings end up being the most powerfully destructive human beings because that is the way that they maintain their power to control other human beings: they destroy competition.

Thesis-Antithesis=Synthesis

Hitler-Stalin=The Dollar Hegemony

Hitler-Stalin=World Reserve Currency Power Preservation

The warning is specific because World War III is on the way, as can be measured with a quick look at your own monetary account.

I don't know how much of this you see, understand, can work on, improve, or whatever, but I have been working on this for some time, from many angles of view, and it consistently adds up the same way.

You produce more than your counterpart in Ancient Egypt, or Athens Greece during Zeno and Plato's time, The Roman Empire, on and on, and zoom ahead to the mid 1800s when at least one source I have found estimates an average standard of good life in those days required 4 hours work per day.

That was before Oil POWER use, before modern transportation, and before modern instant communication between one person and everyone else at almost no cost.

If human beings were able to build Pyramids in Ancient Egypt, then what explains your decreasing standard of living, on average, yours, mine, this person's, and that person's, all productive people, all people working efficiently, starting out in the morning with less than they, individually, and in cooperation with other people, end up with more at the end of the day.

Where does all the POWER, in the form of Surplus Wealth, end up going, over time, over the centuries, since human beings began utilizing the POWER to store Surplus Wealth?

It goes to a few people and those few people use the power they get to keep the power flowing in that direction, from productive people, to those few people.

They take your earnings.

They use your earnings to take more earnings from you.

That is the name of the game.

A way of seeing it is in that Prisoner's Dilemma Applet, where you (I think it was you) ran into the "SPAM WARNING" or something, which prevents easy use of the tool.

Here is the link again:

Prisoner's Dilemma Applet

I get a "Do you want to run this Applet" warning.

I click "Run".

I read the words.

I fiddle with the Applet, change this factor, change that factor, and see what happens.

If we are all cooperators then it stands to reason that the rate of producing more out of less increases to an unknown never before known total production amount, which could easily be measured as Colonization of Mars by human beings.

No Pyramids.

No Wars.

Less use of POWER to destroy lives, so as to maintain the POWER to destroy lives held by a few people in one most powerful group of a few people.

No Pyramid scheme working, no Prisoner's Dilemma, no defectors, because in a phrase "crime does not pay so well" anymore.

Like this:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Henry Ford

The key here, to me, is to realize how much power is commanded by a few people who have the Legal Power to spend as much money as everyone else combined at their exclusive pleasure, and that is a very well documented fact, and the term here is World Reserve Currency Power, where the term, once known, explains the facts well enough.

Graphs help from official sources too. I can find and show the event in 2008 where The Federal Reserve Doubled the Money Supply.

I can show you a very meticulously documented book written by Murray Rothbard showing how The Roaring Twenties were created when The Federal Reserve Doubled the Money Supply, and then The Great Depression was caused, on purpose, as The Federal Reserve cut the Money Supply in half.

The next thing they did is documented by Anthony Sutton in meticulous detail, and by way of fiction (based upon reality) the World War II scenario was explained by the insider named George Orwell.

The need to erase history is arriving again, so World War III is necessary in that light, to darken the Earth once again, so as to keep the victims in place.

It sounds wild, sure, but I'm not the only one figuring it out, and that is the light that must be snuffed out, as too many people realizing the true measure of our reality will END the monopoly POWER.

If you have the power to double the money supply, to write yourself a check for as much money as everyone else on the planet combined, and do so legally, then what would you spend that money on, if you think some about the consequences of failing to keep your crimes unknown to the victims of your crimes which include World Wars, massive torture, now called "Extraordinary Rendition", and massive Serial Killing, now called "War"?

What would you spend your money on, if you had that power that is now held by the few people pulling the strings at The Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve will become The World Bank or some other name, a new False Front, and it will be the same POWER, and you, and your  children, me, and my children, their children, will be handed the bill, the supposed "National Debt" which is a total farce, a total fraud, a complete fabrication of lies, because it is those few people spending that "Nation Debt" who are borrowing from you, and everyone else who actually constitutes The Good Faith and Credit of The American People.

They borrow from you, and then they say you owe them the principle, the amount they borrowed from you, plus, on top of that BIG LIE, they say you owe them "interest" on the Debt they created on your account.

How stupid can people get?

We are finding out, that is for sure.

This guy is entertaining, and informative, and he appears to have added things up the same way:

Trends




 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Mar 25th, 2013 01:14 am
  PM Quote Reply
4th Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I have been reading some of the Sutton works.

I am familiar with the Thesis- Antithesis- synthesis concept. Marx used it in The Communist Manifesto and as far as I know he is the first to refer to it in class struggles of societies. I studied these and other works (some now forgotten, but I will find them again) some 25 years ago. I remember only bits. What is keeping me busy right now is re- reading and researching information I once knew well. I do remember that the difficulty encountered by the concept of antithesis- thesis - synthesis is that it is forever repeating. Marx, for example felt that once the proletariat gained control and a socialist form of economics was established then the synthesis formed would be sustaining and fair for everyone. Of course, we all know how that turned out --- Stalin Regime!

I wrote a poem about cyclic thesis-antithesis, a good one I believe, called Chaos.

I love Orwell and you could call me a socialist democrat and not offend me. I even once wrote an imitative Orwellian essay about killing jackrabbits in the desert around the same time period as the nervous breakdown. It feels good to be able to revisit these ideas and not be angered or frustrated anymore. My how I have grown.

Most of the stuff you say you can show me is already in this forum and or others where you enter into discussions with other persons. Like for example :

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2741992

I am keeping an eye on you now, Josf. I got your back, as they say. And I like playing detective and following you and your ideas around. I give you credit.. you are prolific.

One thing I think you don't realize is that I was in your shoes years ago when I returned to college at the age of 25. I wanted to learn how to stop what I saw happening. I think I already mentioned once about being in a bar fight when we bombed Libya in 1986 by the Republicans then icon, Ronald Reagan. By "your shoes", I specifically mean angry.

How can you people be so fucking blind!!!! I screamed it all the time. No one listened and I was fucked up. I actually had a nervous breakdown. Allison can tell of the time I tried to call her the day after the bar fight when I was crying so hard I had to call three or four times before i could get an actual word out of my mouth instead of sobs.

Then some things happened, and since I was also pursuing a spiritual philosophy and practice i eventually lost the anger and the ego. I feel I can now help to do what I wanted to back in 1986. Also you are now involved. I sure wish I knew back then about that Lusitania book you read and how you felt about it.

Anyway, I have some alternative, not necessarily repudiating, ideas, but ones that differ slightly from yours. I wrote a bunch down one night about 1 in the morning I should just type it out and fuck taking the time to revise it.

I worry for you Joe, because I have already learned that we can wind up with the wrong accomplices. Persons who twist our freeing ideas with their ego and use them to begin a new cycle of change that only ends up repeating.

I am not sure yet, and perhaps never will be as to what is the right solution to this whole debacle but I am now joined in your struggle. Or should I say, you are now joined in mine. Doesn't matter. It's good either way. We will agree on some things and differ on others but our earlier discussion has convinced me that your intent is pure love, kindness, honesty and compassion.


I am not so sure about Jack's intent. That boy worries me. (LOL as they say)

Last edited on Mon Mar 25th, 2013 01:32 am by kurtwaters

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Tue Mar 26th, 2013 02:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
5th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike,

I don't know about the angry stuff. I think that word needs some work to find the agreeable meaning between us, and it sounds like productive work to me, since we two may share the same meaning, and our meaning shared may not transfer well to anyone else.

A Mad Dog is angry, for example, and I don't think you mean that, and if I can start the process then I can say that I am angry, in the sense that I sometimes look in the mirror and see a very sad person who wasted life failing to do what must be done.

Your link to my discussion with bear, which includes the offered viewpoint about the laws of diminishing returns, is part of the book that bear has assembled. You picked out a particularly concise general outline of my thinking, as did bear.

I do not agree with the words you wrote about Marx, and the link to Stalin, there is no link, as far as I can tell, since Marx was an idea person, and his ideas were counterfeited, twisted, by Legal Criminals, Bankers, The Most Powerful Humans among us, and then those few powerful people created both Hitler and Stalin, FDR, all the Legal Crime Regimes, so as to destroy competition.

Destroy

Destroy what?

Competition.

It is the playing out of the phrase "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs".

It is Evil in thought and action, manifested in individual mutated brains, and like a cancer it spreads, taking infants at birth, destroying their goodness, their innocence, and grinding their lives up into a mutated man made hell on earth.

But despite that, there still exists smiles, laughter, honestly, productivity, and even love of the genuine nature.

So where is your head on this one thing, since I am now not sure.

Men are bad.

Men are good.

I get mixed messages.

I actually had a nervous breakdown.
To me there is peace of mind in knowing more than anyone else I meet on the subject of political economy. I have this chip now, on my shoulder, and I go around daring anyone to knock it off, and so far, no one even comes close.

I went through a desperate stage of confusion, like being stuck on rail road tracks in neutral, with a train horn blaring as the train accelerated at an accelerating rate toward my helplessness stuck in that vehicle.

Had I known of your condition, at that point, I don't know the time period, but at that point you may have been ahead of me, while I was heading to that point, stuck on the tracks, and we could have, perhaps, helped each other out of those jams.

We did not, and that is the past. Now we are here, so now what?

I have this chip, if you can knock it off, please do.

"Allison can tell of the time I tried to call her the day after the bar fight when I was crying so hard I had to call three or four times before i could get an actual word out of my mouth instead of sobs."

That time period puts me in my work almost all the time days, which were also my run for congress days, and those days included some of the worst days for Vicki and her depression. I don't know what a nervous break down is, exactly, not having ever had one, but I've seen Vicki managing, somehow, things that were called panic attacks.

And these things are not natural, these things are the results of road blocks willfully put in place between natural human beings who would, without the road blocks, be more helpful, more powerfully helpful, to one another.

Why did I have to work 70 hour weeks, hard labor, for years?

Why don't we as a family have a spread, our own town, a base of operations, as the idea is not novel, it is natural, in a human way, so what causes the divisions, the dividing, the separating, the diluting, the watering down of those powers that work in between human beings where one human being is helped by other human beings?

My curse is to be the one sticking 8 x 10 glossy photos of the torture and mass murder victims snuffed out, live on reality T.V., a snuff film for all the "tax payers", in everyone's faces whenever anyone pretends to get serious about our human condition.

That, I could say, is in the way of my vacation on Mars this summer for 6 months.

So, how do we, as in the human species, get from here, less good, to there, more good?

Choosing the lesser of two evils on command without question?

Am I a broken record?

Then some things happened, and since I was also pursuing a spiritual philosophy and practice i eventually lost the anger and the ego. I feel I can now help to do what I wanted to back in 1986. Also you are now involved. I sure wish I knew back then about that Lusitania book you read and how you felt about it.
We did not do this and that, but what we did do together is precious, so forward we go?


Anyway, I have some alternative, not necessarily repudiating, ideas, but ones that differ slightly from yours. I wrote a bunch down one night about 1 in the morning I should just type it out and fuck taking the time to revise it.
For a very long time I've been working World Wide Web Forums, and you can help me understand this from a viewpoint that is fresh to me, since my viewpoint is stuck to me like a monkey on my back, everywhere I go, I am there still, but this effort, this drive, I have, has been offered to the entire world for a long time now.

The entire world can challenge me at any time on political economy.

Do you know how often someone will be eaten up and spit out by the experts, in any venue, once the weak ones are daring to challenge those experts?

Why do I find no challengers?

The entire world is being asked, and I've tried places other than forums, places where the Web Page says "Ask the Experts", and I have even managed to get the ear of Howard Bloom for a time.  I offered Howard Bloom my Joe's Law Political Economy Sentence.

He said something to the effect that that looks right.

Bloom has this idea that racial genetics are battling for supremacy, or some such ideas, that do not make sense to me, and to me, the same missing elements are missing in Bloom's thinking that are so often missing in most of the people I engage in discussion. Most people fail to accurately account for the Legal Money power, as if that POWER is of no consequence.

Not all people. Some people are similarly stuck in my spot, offering the challenge, and having no one reasonably take up the challenge, to improve the viewpoint offered.

To make the viewpoint more accurate at the end of the discussion compared to the beginning of the discussion on political economy.

So, what I am saying, in so many words, is to engage in discussion too, I mean, sure, offer the words you have so far, written in the past, get them down, get them to me, please, but consider the angle of discussion, in real time, as a tool worth sharpening.

I tell bear, and now I have this Russian named Sergey hooked up on e-mail, not yet finding his way to this forum, registration trouble of some sort, where the surface of a snow ball on an iceberg of challenging viewpoints, intending to move away from bad and move closer to good exists in real time, as never before.

That is the missing element, to me.

Person A becomes more powerful because of competitive improvement in direct contact with Person B, for better, without resort to crime.

A Congress of the type that creates The Declaration of Independence serves to illustrate the point.

The opposite is the Congress that creates The Constitution of The United States of America, making slavery legal, illustrates WHY the former has to be done in order to nullify, or render powerless, the later.

Failure is, in fact, the path to human extinction.


I worry for you Joe, because I have already learned that we can wind up with the wrong accomplices. Persons who twist our freeing ideas with their ego and use them to begin a new cycle of change that only ends up repeating.
Here is where you may bring your expertize in this area to good use, but we are not so different, in this area, as much of my experience has been a sound rejection from so many people who find no cause to associate with me, at all, because I do not fall for a whole lot of the many lies that infect so many people.

I joined the John Birch Society, and they rejected me, not me them, otherwise my efforts to contact them would have solidified instead of evaporating.

I joined the National Rifle Association, another example, and when I ran for Congress they would not connect to me, and I even went to one of their meetings to speak, while I was on the ballot, and none of them gave me a nod or a wink.

I joined many forums, run off by censure, deceit, rejection, including the Alex Jones Prison Planet Forum.

I've gone to Austrian Economics Conferences, and have been ignored, willfully ignored.

I guess you are probably referring to the Common Law angle of view, and how the wrong people in that group could be troublesome, but that misses the point, if that is the case.

The problem is not the Common Law people, the problem is the Legal Criminals who have stolen Free Market Law Power. I can explain in detail, for your welcome consideration, with, or without, ego.


I am not sure yet, and perhaps never will be as to what is the right solution to this whole debacle but I am now joined in your struggle. Or should I say, you are now joined in mine. Doesn't matter. It's good either way. We will agree on some things and differ on others but our earlier discussion has convinced me that your intent is pure love, kindness, honesty and compassion.
The Russian may help immensly, and I've already touched upon some of the solutions we face,  including the Barter.

It boils down to the mediums of connection, whereby the productive people, who are honest, kind, loving, and compassionate, all things necessary for cooperation, division of labor, specialization, and making more power at the end of the day than the power available at the start of the day, whereby those mediums of exchange disconnect the connections created and maintained by Legal Criminals.

The Russian calls them parasites, but that is an English word, and the Russian is very keen on letting me know that much of the meaning intended is not transferable without the language, such as, for example, poetry.

I say Legal Criminals. The Russian offers "parasites", and we connect accurately, productively, in that way.

Disconnect the parasites, disconnect The Legal Criminals, and one way that works is Barter.

Not perfectly, but The Mother of Invention, being necessity, is the point, the point is to reinforce the point that some people are not honest, and connecting to them is a net loss, because that is why they are not honest, they intend to take from those who they target, and then they connect to those they target, and then they take from those they target, so don't let them.

The Russian writes:


>>> I know people, relatives, who have turned to Barter as a way of connecting the productive people and avoiding the connections to the parasites. I call the parasites Legal Criminals. <<<

Tell me about it. When 90's in general and 1998 in particular were ravaging my country Barter took very big proportions. Along the lines of "X train cars of fish for Y train cars of metal sheets". And I'm not even slightly joking.

We here in this Country, under the thumb of The FUND, or you can all The FUND, anything you want, but know that there are a few people running it, and know that it is denominated in Federal Reserve Notes, or dollars, and follow those notes to the source of those notes, and you will find the people ordering more of those notes, or less of those notes, and all that goes with those orders, here in this country we are heading fast to where Russia has already been - under the same thumb.

They, in Russia, were Thumbed down, now they are picking themselves back up, with less connection to The FUND.

Disconnecting and connecting is a POWER.

Know this, please.

When the few at the FUND want, or in their view they need, to disconnect more from us, and connect more to China, then they do that, and that is what they are doing now.

China will be the new big boy on the block, call them Eastasia, or call them anything that works, but they will be made to win World War III, and the World Reserve Currency POWER will then be collecting War Debts from all the targets, and that POWER will then flow to that new Central Location.

It is the same thing, is is The FUND, it is the few most powerful human beings and their power is purchased with crime made legal, deception, threats, and violence.

When they disconnect from the American targets, they destroy their own connecting medium, which is now The Dollar, or The Federal Reserve Note, or whatever products are invented by, produced by, and maintained by The Federal Reserve Group of Legal Criminals, which include people working at The Treasury, Goldman Sachs, CBS, NBC, The FBI, the NSA, Homeland Security, whatever.

They destroy "our" currency on purpose, so as to destroy the productive power of the targets that have grown too powerful during their time as Big Boy on the Block.

We, or "we the people" (targets), are being raided as in "corporate raiding", as "our" (the targets) currency is being destroyed.

So, how simple can the fix get, we move to Barter before we are forced to move to Barter, or better yet, we run a State by State, City by City, competition, to find the best money money can buy, which means, in a word, accurate, money.

Barter works, when it works, as designed, as intended, when no other, better, more accurate, TOOL works to reach the goal.

So what is the goal?

I am not so sure about Jack's intent. That boy worries me. (LOL as they say)
If Jack confesses, by action, that his intent is to harm people, then he volunteers to be in the "do not connect" category. So far as I  know, Jack is on my "connect to" list.

There are three obvious, measurable, types of Connections as such:

1. Power transfers criminally (from a victim to a criminal)
2. Power transfers equitably (each gaining as much as giving)
3. Power transfers charitably (from giver to receiver agreeably, without deceit, threats, or violence)


Equity, not equality, is the Power Struggle winning game plan, because the day starts out with scarce power and the day ends with an accurately measurable increase in the power supply.

Charity can bring those not up to speed up to speed.

Crime is the road to human extinction.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Mar 29th, 2013 03:04 am
  PM Quote Reply
6th Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
     Joe, 
    
      This reply will have to be written in sections depending on the time I have available to write.

       First, though, your reply was a nice bit of prose. I understood most of it first read.

      I was telling, Kathy, my wife, that you and I are like Copernicus and Keppler. Both men were convinced that the sun and not the earth was the center of the universe. This was quite contrary to the popular opinion which believed that the earth was at the center of the universe. The geocentric (earth at center idea) was supported, encouraged and taught to the lay people by theologians such as John Calvin.  Copernicus hypothesized  that the planets orbited the sun in concentric circular orbits. Keppler, who lived a hundred years after Copernicus, had better optical technology for observations and so building upon Copernicus' work developed the elliptical orbit hypothesis. 

       Now in history one of these men turned out to be correct and the other merely close whereas in our discussions things are not so easily discerned as are the observable paths of planets in the sky. Not only that, the universe turned out to be much more vast than either man imagined. So I am not saying one of us is Copernicus and the other Keppler just in case you might infer such a thing.  I do like the analogy, however. I think we can use these names as code handles. The next time we are together we can put the names on slips of paper, drop them into a hat and choose randomly.  I think you make a better Copernicus though because besides being an astronomer he was also an economist. That is my weakness: economics. I am educating myself on this subject because I feel that some of your economic ideas are too (I want to say simple but that is not quite right) naive maybe from a mathematical standpoint.

Anyway, to continue...    

I don't know about the angry stuff. I think that word needs some work to find the agreeable meaning between us, and it sounds like productive work to me, since we two may share the same meaning, and our meaning shared may not transfer well to anyone else.
        
         I do not think of a mad dog as being angry, he is only mad. That is to say, his aggressiveness is more along the lines of innate behavioral tendencies and not a thought process. When I use the word angry I mean more along the lines of resentment as in your mirror example only much more visceral.

       I keep bringing this up because it has been my experience that something done with anger as the underlying intent behind an action only brings a temporary end, if it brings an end at all, to whatever has caused the anger in the first place. Not to mention the myriad other negative side effects such as an inability to think clearly, elevated heart beat and the like.

       I will take this opportunity to explain how I view morality and  what I mean by intent. Any action, I do not care what it is, is not morally reviewable. There is no right or wrong action. So, for example, if I kill someone or some animal the killing is not subject to moral review. The intent, however, is. If I kill someone because doing so is the only alternative I have to prevent them from harming myself or another and I do so with a sense of compassion in my heart then my intent is honest. The action is creative. If I kill someone because I covet something they have then my intent is unkind and the action is destructive.

      This analysis can be applied to every action, but intent is most often hard to measure and in the end only the individual truly knows what his intent is.

      Keeping that in mind, I believe there are no such distinctions as good and evil, right and wrong. Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators.  I also believe both are necessary for our world to be properly balanced. They will both always be in existence unless a time should arrive that every living human being on the planet understands this balance. In the meantime, it is enough, that some of us understand this concept and use that understanding to alleviate as much of the suffering of others as one can. I am in the apprentice stage of this understanding.


      
I do not agree with the words you wrote about Marx, and the link to Stalin, there is no link, as far as I can tell, since Marx was an idea person, and his ideas were counterfeited, twisted, by Legal Criminals, Bankers, The Most Powerful Humans among us, and then those few powerful people created both Hitler and Stalin, FDR, all the Legal Crime Regimes, so as to destroy competition.

     You don't agree!!!!   That's good, because what you said here is what I meant. Ideas can be twisted around and misrepresented.  But I do stand by the idea that thesis / antithesis /  synthesis / is never ending except, as explained in my previous paragraph,  until  every human being understands this concept. In the meantime...

    Now I have a question.  Above you said, "so as to destroy competition" inferring, it seems to me,  that competition is beneficial. Yet you also say somewhere else:

If we are all cooperators then it stands to reason that the rate of producing more out of less increases to an unknown never before known total production amount, which could easily be measured as Colonization of Mars by human beings.
      A mixed message if ever i saw one. Which works, competition or cooperation?

  As for that chip on your shoulder, I don't want to knock it off only cut it down to size, or do whatever it is they call it when they cut a diamond to make all those facets.

We did not, and that is the past.
Right you are!

So, how do we, as in the human species, get from here, less good, to there, more good? Choosing the lesser of two evils on command without question? Am I a broken record?

 I would say, less destruction, to there, more creativity, but my answer would be the same: Do not quit. 

  "There is no need of faith which is but an expectation of results. Here the action only counts. Whatever you do for the sake of truth will take you to the truth. Only be earnest and honest. The shape it takes hardly matters.... Doing nothing is as good. Mere longing undiluted by thought and action, pure, concentrated longing will take you speedily to your goal. It is the true motive that matters, not the manner"

  That quote is by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

Most of the rest of your reply is further explanation, clarification, and a kind of informal history or timeline of how your view was advanced especially concerning your keystone: The constitution which allowed the "legal criminals" to operate. therefore I shall not quote it, but I will now put forth my hypothesis. I remind you that this is what I sense to be true. My research is only just beginning. What follows was written very hastily, I would not be offended if you find it difficult to read.



     Back while modern humans were still hunter-gatherers we were nearly wiped out, reduced to a population with perhaps 10,000 breeding pairs by an ice age approximately 150,000 years ago. A total population of about 50,000.

The starting point?

     This group disseminated along with their ideas, technology and religious beliefs.

     The mythology of this era was female oriented. Mother goddess, Mother earth, the woman bears the child, matriliniality, somewhat like the Native North Americans culture  encountered by the first settlers.

     When agriculture was first developed, probably by the women because they were the gatherers and knew the plants, innately knew how to nurture,  the female goddess dominated and the group, not the individual was paramount.

      Mankind thrived, grew in population, migrated, expanded (all on foot mind you) and evolved into different races.

     At some point, in one or more of these now dispersed groups the males begin to feel threatened for some reason. there is archeological evidence of much destruction of female based mythological figurines and the female based mythology is replaced by a male dominated mythology and a switch to patrilineage. 

   to accomplish this the children and younger people had to be re-educated to fear the female goddess.  The first brain washing? Does anybody have a pristine brain?

Now we approach the time of the cradles fo civilization. rise and fall of Roman civilization and then the emergence of Feudal europe out of the crumbled roman empire.

   At this time the world is divided into :

1. Americas of which our historical past, the occidental, was removed by an ocean. We know nothing of them really until the 15th century or so (maybe a little earlier like lief ericson etc.)

2. Europe (feudal system... (do you still have that game?))

3. The far east Japan China

4. The near east Arabia

I can't remember at the moment whether India belongs in 3 or 4 but I remember it being a "super power" at one time.

America is colonized by Europeans , mostly British but many other nationalities thrown in most trying to avoid all the goddamn religious persecution and wars they were constantly fighting. 13 colonies are established and they eventually collectively decide to overthrow their British rule ( they were mean to the Torries though) and are successful.

  Now, what should they do? I believe they decided they needed a central government for fear that the colonies would revert to independent sovereign nations that would eventually be at odds or at war with one another. I believe they made the right choice and that without a central government the colonies would have quickly reverted to their european habits. The legal criminals, the anti-humanists did not creep in at this point.

I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.

Time, technology,religion,ideas all move forward.. sure shit happens here and there, some of it attrocious behavior but attributed to destructive humans, not a collective destructive government.

Now comes the depression and wwii

FDR has four terms in office. Why? Because the people are frightened. They want an end to the bloodshed caused by the conquests of Hitler and Stalin and Japan and the depression, etc. So they surrender much of their individual soverign rights through legislation. for expedience. What is that quote about using democracy to steer a ship? I can't remember right now. Churchill and England's people were doing the same thing. This is the atmosphere of Orwells 1984.

This is where your legal criminal, the anti humanist creeps in. I put the start at 1934 or so the year the sec was created headed by a Kennedy. It's a kind of luck thing. a primary learning secondary learning thing. anti humanists realize that fear led people to surrender sovereign rights through legislation and they have been using this tecnique since. Now they have all kind of technology and gadgets to aid them/

But why have they not already completed a full realization of their negative utopia. Is 80 years not enough time? Why not?

Because that constitution was clever enough that it has kept the anti humanists in check for now. They want nothing more than to burn that parchment like a war protester burns the flag.

Now with regards to "brain washing" even the legal criminals are not immune. The leaders of today are not he same leaders of the 1930's and 1940's. They can be behaviorally modified also and it is corporations that do this. And I think this has been happening since the middle ages with merchants and craft guilds learning to align with and manipulate nobles and lords.  they use human greed to their advantage.

So corporations manipulate government which manipulates the masses who work for the corporations and depend on them for production and distribution.

It is not taxes to government that should be stopped but careful boycott and control of purchases of goods and services from corporations deemed anti-humanist.

Liberty day should be on election day when we restore sovereign rights through legislation.

And By the way, this means the fed is still bad.

Consider this a rough outline of where I stand. You will probably be tempted to bombard me with critics, but understand I have only begun to formalize this notion. I cannot defend it very well at this point in time.

I shall not quit.




Last edited on Fri Mar 29th, 2013 03:24 am by kurtwaters

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Fri Mar 29th, 2013 03:05 am
  PM Quote Reply
7th Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
wow, I managed to fit it all in in one night. I go to bed now.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Mar 29th, 2013 02:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
8th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike,

I have found my way, by competitive comparisons of different ways, at least 2 different ways compared competitively, to discuss with words as such:

1. Read an entire response written by someone in a discussion, and then reply after reading the entire response.

2. Read up to a point where I intentionally stop reading, as if holding out my hand in real time personal one on one, in the same room, conversation, interrupting your response, and taking the opportunity for me to response to a specific thing you say.

My way is the second way.

I stopped reading here:

Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators.
I can go back to find the first example I saw, this is the second example I see, where I think you contradict yourself.

Is destruction, as your example of one person intent on killing someone for personal gain at the expense of the targeted victim, bad?

I can take your sentence and put in place a person with a name, and I'm going to pick out a specific name of a specific person who is knowable as the person who snipes, with guns, people for his way of earning his life.

This person is named Lon, that is his first name.

Lon sniped a person named Vicki Weaver while that mother was holding her baby. Lon sniped her dead. Lon was also busy at Waco, doing what he does best, sniping, and the record of his success there is less well documented as the case with Vicki Weaver.

Your sentence:

Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators.

Lon is not good or bad, Lon is a destroyer or creator.

Now, I know, that my viewpoint is often confused by other people, and during discussion I have found that confusion is the source of much more confusion, so I can say that your sentence is confused by me, and now I have offered a way to help you, if the idea is to remove my confusion about your sentence that appears to be self-contradictory to me.

I can also offer how I arrive at my concept of good versus bad.

I know only one thing for sure, and the one thing I know for sure us proven to be absolutely true, each time I try to disprove it, so as far as I can know, this is the one absolute truth, and all other perceptions, of truth, or of anything, are subject to this one truth.

Perception exists.

That can then be perceived as life exists.

I can perceive that life exists.

Now, from this perception, it is my judgement, good or bad, that life is good, and it is self-evidently good, it is, life is, the reason for living. Life is good.

How do I know?

Perception exists.

Here is where I launch into any other direction on any other subject whatsoever, and from this perception I read your sentence and I come up with the idea, the perception, the personal judgment, that you contradict yourself, while I am fully away of my incapacity to actually know what it is that you are attempting to convey to me, intact, without my twisting it around into something that you do not actually intend.

Men are not good or bad, they are destroyers or creators.

I can read that as individuals are either destroyers or creators.

Since life is good, those who destroy life are bad, when they are destroying life, and those who create life, nurture life, help life, perpetuate life, make life worth living, are doing good things, even if they set out to destroy life.

Take Lon, for example, suppose he is ordered to shoot babies at the nursery, and instead, he messes up and shoots the person who issued the orders to shoot the babies at the nursery?

You and I may see that scenario in a different way. I'm not saying I am right, or good, but I am saying that the measure I use for it being good, is in life existing better instead of life not existing at all.

I can go on and on, in great detail about my thinking on this, including the concept of hell, and including how my thinking is simplified with the two words as such:

Entropy

Ectropy

Ectropy is an actual word, and for some reason it is not recognized by the English based World Processor Spell Checkers.

I can not continue reading your very welcome words, which are so valuable to me, since my perceptions are so limited, and therefore weak and powerless without help.

A mixed message if ever i saw one. Which works, competition or cooperation?
If I could I would pass on to you my recent experiences with Sergey my Russian friend and bear my friend who is helping with discussions and book publishing, because this is exactly the stuff that repeats, and instructs, to help arrive at a better viewpoint.

When I say competition I mean the natural genetic life sustaining power that is employed willfully by individual living beings as they choose better instead of worse. I do not mean the counterfeit version of "competition" which is crime with a false name attached to it.

If there is two versions of meaning to any word, I don't mean both meanings at once. I mean the one meaning only.

Competition means, precisely, an individual choice by an individual human being to choose better instead of worse, and I don't mean to confuse competition with anything criminal, as a criminal may choose to injure innocent people, to gain at the expense of the targeted victim, and that criminal may then call the crime in progress a name such as competition.

From a different viewpoint:

Person A competes with him or herself finding past behavior to result in no clothes, no shelter, no food, no water, and facing harsh weather, barren, dry, and severe living conditions, and so, this day, Person A invents, produces, and maintains a more competitive, willful, path into the future.

At no point in the above scenario has a crime been committed by Person A upon anyone other than Person A, relatively speaking, since Person A, so far, is failing to do what is competitive for life to exist, and exist well.

Person A is then facing a specific situation when Person A finds Person B drinking water from a well.

What is the competitive thing to do at this point?

You be Person A.

You tell me.

I don't mean that competition is opposite of cooperation. I mean that cooperation is much more competitive compared to crime, and this goes back, traces back, in my thinking, to the one knowable fact, that perception exists, and then my competitive individual judgment, offered, to my future self, or to you, whereby I judge life to be good, relatively speaking, compared to what?

What is the competitive alternative to the concept of life being good?

You tell me.

As for that chip on your shoulder, I don't want to knock it off only cut it down to size, or do whatever it is they call it when they cut a diamond to make all those facets.
I can explain this in a way that may make more sense to you once you read my explanation. If I am playing chess alone, for a hundred years, I am competing with myself, and I may become a better chess player.

How do I know if I am a better chess player?

Each time I test myself, I do find myself wining, and therefore better.

Discussion, to me, is a competition to find the better viewpoint, so I bring to the table my years of playing chess alone.

No one competes with me.

You are not competing with me, not playing chess, not yet, you have not even begun to make the first move with Political Economy, and I have.

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

That is my first move.

You wrote this:

That is my weakness: economics. I am educating myself on this subject because I feel that some of your economic ideas are too (I want to say simple but that is not quite right) naive maybe from a mathematical standpoint.
So you are playing checkers on some other board, with some other competitor, perhaps yourself, and you look over at my Chess Game I have been playing alone for decades and you say that my game is "naive".

So can we begin to play chess?

I made my first move.

Would you prefer to make the first move. You can already see my move that I will make after your first move. My move is a game winning move, in the first move.

You think not.

So we can play, or we can not, and it will be competitive, because that is what I bring to the table.

Most of the rest of your reply is further explanation, clarification, and a kind of informal history or timeline of how your view was advanced especially concerning your keystone: The constitution which allowed the "legal criminals" to operate. therefore I shall not quote it, but I will now put forth my hypothesis. I remind you that this is what I sense to be true. My research is only just beginning. What follows was written very hastily, I would not be offended if you find it difficult to read.
I did not read ahead, in my way of simulating discussion, and at this point my way of simulating discussion, by reading, responding, reading further, not reading ahead, proves again to be a good way to simulate discussion - to me.

Good meaning good in context of competitive perception that is willfully employed toward making life better and thereby worth living.

I am at this point anxious to see if you, in my view, begin to play the chess game illustrated in my most resent words offered, competitively, to you.

If it is difficult to read, but there is a will power employed to understand, then what could stop, or prevent, eventual success in finding agreement in understanding exactly what you perceive, without confusion, without misunderstanding, without distortion?

When I read something disagreeable, I can quote and ask questions, and if there is only agreeable things to read, I can report that finding, from my admittedly very limited, and often wrong, perspective.

The first brain washing? Does anybody have a pristine brain?
If your chess move is along the lines of basing current realities on past human behavior, which is fine with me, then my very limited, but not totally absent, learning on this path includes a reading of two very good books by Erich Fromm titled as follows:

The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

The Sane Society

Before I continue reading, since I've been on a similar path to what I think you are on in this current part of your competitive perception, in this discussion, this chess game, if you will, I want to add a quick few sentences.

Evolution has been a subject of study, a genuine scientific study, and it has also been a source of many lies used by many very powerful people, so as to cover up many very destructive crimes.

1. The more competitive life forms, able to reproduce, do so. They reproduce in the face of much destruction.

2. The lie often told by criminals to excuse their crimes is that evolution means, in a phrase, the survival of the fittest, where those criminals are very busy destroying those who are fittest at reproducing more competitive examples of human beings.

The former above is my understanding of science applied to the existence of life, as life proves itself to be what it is, over time, while the later has names that stand in place of what is being done by those criminals and one name attached to those willful actions is Eugenics.

With that said, I can comfortably move on, to see more of your perspective on the present things in view; in this ongoing discussion. I am very anxious to dive back into my references from Eric Fromm if the occasion appears to be warranted.

(do you still have that game?)

Yes. Some pieces are missing. I last played it with Girly Wirly when she was half her current height.

( they were mean to the Torries though)
That is a communication, in English, where I can spend all day answering, but for now I see a need to let it go, and to move on. My friend bear likes to say "cut to the chase".

Now, what should they do? I believe they decided they needed a central government for fear that the colonies would revert to independent sovereign nations that would eventually be at odds or at war with one another. I believe they made the right choice and that without a central government the colonies would have quickly reverted to their european habits. The legal criminals, the anti-humanists did not creep in at this point.
Here too, days, I can spend days addressing how wrong that is in demonstrable fact.

I can spend days demonstrating how superficial, and naive, your words appear to me.

I can access the writings of many people proving the fact that there were very bad people working effectively to create a very bad, very criminal, "government", so called, and it was no such thing. It as crime, of the worst kind, made legal.

In fact.

Demonstrable fact.

You are certainly welcome to maintain your viewpoint, such as it may be, while the things I have discovered may not be things you have, and therefore, in my opinion, you aught to consider taking a look at a portion of these things that clearly refute your current expressed viewpoint - as far as I understand your current viewpoint.

In fact, to me, failure to understand the significance of what happened in 1788, is a serious deficiency if you are going to understand how to remedy the situation now.


I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.
If you do continue to play this chess game with me, agreeing to accept my moves on the board, then you will, in my opinion, return to that sentence and find it to be a very poor move.

Time, technology,religion,ideas all move forward.. sure shit happens here and there, some of it attrocious behavior but attributed to destructive humans, not a collective destructive government.
Here is another point of extreme stress between our viewpoints. I can explain in detail, suffice to say that no such "collective destructive government" exists, if it does, it could be measured. If you can show me the measure of it, then we can both do some measuring of it.

No such thing exists, and so your move on the chess board here does not even exist, as if I'm still waiting for you move, and you are threatening to move some day.

When will that day arrive?

No such thing exists. Perhaps your move exists in a tic, tac, toe, game?

Your earlier words of me being naive here are returning to my thinking.  Your sentence, self evident words, communicate, to me, some very serious flaws in thinking.

attributed to destructive humans
Those specific humans can be known. I can offer up one name. Alexander Hamilton.

Who in any case is blaming anything done by any person on a "collective destructive government"?

If you think I am blaming anything done by any person on a "collective destructive government", then we fail to communicate miserably, which makes no sense, since I know we both are willfully working toward the goal of effective, accurate, communication.

If someone, somewhere, blames anything done by any human being on "collective destructive government" then that person aught to raise their hand.

This is where your legal criminal, the anti humanist creeps in. I put the start at 1934 or so the year the sec was created headed by a Kennedy.
I don't know how better to proceed from this point. I can say that a quick study of Alexander Hamilton, with a quick reference to the diametric opposites of purpose proven by two events, as Shays's Rebellion and The Whiskey Rebellion, aught to help you see my viewpoint, and arrest your current misunderstanding of my viewpoint.

They are not my legal criminals, and I can get past that type of reference, but Legal Criminals did what they do in the example named Plato, in stark contrast to the "humanists", so called, of those days, such as Zeno and the Stoics.

If they are my Legal Criminals, as being those in my mind, not your mind, then I put the start of their activities much further back in time, and here is where I can refer to Eric Fromm and his studies, as needed.

1934 completely misses so much, including all the events in 1913, which include the creation of The Federal Reserve and The Internal Revenue Service, both are clearly fraudulent, criminal, institutions, crime made legal, and who made them?

My legal criminals?

If I am to help you, if that is an idea you may share with me, as I do want your help, then as far as I am concerned, you may do well by moving the date at which you find people working toward very bad things to be done, and are done, from your current date, to at least 1788. Plato on one side and Zeno on the opposite side is a good place to start too, but I think 1788, why the Legal Criminals had to get rid of The Articles of Confederation, and why they had to make Slavery legal, is very instructive, and very relevant to today, in so many ways, that I think you may do well in knowing better about those days.

This will not do:

I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.
That is a very poor move, in my opinion. I can't win this game, at all, unless you find agreement in my judgement. I can't find any agreement in your judgment, unless I can have my memory erased concerning the things I now know about early America.

I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness.

Because that constitution was clever enough that it has kept the anti humanists in check for now. They want nothing more than to burn that parchment like a war protester burns the flag.
Here is where you can help me, please, since your discoveries of a "sec" headed by a Kennedy is unknown to me. I don't understand what you mean. I could use some more information on what is meant by anti-humanists, so an example of one may be helpful, or a Top 10 list, the best that money can buy type thing.

The best Anti-Humanists Money can buy list, please, would be very helpful.

I can, because I have done this before, list my Top 10 Most Wanted Legal Criminal List, to illustrate the point I am seeking.

1.
Ben Bernanke
2.
Barrack Hussein Obama (Barry Soetoro)
3.
Joseph Biden
4.
John Boehner
5.
Antonin Scalia
6.
Eric Holder
7.
Jacob Lew
8.
John Brennan
9.
Martin Dempsey
10.
Me

I am not on the list for failing to hold the other 9 to account.

Because that constitution was clever enough that it has kept the anti humanists in check for now. They want nothing more than to burn that parchment like a war protester burns the flag.
Here is where I have trouble again with the concept of a thing being held accountable for the actions of people. There were many legitimate things said, by many people, in opposition to the Constitution's cleverness, much of those criticisms aimed at people who obviously set out to do destructive things with their clever document.

I can elaborate quickly, precisely, and briefly, and I can go into much more valuable detail on that specific path.

I can exemplify what I mean with this:

The Con Con

On-Line Source

One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished.

That is the battle between Voluntary Association and Involuntary Association, and I can explain in detail while utilizing the events known as Shays's Rebellion which occurred under The Articles of Confederation (Voluntary Association) and later the Whiskey Rebellion (Involuntary Association), why, and who was involved.

Voluntary Association can be described as Liberty, or non-criminal competition.

Involuntary Association can be described ad Crime, or Monopoly Crime, or Legal Crime.

One is productive toward good life, and the other is destructive on purpose, for the profit of a few, who are themselves, relatively speaking, injuring their own capacity for good life and prosperity.


Now with regards to "brain washing" even the legal criminals are not immune.
A person trained well in the art of deception destroys, relatively speaking, their own capacity to judge between accurate perception and their own inventions of deception?

Note the question mark.

They can be behaviorally modified also and it is corporations that do this.
Here I am inspired to go into greater detail as to what I mean when I disagree with sentences like this, whereby the apparent viewpoint, which may or may not be your viewpoint, is a thing being held to account for the actions of people.

A common viewpoint, and a false one, is that a person will blame the gun, the government, or the corporation, for this or that crime.

A common viewpoint, on the other hand, is to credit a thing for doing good things too.

The genuine thing that can happen, not the bad thing, the good thing that can happen, is a convenience, while the bad thing is destructive.

I mean:

1.
When someone says "the corporation" what they mean is a list of names of people who share a common bond of thoughts and actions as those people on that list "collectively" are accountable and responsible for what they do, as individual people, within that group.  So it is a convenience to "blame the corporation" instead of listing all the names of all the people who contributed in their own special ways toward the events that constitute said "blame".

2.
When someone actually blames a thing, that is a false blame, and the actual people are not only unaccounted for, and not held responsible, but those same people can easily change the name of the "corporation" and continue perpetrating their crimes as a result of the false blame.

The gun did it.

This is a diversionary tactic common among criminals as a thief  may point in a direction and yell "Thief", while attention is then directed toward the imaginary crime in progress, the actual thief perpetrates the crime. This is also known as a False Flag.

An example of a False Flag is understood by me from my reading of a book titled The Lost State of Franklin, whereby Tennessee, before it was Tennessee, was The State of Franklin. In this book there are sentences, but I don't remember them, and I gave the book away, so I can't quote from it, but the sentences described Massacres of White Settlers by White people dressed up and Indians.

If the Indians are peaceful, and they occupy choice land, then a way of gaining access  to the choice land, expend all the costs of slaughtering the Indians, and making the Settlers pay those costs, boots, ammo, hired mercenaries,  you know people who slaughter babies for a living, a tactic, a False Flag, is to hire the mercenaries to dress up as Indians, have them slaughter some Settlers, one or two families will do, and do a really good job of it, you know, babies on poles, stuff like that, eat the babies, rape them and eat them while you are raping the babies, stuff like that, you know, make a good show of it, and then blame the Indians.

Which Indians?

The peaceful ones settled on the prime land of course.

This stuff:
I think early america was doing fine. Or as good as could be expected given our humanness. Time, technology,religion,ideas all move forward.. sure shit happens here and there, some of it attrocious behavior but attributed to destructive humans, not a collective destructive government.
Reading further:

It is not taxes to government that should be stopped but careful boycott and control of purchases of goods and services from corporations deemed anti-humanist.
What do you mean when you use the word "government"?

What do you mean when you use the word "corporation"?

If either are what criminals call what they do, then why help them hide what they do?

Am I confusing your words?

Liberty day should be on election day when we restore sovereign rights through legislation.
To me Liberty Day is every day where this happens in some way, by some accurate measure:

Whatever you do for the sake of truth will take you to the truth. Only be earnest and honest.

Using Federal Reserve Notes as money can be called a TAX, people do so, and in a way they are correct, so long as the word tax means fraud in progress, but why not call it a fraud in progress, since that is what it is in fact?

Federal Income Tax payments, same thing, can be called a Tax, go ahead a call it that, and you can be true to your word, so long as tax means Fraud in Progress, because that is what it is, a bunch of Frauds perpetrating the crime of Fraud perpetually, so one generation of Frauds replaces the next, and the victims keep doing this:

Common Sense

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

 Thomas Paine was fighting a corporation, or do I have my terms mixed up.

Am I the one who is confused?


If the Chess Clock was turned on, I think my turn took 3 hours.

 











Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Mar 30th, 2013 02:04 am
  PM Quote Reply
9th Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
we are very far apart...

It is only a contradiction if you wish to label destruction as bad and creation as good. I do not see these distinctions. Destruction is not bad, it is only
destruction...does not the blossom die to bring forth the fruit? Does not the fruit die to bring forth the seed? Does not the seed die to bring forth the tree?

you cannot even grasp what I mean. Is everything either good or bad in your perception? Is everything one side or another of a duality? Because to me everything is part of a spectrum of one thing..love.

You are using the word intent in your example differently from me in mine. Your use of intent means something that is intended. Intent on killing. I plan to kill. I use it to mean the state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action. Both definitions are correct in that the word is used both ways. One of those funny quirks of language.

Lon is intent on killing means Lon is planning to perform the action of killing.

I would ask, what is Lon's intent? And I would mean what is his state of mind at the time, not, what is he planning to do. If his state of mind is honest love then he creates love; he is a creator when her life is taken. If his state of mind is something different, hatred for example, then he destroys love: he is a destroyer when her life is taken. Of course, one could say, in the first instance he creates hate and is a creator and in the second he destroys hate and is a destroyer if one so chooses. This is a contradiction because contradictions abound in our PERCEPTION. The reason they are abundant is because in order to perceive at all there must opposites. You perceive temperature because there is hot and cold. Is hot better than cold? Or am I being silly to compare hot and cold to life and death? I contradict myself intentionally to create emphasis.

The difference between you and I is that you believe you perceive reality whereas I believe I perceive an illusion. For you life exists, and therefore death exists because of perception and one is better than the other. For me there is neither life nor death, only my perceived illusion of it.

We can toss around ideas all we want about political economics, and I will continue to do so as long as I believe it can help me alleviate suffering in those who cannot let go of their desires, but unless you let go of the idea that your perception is reality and is in some way unable to be disproved we will never be a team.


We better stick to this chess game for now.

as for the first chess move:

You repeat this over and over and I find it confusing. so my next move is only a question. Well, two questions.

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

By power, in this instance, you mean what? Energy? Electricity? Manpower? this power word is awfully vague.

Joe's law is certainly true if power means slaves.

By the phrase: while purchasing power increases. Do you mean while more people are buying power or while the amount of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency increases? The phrase can be interpreted either way. I assume you mean the latter but I want to be certain.

Last edited on Sat Mar 30th, 2013 02:17 am by kurtwaters

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sat Mar 30th, 2013 04:39 pm
  PM Quote Reply
10th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike,

It is only a contradiction if you wish to label destruction as bad and creation as good. I do not see these distinctions. Destruction is not bad, it is only destruction...does not the blossom die to bring forth the fruit? Does not the fruit die to bring forth the seed? Does not the seed die to bring forth the tree?
I am speaking about the last plant on earth being willfully snuffed out, and every other living thing gone, because that is the intent of that mutated life form, to destroy. You are speaking about a cyclic process that goes on and on, which sounds to me like the definition of life.

I can condense what I mean as being the battle between entropy and ectropy, where the winner disassembles everything until there is nothing at all, or the winner wins because the game continues forever.

So we may be far apart from reaching agreement, which to me is a much more competitive thing to do than to agree to disagree, because one way is cooperative and productive, in a living sense, to me, and the other way is uncooperative and destructive in a relative sense, meaning life goes on or is snuffed out completely.

I can offer a quote from my copy of Eric Fromm's The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness on one of the possible angles of view that may help if we both want to reach some semblance of understanding, finding agreement, or at least finding exactly where we do not agree.

First a repeat:

"Destruction is not bad, it is only destruction...does not the blossom die to bring forth the fruit?"

Part of my thinking has to do with me being a hydrogen atom for some time before I, as a perceptive being, start thinking good thoughts worth remembering. I do not know what death is, exactly, and I have a hard time gaining any accurate information from those who do know exactly what death is, or is not.

If a plant dies and the matter left from that death of that plant nurtures another plant, then that is a simple form of life processing itself, relatively speaking, unless plants can think better than humans can, whereby plants have a better way to continue surviving against all powers that work to end plant life, including how plants have figured out how to colonize other planets at will.

Plant One of Plant species One can't do it alone, but Plant 1 came up with the bright idea to get off this planet in time to colonize another planet, just in case this one planet stops supporting life, and the other plants agreed, and so that is what they did, cooperatively. 1 Plant started the idea, and eventually plants colonized Mars, for the first step off Earth.

Here is Fromm quoting Marx:

For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this: Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)? What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Cf. E. Fromm, 1961, 1968)

To me there is thinking that goes deeper, along similar lines, having to do with human perception of time. If you have this perception of death being finite, as in death being an end of your perception, then that may be true, and if true you may think in those terms of death being a one way ticket out of all that exists forever. I don't think you really think that, when you tax your brain, because I've talked to you about this stuff before.

We may be speaking about the same thing, a process, a living process, which is life, perpetuating, here and there, this way and that way, and life may have always been at play, forever, eternity, absolute cyclic continuation of life, without end or beginning.

I think, now, as I type, that destructive people may be driven by this concept of that one way ticket out, so as to reach that goal sooner, the end of all life, and they are going to take as much with them, as they can.

If I am going to go, the thinking may be, then everyone goes with me.

You don't do that, and so my thinking is that we are merely failing to find an agreement that exists, and words are stumbling blocks.

Back to a point of divergence:

It is only a contradiction if you wish to label destruction as bad and creation as good. I do not see these distinctions.
If there existed a button before you, and pushing that button ends all life anywhere, everywhere, there is no life after you push that button, none, in an absolute sense, there is no life, and there will never be anymore life, ever, anywhere, after you push that button, and there won't be anything, no power whatsoever, to restart life, none, nothing, forever, if you push the button.

I am saying it is a bad button, and if it ever exists, and a willful power pushes it, then that is a bad willful power, and if you can't agree with that, then I can proceed knowing the truth about you, that you can't agree with the pushing the button ending all life forever scenario, and we can agree to disagree, and I can keep trying to stop people from making that button, and pushing it, while I suppose, what you are doing is letting those thing happen, relatively speaking, since those things are not bad things, as far as you are concerned, and as far as I an concerned those things, going in that direction, are bad things, and it is good to do something, even if the something done is just thinking about ways to avoid being a part of such bad things, and we can proceed apart from this fence.

Neither bad nor good, no more life, that is fine, no problem, no need for a solution?

Am I confusing your words still?

you cannot even grasp what I mean. Is everything either good or bad in your perception? Is everything one side or another of a duality? Because to me everything is part of a spectrum of one thing..love.
I don't know why you come up with that idea, an idea that I cannot even grasp what you mean.

Why do you arrive at that question, asked of me as if my viewpoint is loveless.

Everything is good, everything, things, static objects, matter, light, power, atoms, gravity, as it exists in its place, until some power of will chooses to destroy everything and then does so, and does so willfully.

How does my viewpoint of a willful power to destroy life, all life, become everything is either bad or good?

Bad is a willful power to destroy all life, on purpose, according to that willful power, as that willful power decides to destroy all life, and works relentlessly toward that goal, and there is much in the way of proof that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that willful power, with a human name, that individual, is making progress toward that goal.

My focus of attention is on scientific study (competitive study, better is better than worse study) of life, and I find, in that study, people who willfully choose to destroy life, and the only explanation I have, so far, for such choices, in those individuals, is a love for destruction, for the pure joy, apparently, of destroying things, and you take me to task for claiming that those people are bad for those willful choices chosen in those willful ways?

From my viewpoint of what bad is, precisely, you claim that I think everything is cut in half as a bad thing and a good thing as if I have two bins?

The Sun goes in the bad or good bin?

Gravity goes in the bad or good bin?

You think I am guilty, such a bad thinker, of such thoughts?

You base your poor estimate (bad estimate) of my thinking on which things I've written, or said, or supposedly thought? What did I write where my writing confesses this bad thinking, according to you?

Is everything either good or bad in your perception? Is everything one side or another of a duality?
So, you ask, at least you do not claim to know, but my question is why are you asking me such questions? Who thinks in those terms? Let them raise their hand.

Joe is the loveless purveyor of ill (badly) conceived false notions, with his either or good or bad simplistic dogma?

Mike is good, or not good, but better, or not better, or more accurate, so long as more accurate is not good, with his love perspective, since Joe is so, well, loveless, which is not bad, but none-the-less without love?

So while you and I are finding just how opposite we are in our souls, there are these few people who just so happen to be pushing these well made buttons that do so much stuff, that is neither good nor bad, since arms that come off of children can help, not that help is any good mind you, but help feed the plants!

I would ask, what is Lon's intent?
I'm not Lon. Lon is good at what he does, sniping. My guess is that he is paid well.  What would be the point of asking, no good could come of it, there is no good, and therefore what would be your intent behind asking, since you are right there, and since Lon is too busy getting paid so well for what he does better, not that it is good or bad, but better than less better people at what he has proven to be able to do better, not better in a good sense, but better in a not accurate sense, not that accuracy is good, but failing to hit the target probably doesn't pay so good, or bad, or as much in quantity of power.

We are getting far off my opening move on my chess board, and I may be doing a poor job, not that it is a bad job, of helping reach my goal, which is assumed to be your goal, of knowing, more accurately, what you think, so as to help, not that it is good or bad, but to help me think more accurately, not that that is better, but just more accurately, by accident, I suppose, an accident of birth, a drive to know more accurately pushing me into these actions, geared toward knowing more accurately.

I suppose.

Or am I being silly to compare hot and cold to life and death? I contradict myself intentionally to create emphasis.
I think that we love each other and from this stuff, not good or bad, but from this stuff I think I have already made progress.
 
Before just now, this moment, as far as I can remember, I did not make the connection between suicide, as a means of ending everything, for the individual, and evil, or bad, which you may never understand from my viewpoint, since you don't share my viewpoint, but now, after connecting to you, and borrowing your brain, so to speak, I think that connections makes a lot more sense to me.

Evil people are probably driven by a need to take all life with them, since they are convinced that their perception will end completely, and so they love to destroy everything along with them. The power of envy or jealously or hatred carried to the obvious extreme. Not that words can be the actual power, but there is a power working and that power working toward destruction is effective, the power driving destruction is effective, as proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, by all the destruction done by that power. Call it whatever, in English, evil, envy, jealousy, hatred, the word is not the cause, the word is merely symbols meant, willfully meant, to convey that which is being perceived.

If that is not a newly invented theory, since I can't remember well enough to bookmark where I've read it before, then it works for me at the moment, works better for me, more accurately for me, at the moment. The power driving destruction does so, proven by the results, for the love of it.

The difference between you and I is that you believe you perceive reality whereas I believe I perceive an illusion.
That to me is incomprehensible for you to say, with a straight face, since I've already reported to you my belief begins after proving that perception exists, and I can confess until I am blue in the face, that even that poof is subject to review.

Yet, despite my reports, and confessions, it is as if nothing I can say will adjust your perception of what I actually do think?

Does the word belief work in a case where I believe my eyes will burn out if I stare at the sun all day on a cloudless summer day here in the illusory Mojave desert?

I think the word belief may be slightly less accurate than know, where I can willfully choose the word know, as a stronger word, in an exemplary case, which may help, if I am speaking to my children, saying to them, I know you will risk destruction if you run across the street chasing that ball while that massive car is traveling one that illusory collision course.

Help avoid an illusory dead child, which is neither good or bad?

For you life exists, and therefore death exists because of perception and one is better than the other. For me there is neither life nor death, only my perceived illusion of it.
Perceptions of dead kids exists, and as bad as that is to me, I can still face it, but for how much longer I do not know.

You can claim to know what I think, based upon what I say, but so far there seems to be a level of miscommunication, a demonstrable, measurable, failure to reach an illusory goal, and I can keep working at it, not that it is better, but because my intent is to gain more illusions that appear to me as powerful perceptions, productive perceptions, so as to reach the goals I aim to reach, such as the illustration of helping a child avoid contact with high velocity massive objects.

Accidents and Lon the well paid sniper illusions inclusive in the illusion of illusory goodness - to me.

Risks abound, perceived risks, as illusory as they may be, whereupon I can move up on the sniper's list of things to do, on the torturers list of things to do, for pay, or just for fun, as they work down the list, even threatening, by my willful actions, in an illusory way, my family, as I think, delusions, illusions, that my efforts may preserve life, make it better, for longer, despite the risks perceived.

If I am disappeared some day, you can pretend it is a magic trick?

If Lon has me on his list, and he is accurate, and it pays well, some day, that is neither good or bad to you, but to me, if the opposite occurs, you step on the wrong toes, like that time we were throwing stones at the windows in the old building, and I ran, wondering why you were not running, and the owner, or security volunteer, tested the sharpness of your braces, with his fist, I'll think that to be bad, and my failure is bad, in not making the right, better, choice, which might have avoided the situation, not that it was bad, but that it could have been less bloody.

I don't know where someone is willing to discuss political economy with me, but I do find people who have arrived at very similar perspectives as me, so in that, I have reinforcement of a positive nature, not good, but positive.

So far, in each case, the negative reinforcement, as if to say that my perspective is inaccurate, has been of an entirely different nature, not a political and economic nature, but of a spiritual nature instead.

I get the part where my perspective is lacking in insight concerning spiritual things.

I think my political and economic perspectives are accurate, because there are no refutations of it, so far.

That may not be good, but to me that lack of negation supports a perception of accuracy, like spending forever trying to cram a square peg into a round hole on the one hand, and on the other hand the round peg easily fits into the round hole.

What is the point?

My point has to do with a whole lot of destruction being willfully orchestrated and the idea that all of that destruction can be avoided and instead of all that destruction there can be people vacationing on Mars, one small step, and then other larger steps from that one small one.

We can toss around ideas all we want about political economics, and I will continue to do so as long as I believe it can help me alleviate suffering in those who cannot let go of their desires, but unless you let go of the idea that your perception is reality and is in some way unable to be disproved we will never be a team.
From my view I am right here, and I being right here, a perceptive entity, finding these things to perceive, where another perceptive entity, this you perception, this perception called Mike, has me targeted as a false perception, something completely illusory, having nothing to do with me at all.

I don't know who this person is, where this person can't let go of the idea that their perception is reality, and is in some way unable to disprove something, because that makes no sense to me.

Where is this perception that you see, because it is not me?

You, apparently, are creating an illusion, and then you are attaching your illusion to me, as if I were your illusion, and I am not your illusion, I am me.

I know I am me, and if you think you can wish me away, then go ahead, have at it, yet I am still me.


By power, in this instance, you mean what? Energy? Electricity? Manpower? this power word is awfully vague.
Electricity works well, very well, a Kilowatt/hour of electricity is not vague, even if it is an illusion, it is not a vague illusion, it is a precise illusion, a kilowatt/hour of electricity is the same each time it is produced and used to accomplish something.

Power can be measured in calories too.

I mean power that is productive power, power used to accomplish specific things, like move mass, create light, or produce light, create heat, or produce heat, so forth, in economic terms the word commonly used is equity.

I don't know why, it seems wrong to me, but equity is commonly used in Economics to mean the power that I mean in my Political Economy Sentence.

The stuff that is used to accomplish productive work is the power meant in that sentence.

It is meant to be precisely specific, as opposed to something that may be meant to be ambiguous, which is how I take your question, as if you are challenging my intent.

I do not intend to deceive through the use of ambiguity.

Joe's law is certainly true if power means slaves.
If you ignore the costs paid by the slaves, then I think your perception of how that would work out is measurable in that way.

Slaves produced into abundance reduces the price of slaves while purchasing power increases (for the masters, not for the slaves) because slaves reduce the cost of production (for the masters, not the slaves).

If there were robot slaves, not human slaves, then how does that work out in your way of perceiving the illusions?

By the phrase: while purchasing power increases. Do you mean while more people are buying power or while the amount of goods or services that can be purchased with a unit of currency increases? The phrase can be interpreted either way. I assume you mean the latter but I want to be certain.
The sentence does not work, it makes no sense, if you interpret the phrase as meaning more people are purchasing (buying) more power, while the sentence works when the phrase is interpreted in the later, economic sense, whereby a unit of purchasing power is a fixed unit, fixed as in total quantity, and there are then more things, more economic power, to buy with the same unit of purchasing power, as in the same money chasing around more things, and other such phrases common in the vernacular of Political Economy.

The reason why the sentence was constructed, as it is constructed, has to do with modern English speaking common practices concerning political economy, involving many concepts and ideas, often contradictory, swimming around, contradicting each against the other, seemingly going on forever in perpetual conflict, so I decided to nail all that conflict down into a working sentence.

I can add a lot more words, I can't take any more out, as far as I can tell up to this point in time.

We appear to be at that parting point again. I may be imagining, or believing in an inaccurate measure of what is before me, in view, but my guess, at this point, is that we have reached the fence. I'll be here, this is what I do.



 























 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Mar 31st, 2013 03:24 pm
  PM Quote Reply
11th Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
   Imagine there is a beautiful island in the ocean. The people who live on this island are happy. Life is good. Sure, there are the occasional years when there is not enough rainfall and the people have less to eat. And sure, there are times when some airborne virus makes people sick and some even die, but eventually the virus runs its course and life is good again. And, sometimes there are hurricanes that cause some destruction, but the people repair the damage and life is good again. After all, isn't this the way of things. And life IS good.

    Then one day the man who's job it is to watch the weather gathers everyone at the meeting place in the center of the island and says, "Ummm...I don't know how to put this, but all my calculations suggest that in the future there are going to be more frequent and more powerful hurricanes during hurricane season then we have ever experienced before."  The people hear him and they discuss some possible things that can be done. But the people are not overly concerned, after all, life is good so  they go back to their homes and continue to live the good life.

    But then the next hurricane season comes and,  sure enough, they endure hurricanes the like of which they have never seen before and the damage is extensive. So once again they meet in the center of the island and they decide they have two choices. Leave the island or stay. They decide for various reasons that they do not wish to leave. It is their home. Life is good here.

    So now they decide they must make the island able to withstand any hurricane that comes. Let us imagine they have the ability to do this, but it will take much sacrifice and many years to complete. In the meantime they must  make a few preparations and precautions which will lessen the damage until the final work can be completed.

     The reason I dwell so much upon this concept of perception and illusion is because I am convinced that this is the long term solution.

    In the meantime your approach can help lessen the damage.

    I am working on an essay that is intended to show that we can work as a team. I am convinced that one day you and I will see a full working solution which even if we cannot live long enough to carry out we can pass it down to the next generation.

  the essay began as a response to your post above. It was not intended to be an essay. It will take some days to finish but in the meantime i don't want you to think that i am ignoring you or not wishing to talk to you if i am not posting on this sight for a few days.

    I was worried that I might lose my connection to the internet and lose what i had written so i cut and pasted it to my text document program. what follows is the start of the thread of the reply I was making. The essay will be forthcoming.

I read these words you write, these stumbling blocks and my mind construes them.  My mind then constructs an image. This image is sometimes visual, sometimes conceptual, sometimes it is something I cannot explain.  I then write some words, some stumbling blocks --- No! some stepping stones --- to convey the image my mind has created. You read these words. You reply. We repeat.  This is "good".


"From my viewpoint of what bad is, precisely, you claim that I think everything is cut in half as a bad thing and a good thing as if I have two bins? The Sun goes in the bad or good bin? Gravity goes in the bad or good bin? You think I am guilty, such a bad thinker, of such thoughts?" You base your poor estimate (bad estimate) of my thinking on which things I've written, or said, or supposedly thought? What did I write where my writing confesses this bad thinking, according to you?
What you wrote that portrayed “bad thinking” according to me was this:


I know only one thing for sure, and the one thing I know for sure us proven to be absolutely true, each time I try to disprove it, so as far as I can know, this is the one absolute truth, and all other perceptions, of truth, or of anything, are subject to this one truth.

Perception exists.

That can then be perceived as life exists.

I can perceive that life exists.


Now, from this perception, it is my judgement, good or bad, that life is good, and it is self-evidently good, it is, life is, the reason for living. Life is good.

     I have a problem. I meet a lot of people at work, at play. They talk as though they know exactly what is right or wrong, exactly what is good or evil. They express this with words very similar to yours. Yet when I press them to explain I discover that by "good" they only mean avoiding or ending pain and that by "bad"  they mean avoiding or ending pleasure: specifically their pain, their pleasure. Their world is cut in half. Most people in positions of power whereby they can bring about the suffering or death of others with impunity live in such a world. They are not the majority, but there are an awful lot of them. This is not the problem I have. My problem, after having read what you wrote, is that I made the mistake of lumping you together with them.  I made the mistake of assuming that you are the same as they are: self righteous.  You use the terms good and bad and all their synonyms way too much for my liking, but  nowhere do you use them self righteously.  I looked everywhere. I apologize.




Yes, we are at the fence again. I am walking upon it. You are on what I call the sad side. I have been there. I still often fall to that side. The other side I call the bliss side. Occasionally I fall to that side. But the bliss side is very unfamiliar to me. It sometimes frightens me. Why? Because I don't exist on the bliss side. The self that is Mike does not exist on the bliss side. So why should I call it the bliss side? Because I know a few people who always fall to that side. They are wise. They are kind, honest, loving and compassionate also.


Let me try once again to explain the illusion.


Happy Easter, Joe.

Last edited on Sun Mar 31st, 2013 03:25 pm by kurtwaters

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Mar 31st, 2013 05:15 pm
  PM Quote Reply
12th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Why does my power to exist (well) teeter so much on the words you type, where I read those words, on a computer screen?

Not, in my opinion, because you  are a figment of my active imagination.

You exist, for all practical purposes, as far as I am concerned, but to reinforce the point, I too consider any perception to be subject to rigorous questioning.

Even, as I try to communicate, the one absolute truth (provisionally reported) is as subject to rigorous questioning, but so far, it remains to be absolutely true in an absolute sense; as in: it is.

As to apologies, I can rejoice, and be thrown back onto the bliss side of the fence, by your continued active association, by way of mere black text on white background, having had some time spent on that other side, resulting from fuzzy logic, or error, or lack of transparency, or misdirected will power, or who cares, so long as I'm back here where I feel like I belong.

I feel well.

I felt poor.

Poor is still proving the point, the one absolute truth.

You may end up having a discussion with Sergey, The Russian, and I keep saying The Russian for a reason, since the significance isn't so much the place, or the history, so much as it is the concept of competition, a different, or foreign, perspective.

I tried my absolute truth on him, and his reaction was to avoid the subject entirely, at least not taking up the challenge to guess what I see it to be, and we spent a lot of time finding a way around it, to avoid it, and then continue to discuss things.

I really want to connect you two (and bear) because we four appear to be of such diverse viewpoints that there may be some value in finding the common elements.

A teaser for the Russian concerns an avenue he sent me on, but an avenue I only briefly traveled here:

Dayton Miller Ether Drift Experiments

I don't know if such things are of interest to Mike, my guess is yes.

Your Essay is of interest to Joe.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Apr 1st, 2013 01:35 am
  PM Quote Reply
13th Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Got back from easter dinner at kathy's parents and checked in to see if you saw my post. You had. I read yours and followed the link and it's ideas about a bit and stumbled upon this paragraph in Wikipedia.  I don't know where it leads. I'm too  tired and full of Easter dinner to persue. It looked interesting at first glance. I sleep now.


       A celebrated legal case in 1734-1735 involved John Peter Zenger, a New York newspaper printer who regularly published material critical of corrupt then-Governor of New York, William Cosby. He was jailed eight months before being tried for seditious libel. Andrew Hamilton defended him and was made famous for his speech, ending in, "...nature and the laws of our country have given us a right to liberty of both exposing and opposing arbitrary power [...] by speaking and writing truth."[5] While the judge ruled against his arguments, Hamilton invoked the concept of jury nullification in the cause of liberty and won a not guilty verdict. The Zenger case paved the way for freedom of the press in the United States to be adopted in the constitution; as Founding Father Gouverneur Morris stated, "The trial of Zenger in 1735 was the germ of American freedom, the morning star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America."[5]

 

         

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Apr 1st, 2013 03:35 pm
  PM Quote Reply
14th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If the shoe fits: wear the shoe?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sat Apr 6th, 2013 12:55 am
  PM Quote Reply
15th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Law stuff from bear

Mike,

That is a link to some stuff on law, I have yet to listen to it, but it is sent from bear because I've been writing to bear about how you and I are back at our competitive discussions. She thinks it might be worth your time - or something similar to that thought.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Apr 7th, 2013 03:40 pm
  PM Quote Reply
16th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike,

I created a Forum for your explanation of the illusion essay, which could turn out to be a book, if you care to share your explanation with the world in that way.

Illusion Explained

That link takes you to the new Forum Topic and you are the Moderator on that Forum.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Thu Apr 11th, 2013 12:27 am
  PM Quote Reply
17th Post
kurtwaters
Member
 

Joined: Mon Feb 25th, 2013
Location:  
Posts: 58
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
oh god... your overwhelming me.  A huge reading list ...including a forum entry here of  the Russian writing history of his country...and a damn fine paragraph on truth and doubt by the same said individual .... and now I'm supposed to overcome the writers block involving my essay which needs a little more research....

and i still have to get my 55 hours a week performing random acts of kindness in because that is leading me to truth.

not to mention eating, sleeping and coitus....

and guitar practice.....

wow... I have a full life.

let's rock!




Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Fri Apr 12th, 2013 01:09 am
  PM Quote Reply
18th Post
Joe Kelley
Administrator
 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6408
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Mike,

I hope you don't miss me as much as I miss you.


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 01:58 am  
Power Independence > Book > Book Resources > 1984 Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems