Like
Haha
Sad
Wow
Hmmm
Grrr/Dislike
Send SmileNavigation
Who do we trust to tell the truth? Who decides?
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 18, 2020:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
Court of Oyer and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 19, 2020:
@Felix
If you prefer not to discuss things, yet you seize an opportunity to insult someone, then what does that make you? Is there a word for such things?
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 18, 2020:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
Court of Oyer and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 19, 2020:
@Felix
If you prefer not to discuss things, yet you seize an opportunity to insult someone, then what does that make you? Is there a word for such things?
This is a primer, I'd love questions and feedback to make it friendlier to someone who hasn't been ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 19, 2020:
There are at least one other individual working on this type of thing, at least as far as I can tell at this point.
The following was well worth my time (2 hours):
Systems Health. Foundations of Real Science. Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgVs2H11weU&t=22s
Time 54:20...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 19, 2020:
Edited
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 19, 2020:
There are at least one other individual working on this type of thing, at least as far as I can tell at this point.
The following was well worth my time (2 hours):
Systems Health. Foundations of Real Science. Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgVs2H11weU&t=22s
Time 54:20...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 19, 2020:
Edited
Who do we trust to tell the truth? Who decides?
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 18, 2020:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
Court of Oyer and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 19, 2020:
@Felix
The common law trial by jury system is called the Ancient Law and it has been counterfeited, so the load of shite you speak about is what you speak about: a load of shite. If you then collectivize your viewpoint and use your viewpoint of counterfeit law to see everything else, with that filter you place on your view, then everything you see becomes a load of shite to you. That is fine by me, why would anyone care?
""It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852
"Currently, the prosecution and defense share equal control over jury selection. Looking to the literal text of the Sixth Amendment, the landmark case on the right to a jury trial, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for guidance, this Article explains that jury selection procedures undermine the defendant-protection rationale for the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Because the Sixth Amendment grants this right personally to the defendant and the Supreme Court has construed this right as intending to protect the defendant from governmental overreach, the prosecution should not be entitled to select the very jury that is supposed to serve as a check against its power. After concluding that symmetrical power in jury selection undermines the constitutional purpose of the jury trial, this Article proposes two possible remedies."
The Unconstitutionality of Criminal Jury Selection Brittany L. Deitch, 2018
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 18, 2020:
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
Court of Oyer and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 19, 2020:
@Felix
The common law trial by jury system is called the Ancient Law and it has been counterfeited, so the load of shite you speak about is what you speak about: a load of shite. If you then collectivize your viewpoint and use your viewpoint of counterfeit law to see everything else, with that filter you place on your view, then everything you see becomes a load of shite to you. That is fine by me, why would anyone care?
""It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852
"Currently, the prosecution and defense share equal control over jury selection. Looking to the literal text of the Sixth Amendment, the landmark case on the right to a jury trial, and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for guidance, this Article explains that jury selection procedures undermine the defendant-protection rationale for the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Because the Sixth Amendment grants this right personally to the defendant and the Supreme Court has construed this right as intending to protect the defendant from governmental overreach, the prosecution should not be entitled to select the very jury that is supposed to serve as a check against its power. After concluding that symmetrical power in jury selection undermines the constitutional purpose of the jury trial, this Article proposes two possible remedies."
The Unconstitutionality of Criminal Jury Selection Brittany L. Deitch, 2018
China and Democrats welcome economic devastation wrought by Covid-19.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 17, 2020:
Why is this fraud propagated by so many otherwise reasonable people?
If there is no evidence that there is a virus, then why would anyone claim that there is one, without evidence?
As it is with false accusation that potentially punish the innocent, the damage done includes:
1. The ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 18, 2020:
@Edgework
See for one example of reasoned out advocation (what I advocate) of fact-finding in matters of current concerns: Dr. Thomas Cowan:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TEThRUAWIxR1/?fbclid=IwAR11lmuSyo8POD9lwvJJRom-aIIDAAJm6I6VMwl2z9h2xeajqxwiqzne1cE
Time: 6:54 or so... "...how we know that a certain disease or certain set of symptoms is caused by a micro-organism at all..."
Mention of Koch's Postulates, explaining the procedure. I can enumerate some of the steps:
1.
Use the procedure if a "virus" is suspected (don't assume)
2.
Example: meningococcal meningitis
3.
Everyone has the same symptoms (don't assume any symptom is good enough to fit the assumed virus)
4.
Blood culture (grow culture of 100% pure meningococcus from blood taken from victims)
5.
All people with this sickness have that one product growing out in their blood, and only that product found in the culture.
6.
None of the healthy people tested have this product growing in their blood.
7.
Isolate and purify the product (bacteria) from the blood culture, then inject that pure product into a susceptible Lab Rat (or if you are Bill Gates inject that into innocent people in Africa).
8.
100% of the injected Lab Rats (or undefended innocent people in Africa if you are Bill Gates) succumb to the same, or nearly the same, symptoms as everyone else whose blood grows this product.
9.
100% of the Lab Rats (or undefended innocent people) can be farmed to grow the same pure product from their blood.
10.
The Way We Prove Infectious Ideology
That is how it is done. That would prove something. If something is not proven, then it is not proven.
Who decides to launch a campaign to control the people on the planet earth based upon an assumption?
I can use my brain, with my moral conscience, logic, and reason, to piece the evidence together and claim right now that no one is that stupid, not if they have that much power. They know exactly what they are doing on a very specific schedule, based upon current realities.
If you do not want to continue to be a Lab Rat, then my suggestion is to look into the actual law power: please.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 17, 2020:
Why is this fraud propagated by so many otherwise reasonable people?
If there is no evidence that there is a virus, then why would anyone claim that there is one, without evidence?
As it is with false accusation that potentially punish the innocent, the damage done includes:
1. The ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 18, 2020:
@Edgework
See for one example of reasoned out advocation (what I advocate) of fact-finding in matters of current concerns: Dr. Thomas Cowan:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TEThRUAWIxR1/?fbclid=IwAR11lmuSyo8POD9lwvJJRom-aIIDAAJm6I6VMwl2z9h2xeajqxwiqzne1cE
Time: 6:54 or so... "...how we know that a certain disease or certain set of symptoms is caused by a micro-organism at all..."
Mention of Koch's Postulates, explaining the procedure. I can enumerate some of the steps:
1.
Use the procedure if a "virus" is suspected (don't assume)
2.
Example: meningococcal meningitis
3.
Everyone has the same symptoms (don't assume any symptom is good enough to fit the assumed virus)
4.
Blood culture (grow culture of 100% pure meningococcus from blood taken from victims)
5.
All people with this sickness have that one product growing out in their blood, and only that product found in the culture.
6.
None of the healthy people tested have this product growing in their blood.
7.
Isolate and purify the product (bacteria) from the blood culture, then inject that pure product into a susceptible Lab Rat (or if you are Bill Gates inject that into innocent people in Africa).
8.
100% of the injected Lab Rats (or undefended innocent people in Africa if you are Bill Gates) succumb to the same, or nearly the same, symptoms as everyone else whose blood grows this product.
9.
100% of the Lab Rats (or undefended innocent people) can be farmed to grow the same pure product from their blood.
10.
The Way We Prove Infectious Ideology
That is how it is done. That would prove something. If something is not proven, then it is not proven.
Who decides to launch a campaign to control the people on the planet earth based upon an assumption?
I can use my brain, with my moral conscience, logic, and reason, to piece the evidence together and claim right now that no one is that stupid, not if they have that much power. They know exactly what they are doing on a very specific schedule, based upon current realities.
If you do not want to continue to be a Lab Rat, then my suggestion is to look into the actual law power: please.
Teen ordered to delete Instagram post about virus or face arrest-
[bearingarms.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 17, 2020:
I would like to point out that there is no evidence that there is a virus in this case, as with many other frauds perpetrated by very powerful criminals. So...why do people follow each other like lemmings off the cliff? Why parrot the lies?
There is a standard procedure for accurately ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 18, 2020:
@Lt-JW
"He definitely also believes that earth is flat... there's no point arguing logic with the illogical people."
Who is he?
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 17, 2020:
I would like to point out that there is no evidence that there is a virus in this case, as with many other frauds perpetrated by very powerful criminals. So...why do people follow each other like lemmings off the cliff? Why parrot the lies?
There is a standard procedure for accurately ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 18, 2020:
@Lt-JW
"He definitely also believes that earth is flat... there's no point arguing logic with the illogical people."
Who is he?
Teen ordered to delete Instagram post about virus or face arrest-
[bearingarms.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 17, 2020:
I would like to point out that there is no evidence that there is a virus in this case, as with many other frauds perpetrated by very powerful criminals. So...why do people follow each other like lemmings off the cliff? Why parrot the lies?
There is a standard procedure for accurately ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
I've listened to at least 3 credited doctors explain the process by which a virus is accurately identified, and I now have 3 new books on the subject.
If they wanted to know precisely what it is then they could use the standard proceedure used to find that fact that way, or they can invent a better way, but the standard way is called the Gold Standard for a reason.
Those who know the Gold standard proceedure uniformally suspect that the reason why the process is avoided is to use lies (fraud) to sell vaccines and to gain even more power. These frauds have enough power to buy anything (they can print money at will) but they do not have total control yet, not world wide.
The current fraud, if it is anything, is a measure of the limits of the power of fraud perpetrated from a central power.
You can call it WHO, or China, or Bill Gates, or whatever name you want to put on it, it is accurately measurable as the number of people parroting the obvious, demonstrable, lie that there is a known virus.
It is not known on purpose, and there is a standard way to know precisely what it is in fact.
To claim that these people are too stupid to know the standard proceedure then begs the question how stupid are the people who pay these people lots of money, and given them power to decide if we can go to the beach or not, and sunbathe without earning a fine of 5,000 dollars and 1 year in the Gulag.
Consider please the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP98ZKt709A
“The first function of schooling is adjustive. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. It is fixed habits of reaction. Notice that this precludes critical judgment completely. Notice too that requiring obedience to stupid orders is a much better test of function one than following sensible orders ever could be. You don’t know whether people are reflexibly obedient unless they will march right off the cliff.”
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 17, 2020:
I would like to point out that there is no evidence that there is a virus in this case, as with many other frauds perpetrated by very powerful criminals. So...why do people follow each other like lemmings off the cliff? Why parrot the lies?
There is a standard procedure for accurately ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
I've listened to at least 3 credited doctors explain the process by which a virus is accurately identified, and I now have 3 new books on the subject.
If they wanted to know precisely what it is then they could use the standard proceedure used to find that fact that way, or they can invent a better way, but the standard way is called the Gold Standard for a reason.
Those who know the Gold standard proceedure uniformally suspect that the reason why the process is avoided is to use lies (fraud) to sell vaccines and to gain even more power. These frauds have enough power to buy anything (they can print money at will) but they do not have total control yet, not world wide.
The current fraud, if it is anything, is a measure of the limits of the power of fraud perpetrated from a central power.
You can call it WHO, or China, or Bill Gates, or whatever name you want to put on it, it is accurately measurable as the number of people parroting the obvious, demonstrable, lie that there is a known virus.
It is not known on purpose, and there is a standard way to know precisely what it is in fact.
To claim that these people are too stupid to know the standard proceedure then begs the question how stupid are the people who pay these people lots of money, and given them power to decide if we can go to the beach or not, and sunbathe without earning a fine of 5,000 dollars and 1 year in the Gulag.
Consider please the following:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP98ZKt709A
“The first function of schooling is adjustive. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. It is fixed habits of reaction. Notice that this precludes critical judgment completely. Notice too that requiring obedience to stupid orders is a much better test of function one than following sensible orders ever could be. You don’t know whether people are reflexibly obedient unless they will march right off the cliff.”
[truepundit.
dd54 comments on Apr 17, 2020:
Why don't I don't that Fauci is a political snake?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
I would just like to point out that the word that ought to be used is defendant.
If regular people (not members of the government religous cult) are as obviously guilty of such crimes (the accusation comes from Robert Kennedy, not an internet troll) as this political snake, then said criminal would immediately be arrested, assests seized, tortured until confessed, and then offered a deal (so-called plea bargain) before further actions by the cult government upon the presumed to be guilty defendant are perpetrated.
Those who are immune are never guilty of anything, because they say so, and people listen, and people parrot, and people are afraid to use the power of government as it was meant to be, where everyone, without exception, is on an equal legal footing.
dd54 comments on Apr 17, 2020:
Why don't I don't that Fauci is a political snake?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
I would just like to point out that the word that ought to be used is defendant.
If regular people (not members of the government religous cult) are as obviously guilty of such crimes (the accusation comes from Robert Kennedy, not an internet troll) as this political snake, then said criminal would immediately be arrested, assests seized, tortured until confessed, and then offered a deal (so-called plea bargain) before further actions by the cult government upon the presumed to be guilty defendant are perpetrated.
Those who are immune are never guilty of anything, because they say so, and people listen, and people parrot, and people are afraid to use the power of government as it was meant to be, where everyone, without exception, is on an equal legal footing.
Democrats weaponize Covid-19 to advance anti-constitutional agenda.
Serg97 comments on Apr 16, 2020:
Our Founders said that the "Bill Of Rights" are given to man by GOD!!!!!!
Any Questions????????????
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
There were at least 2 opposing groups during the founding process from 1774 to 1789 and as far as Religion goes those 2 opposing groups were opposed on that subject too.
The dictatorial side was on the side where they authorize what God says or doesn't say to anyone. On the non-dictatorial religous side each individual is contacted by God directly.
Those two sides are well demonstrated with the curious case of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a self-confessed Diest, which is to say that Thomas Paine was in fact religious.
Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
What does monopoly do?
Take the World Wide Medical Monopoly today to see precisely what is done when a Monopoly of Power and Profit is formed and then employed by those who run it.
There is only one POWER that exerts the power to decide what causes any sickness, and it is that same power that then determines the "cure."
Serg97 comments on Apr 16, 2020:
Our Founders said that the "Bill Of Rights" are given to man by GOD!!!!!!
Any Questions????????????
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
There were at least 2 opposing groups during the founding process from 1774 to 1789 and as far as Religion goes those 2 opposing groups were opposed on that subject too.
The dictatorial side was on the side where they authorize what God says or doesn't say to anyone. On the non-dictatorial religous side each individual is contacted by God directly.
Those two sides are well demonstrated with the curious case of Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was a self-confessed Diest, which is to say that Thomas Paine was in fact religious.
Age of Reason, Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
What does monopoly do?
Take the World Wide Medical Monopoly today to see precisely what is done when a Monopoly of Power and Profit is formed and then employed by those who run it.
There is only one POWER that exerts the power to decide what causes any sickness, and it is that same power that then determines the "cure."
Democrats weaponize Covid-19 to advance anti-constitutional agenda.
Jingles23 comments on Apr 17, 2020:
I'm all for the Constitution of the untied States but before you get all gung hoe about this remember that word "amendment".
And also when they wrote the Constitution it was legal to buy and sell people like live stock.
And also one time they used the Constitution to prohibit the sale and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
"And also when they wrote the Constitution it was legal to buy and sell people like live stock."
Slavery was never legal, but fraud does work on some people. Before the usurpation of 1789, when the Federal Constitution was over-rulled by criminal means (there was no agreement to allow the federal government to arbitrarily change itself) slavery was a power struggle.
14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
On the 20th day of October 1774
This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."
On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."
Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who,...
Jingles23 comments on Apr 17, 2020:
I'm all for the Constitution of the untied States but before you get all gung hoe about this remember that word "amendment".
And also when they wrote the Constitution it was legal to buy and sell people like live stock.
And also one time they used the Constitution to prohibit the sale and ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 17, 2020:
"And also when they wrote the Constitution it was legal to buy and sell people like live stock."
Slavery was never legal, but fraud does work on some people. Before the usurpation of 1789, when the Federal Constitution was over-rulled by criminal means (there was no agreement to allow the federal government to arbitrarily change itself) slavery was a power struggle.
14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”
On the 20th day of October 1774
This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."
On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."
Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who,...
[youtube.
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 15, 2020:
https://youtu.be/gezy7vFNXG4
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 16, 2020:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606
Publication Number
WO/2020/060606
"Human body activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system. A server may provide a task to a device of a user which is communicatively coupled to the server. A sensor communicatively coupled to or comprised in the device of the user may sense body activity of the user. Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by the cryptocurrency system, and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified."
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 15, 2020:
https://youtu.be/gezy7vFNXG4
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 16, 2020:
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606
Publication Number
WO/2020/060606
"Human body activity associated with a task provided to a user may be used in a mining process of a cryptocurrency system. A server may provide a task to a device of a user which is communicatively coupled to the server. A sensor communicatively coupled to or comprised in the device of the user may sense body activity of the user. Body activity data may be generated based on the sensed body activity of the user. The cryptocurrency system communicatively coupled to the device of the user may verify if the body activity data satisfies one or more conditions set by the cryptocurrency system, and award cryptocurrency to the user whose body activity data is verified."
[youtube.
808scotty comments on Apr 15, 2020:
I agree, most of the problem is hype by the leftist media, the problem appears to be staged by the Globalist agenda.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 15, 2020:
I'd just like to point out that pointing to groups instead of individuals is a diversion.
This is a basic criminal tactic. A thief in a crowded store can point and yell "Theif!"
While everyone is looking at a fictional character their defensive power is diverted and that gives the thief the opportunity to steal.
So the criminals take-over the government, and "they" farm people from birth, obey or suffer, no questions.
People are told to blame "them," instead of people realizing that the law is found in the mirror, before it can go anywhere else.
808scotty comments on Apr 15, 2020:
I agree, most of the problem is hype by the leftist media, the problem appears to be staged by the Globalist agenda.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 15, 2020:
I'd just like to point out that pointing to groups instead of individuals is a diversion.
This is a basic criminal tactic. A thief in a crowded store can point and yell "Theif!"
While everyone is looking at a fictional character their defensive power is diverted and that gives the thief the opportunity to steal.
So the criminals take-over the government, and "they" farm people from birth, obey or suffer, no questions.
People are told to blame "them," instead of people realizing that the law is found in the mirror, before it can go anywhere else.
This is a good description of the geopolitical tension between China and the US and the rest of the ...
Bay0Wulf comments on Apr 15, 2020:
EXACTLY what Mead says ...
People “here” think that China is going to pay a heavy price ... but they are thinking with a “Western” mindset.
China is a Really LARGE Presence in “Developing Countries” ... this was a major component of the “Belt and Road” ... getting the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 15, 2020:
The China take-over strategy is worked out some in the following link also, whereby bogus debt (counterfeit money scams: a.k.a. Central Banking Fraud) is claimed to be legitimate during exchanges of property titles. Rather than law working as it should, based upon facts, and the "debt" accurately accountable as evidence of a crime in progress, the property is exchanged and is therefore stolen property. "China" owns nothing, it can't, it is a Legal Fiction. People run Central Banking Frauds, and that makes them criminals, the paper they use to facilitate their crimes are pieces of evidence proving the fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3671&v=4VuyDasW-Uw=emb_logo
Bay0Wulf comments on Apr 15, 2020:
EXACTLY what Mead says ...
People “here” think that China is going to pay a heavy price ... but they are thinking with a “Western” mindset.
China is a Really LARGE Presence in “Developing Countries” ... this was a major component of the “Belt and Road” ... getting the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 15, 2020:
The China take-over strategy is worked out some in the following link also, whereby bogus debt (counterfeit money scams: a.k.a. Central Banking Fraud) is claimed to be legitimate during exchanges of property titles. Rather than law working as it should, based upon facts, and the "debt" accurately accountable as evidence of a crime in progress, the property is exchanged and is therefore stolen property. "China" owns nothing, it can't, it is a Legal Fiction. People run Central Banking Frauds, and that makes them criminals, the paper they use to facilitate their crimes are pieces of evidence proving the fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3671&v=4VuyDasW-Uw=emb_logo
Surplus Power lowers the cost of innovation.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 14, 2020:
"Ix * T + W → $
Idea/Influence over time plus work yields money."
Does money mean P where P is power, as in power to purchase?
"Ix+ * T + W → $+
Innovation/Positive Influence over time plus work yields profit."
Is "profit" (+) "money" calculated due to the fact that influence no ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 14, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
josf.kelley
AT
Hot
Mail
.
Com
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 14, 2020:
"Ix * T + W → $
Idea/Influence over time plus work yields money."
Does money mean P where P is power, as in power to purchase?
"Ix+ * T + W → $+
Innovation/Positive Influence over time plus work yields profit."
Is "profit" (+) "money" calculated due to the fact that influence no ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 14, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
josf.kelley
AT
Hot
Mail
.
Com
Joe's Law
What is it?
Please post it again.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 12, 2020:
Productive power produced (such as sunlight, oxygen, food, a better mouse trap, etc.) into oversupply (much more than ever before) reduces the price of productive power (think a very low cost for all "utilities" and transportation fuel which is power) while purchasing power increases (a unit of the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Prisoner's Dilemma App:
http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/
Cut and Pasted from the page (in case it does not load):
____________________________________
The Prisoner's Dilemma
by Serge Helfrich
This page is obsolete (and only here for historical reasons). You may want to check out the Java application or the Android app.
The spatial variant of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is a simple yet powerful model for the problem of cooperation versus conflict in groups. The applet below demonstrates the spread of 'altruism' and 'exploitation for personal gain' in an interacting population of individuals learning from each other by experience. Initially the population consists of cooperators and a certain amount of defectors (a fraction represented by p). The advantage of defection is determined by the the value of b in the 'payoff matrix' (see below) which is used to calculate the payoff after each round for each 'player' on the basis of its strategy. For the next round a player determines its new strategy by selecting the most favourable strategy from itself and its direct neighbours.
You can use the links below to learn more about this fascinating topic in 'game theory':
demonstration applet
BTW I stole the idea for this applet from A.L. Lloyd (Sci. Amer., June 1995, 80-83).
_____________________________________________
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 12, 2020:
Productive power produced (such as sunlight, oxygen, food, a better mouse trap, etc.) into oversupply (much more than ever before) reduces the price of productive power (think a very low cost for all "utilities" and transportation fuel which is power) while purchasing power increases (a unit of the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Prisoner's Dilemma App:
http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/
Cut and Pasted from the page (in case it does not load):
____________________________________
The Prisoner's Dilemma
by Serge Helfrich
This page is obsolete (and only here for historical reasons). You may want to check out the Java application or the Android app.
The spatial variant of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is a simple yet powerful model for the problem of cooperation versus conflict in groups. The applet below demonstrates the spread of 'altruism' and 'exploitation for personal gain' in an interacting population of individuals learning from each other by experience. Initially the population consists of cooperators and a certain amount of defectors (a fraction represented by p). The advantage of defection is determined by the the value of b in the 'payoff matrix' (see below) which is used to calculate the payoff after each round for each 'player' on the basis of its strategy. For the next round a player determines its new strategy by selecting the most favourable strategy from itself and its direct neighbours.
You can use the links below to learn more about this fascinating topic in 'game theory':
demonstration applet
BTW I stole the idea for this applet from A.L. Lloyd (Sci. Amer., June 1995, 80-83).
_____________________________________________
Want Freedom Vote Libertarian [youtu.be]
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 12, 2020:
When the Libertarian Party membership combines with the Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, and Grand Jury proponents, the result may be a combined effort to return to rule of law: Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense, with common law due process.
If that happens then power is moved from the few to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@808scotty
We (perhaps some people) are not stuck. This is fundamental. Those who can still adapt (stop following blindly the criminal orders enforced upon them) will.
If you say that "we are stuck with the current system" to me, then you tell me that you have no power to adapt from a system of extortion, fraud, and worse crimes perpetrated behind a very thin facade. The facade is rapidly thinning. Those having no back-up, or no capacity to adapt, are going to be relatively powerless compared to those who do, on their own, or in groups.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 12, 2020:
When the Libertarian Party membership combines with the Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, and Grand Jury proponents, the result may be a combined effort to return to rule of law: Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense, with common law due process.
If that happens then power is moved from the few to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@808scotty
We (perhaps some people) are not stuck. This is fundamental. Those who can still adapt (stop following blindly the criminal orders enforced upon them) will.
If you say that "we are stuck with the current system" to me, then you tell me that you have no power to adapt from a system of extortion, fraud, and worse crimes perpetrated behind a very thin facade. The facade is rapidly thinning. Those having no back-up, or no capacity to adapt, are going to be relatively powerless compared to those who do, on their own, or in groups.
Indicted Harvard carbon nanotube bio-warfare professor Charles M.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 30, 2020:
"NESARA / GESARA a Law that would change our Lives!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=836&v=kbRiTFc-w1A=emb_logo
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
I do both talk and type. Type works for me as memory, as signs on the road, other people can pass the sign, heed, or ignore. Type is a node on the network. Talk is personal.
Seven
Six
O
Four
Four
Seven
Seven
One
Three
Nine
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 30, 2020:
"NESARA / GESARA a Law that would change our Lives!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=836&v=kbRiTFc-w1A=emb_logo
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
I do both talk and type. Type works for me as memory, as signs on the road, other people can pass the sign, heed, or ignore. Type is a node on the network. Talk is personal.
Seven
Six
O
Four
Four
Seven
Seven
One
Three
Nine
Competition as a natural law, not as a criminally enforced dictate, forces quality up and cost down.
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
I'm love your ability to identify root cause/effect.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
I will start a new topic in Voluntary Mutual Defense. You can help by commenting as if you were warranted to proceed lawfully, as if the true law gives you license to do so, and depending upon your capacity in the performance of that duty the specifics as to what position you take ought to become clear.
What is obviously needed in America today are common law officers, which are regular people, not government employees, which means that the office is not for profit, therefore it is volunteer work.
Common law offices (that I know about so far) are:
1. Trial Juror
2. Magistrate / Justice of the Peace
3. Grand Juror
4. Prosecutor
5. Defendant
6. Witness
7. Councilor (not sure about the name here, or specifics)
The Justice of the Peace (Magistrate) is the body of people from which a Grand Jury is formed, and these are the people who were the contact point (node) between The People (no exceptions) and Due Process, which means that it was not a contact point between The People and The Government, not as it is now where The People call The Government on the phone (911).
In the next new topic in Voluntary Mutual Defense I can play this out, and you can comment if you want.
The point is to discover the real process of law by exercise, by use of the tool in a proposed real-time situation, even though there aren't enough people to participate to a point a which the power of defense works as such against the criminal powers hidden behind the facade of government. With knowledge and use that power of defense can grow, even exponentially.
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
I'm love your ability to identify root cause/effect.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
I will start a new topic in Voluntary Mutual Defense. You can help by commenting as if you were warranted to proceed lawfully, as if the true law gives you license to do so, and depending upon your capacity in the performance of that duty the specifics as to what position you take ought to become clear.
What is obviously needed in America today are common law officers, which are regular people, not government employees, which means that the office is not for profit, therefore it is volunteer work.
Common law offices (that I know about so far) are:
1. Trial Juror
2. Magistrate / Justice of the Peace
3. Grand Juror
4. Prosecutor
5. Defendant
6. Witness
7. Councilor (not sure about the name here, or specifics)
The Justice of the Peace (Magistrate) is the body of people from which a Grand Jury is formed, and these are the people who were the contact point (node) between The People (no exceptions) and Due Process, which means that it was not a contact point between The People and The Government, not as it is now where The People call The Government on the phone (911).
In the next new topic in Voluntary Mutual Defense I can play this out, and you can comment if you want.
The point is to discover the real process of law by exercise, by use of the tool in a proposed real-time situation, even though there aren't enough people to participate to a point a which the power of defense works as such against the criminal powers hidden behind the facade of government. With knowledge and use that power of defense can grow, even exponentially.
What can 12,000,000,000.00 Units of Purchasing Power buy?
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
The judicial sword is sharp and double edged.
It's able to separate you from both life and liberty.
And it's out of your hands.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
I see 6 letters in your answer, but since there is a genuine article and a counterfeit version, how can I know which version is the version you intend to convey with those 6 letters?
the law (genuine)
the law (counterfeit)
Example:
In the history of people, there was a time when a Court of Law was a reference to a common-law procedure whereby the process of dealing with a conflict was a process that proceeded according to the Ancient Law: the law of the land, legem terrae, the common law. Then as time went by a number of criminals hatched a plan to counterfeit that process, to sell to their victims a counterfeit version, doing so by telling lies about the true purpose of the NEW Law process, and so time goes by and people start referring to two types of courts:
1.
Court of Law
2.
Court of Equity
or
3.
Court of Exchequer
4.
Court of Admiralty
5.
Family Court
6.
Traffic Court
7.
Federal (it isn't federal it is national) Court
Food for thought:
"There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced."
Lysander Spooner, an Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, an Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
The judicial sword is sharp and double edged.
It's able to separate you from both life and liberty.
And it's out of your hands.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
I see 6 letters in your answer, but since there is a genuine article and a counterfeit version, how can I know which version is the version you intend to convey with those 6 letters?
the law (genuine)
the law (counterfeit)
Example:
In the history of people, there was a time when a Court of Law was a reference to a common-law procedure whereby the process of dealing with a conflict was a process that proceeded according to the Ancient Law: the law of the land, legem terrae, the common law. Then as time went by a number of criminals hatched a plan to counterfeit that process, to sell to their victims a counterfeit version, doing so by telling lies about the true purpose of the NEW Law process, and so time goes by and people start referring to two types of courts:
1.
Court of Law
2.
Court of Equity
or
3.
Court of Exchequer
4.
Court of Admiralty
5.
Family Court
6.
Traffic Court
7.
Federal (it isn't federal it is national) Court
Food for thought:
"There has, probably, never been a legal jury, nor a legal trial by jury, in a single court of the United States, since the adoption of the constitution.
These facts show how much reliance can be placed in written constitutions, to control the action of the government, and preserve the liberties of the people.
If the real trial by jury had been preserved in the courts of the United States - that is, if we had had legal juries, and the jurors had known their rights - it is hardly probable that one tenth of the past legislation of Congress would ever have been enacted, or, at least, that, if enacted, it could have been enforced."
Lysander Spooner, an Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, an Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852
Indicted Harvard carbon nanotube bio-warfare professor Charles M.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 30, 2020:
"NESARA / GESARA a Law that would change our Lives!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=836&v=kbRiTFc-w1A=emb_logo
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Much of my progress in figuring out Political/Economy has been condensed into one sentence. I will offer that to you for cause. My cause is to know, and help is appreciated.
I call this Joe's Law:
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
That is genuine political economy according to the natural order, the counterfeit version goes like this:
Criminal power produced into oversupply increases the price of power while purchasing power decreases because the malinvestment of power increases the cost of production.
Because economic investment power can be counterfeited the original version of Joe's Law above could be rewritten to help people see past the pile of lies:
Productive power produced into oversupply reduces the price of productive power while purchasing power increases because productive power invested productively reduces the cost of producing productive power.
To see some problems faced by those who care to invest in life, rather than destroy it, an example may suffice:
Had the original investments in transportation not been counterfeited by the National Central Bank and National Corporate Government Criminals, it is very likely that the Age of Oil would have been an Age of competition between competitors that could have included Electric transportation, and who knows what else.
From the power of whale oil and coal, people could have used existing productive power to produce higher than Petroleum (it is not "fossil fuel") quality power (electricity) and lower cost that Petroleum power transportation. That is now seen as a fact, but only after the Age of Oil, an age that is dying off like the dinosaurs.
The same applies to the move from Hemp as a competitor with wood from trees to the Age of Wood, which was as it was with Petroleum: a criminal government-enforced monopoly power.
None of that could happen without criminal take-over of the government.
Each unit of power stolen (a joule, a calorie, an amp/hour) and used to enforce the monopoly is a malinvestment that results in lower quality and higher cost for everyone, even the thieves, however the reason for the criminal investment, the cause, is a paycheck, a transfer of power from those who produce anything worth stealing, as that power transfers to the thieves. Those who could have and would have invested in higher quality and lower-cost production, giving people what they want, feed the criminals instead, and that power is then used to steal more, as proven by the reduced rate of the natural order toward higher quality and lower cost for all: starving people.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 30, 2020:
"NESARA / GESARA a Law that would change our Lives!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=836&v=kbRiTFc-w1A=emb_logo
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Much of my progress in figuring out Political/Economy has been condensed into one sentence. I will offer that to you for cause. My cause is to know, and help is appreciated.
I call this Joe's Law:
Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.
That is genuine political economy according to the natural order, the counterfeit version goes like this:
Criminal power produced into oversupply increases the price of power while purchasing power decreases because the malinvestment of power increases the cost of production.
Because economic investment power can be counterfeited the original version of Joe's Law above could be rewritten to help people see past the pile of lies:
Productive power produced into oversupply reduces the price of productive power while purchasing power increases because productive power invested productively reduces the cost of producing productive power.
To see some problems faced by those who care to invest in life, rather than destroy it, an example may suffice:
Had the original investments in transportation not been counterfeited by the National Central Bank and National Corporate Government Criminals, it is very likely that the Age of Oil would have been an Age of competition between competitors that could have included Electric transportation, and who knows what else.
From the power of whale oil and coal, people could have used existing productive power to produce higher than Petroleum (it is not "fossil fuel") quality power (electricity) and lower cost that Petroleum power transportation. That is now seen as a fact, but only after the Age of Oil, an age that is dying off like the dinosaurs.
The same applies to the move from Hemp as a competitor with wood from trees to the Age of Wood, which was as it was with Petroleum: a criminal government-enforced monopoly power.
None of that could happen without criminal take-over of the government.
Each unit of power stolen (a joule, a calorie, an amp/hour) and used to enforce the monopoly is a malinvestment that results in lower quality and higher cost for everyone, even the thieves, however the reason for the criminal investment, the cause, is a paycheck, a transfer of power from those who produce anything worth stealing, as that power transfers to the thieves. Those who could have and would have invested in higher quality and lower-cost production, giving people what they want, feed the criminals instead, and that power is then used to steal more, as proven by the reduced rate of the natural order toward higher quality and lower cost for all: starving people.
What can 12,000,000,000.00 Units of Purchasing Power buy?
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
The judicial sword is sharp and double edged.
It's able to separate you from both life and liberty.
And it's out of your hands.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
The tool can be used to reach a goal. Which tool do you claim as the one having a double edge?
The tool called Voluntary Mutual Defense has one edge: voluntary.
If you see a double edged tool, then I think you see the counterfeit tool: involuntary.
I am often wrong.
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
The judicial sword is sharp and double edged.
It's able to separate you from both life and liberty.
And it's out of your hands.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
The tool can be used to reach a goal. Which tool do you claim as the one having a double edge?
The tool called Voluntary Mutual Defense has one edge: voluntary.
If you see a double edged tool, then I think you see the counterfeit tool: involuntary.
I am often wrong.
Competition as a natural law, not as a criminally enforced dictate, forces quality up and cost down.
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
I'm love your ability to identify root cause/effect.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
I have a lot of people helping me reach that goal. Many wrote books. Few are willing to discuss these facts that matter, and that is an accurate measure of the State of the power struggle as it currently plays out.
Patterns become visible, causes then become visible, reinforced as such time and again. The same works for those who reach for defense, patterns show up as to what works, and what definitely does not work.
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
I'm love your ability to identify root cause/effect.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
I have a lot of people helping me reach that goal. Many wrote books. Few are willing to discuss these facts that matter, and that is an accurate measure of the State of the power struggle as it currently plays out.
Patterns become visible, causes then become visible, reinforced as such time and again. The same works for those who reach for defense, patterns show up as to what works, and what definitely does not work.
Indicted Harvard carbon nanotube bio-warfare professor Charles M.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 30, 2020:
"NESARA / GESARA a Law that would change our Lives!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=836&v=kbRiTFc-w1A=emb_logo
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Not many people get that fact, at least people I know. I've been looking for people who can see it, as you have just stated.
A useful word is counterfeit.
A tool to protect is counterfeited and the counterfeit tool is used to injure.
Along these lines, it is useful to know that as with the gun, the tool is not to blame for what is done with the tool by the users of the tool.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 30, 2020:
"NESARA / GESARA a Law that would change our Lives!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=836&v=kbRiTFc-w1A=emb_logo
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Not many people get that fact, at least people I know. I've been looking for people who can see it, as you have just stated.
A useful word is counterfeit.
A tool to protect is counterfeited and the counterfeit tool is used to injure.
Along these lines, it is useful to know that as with the gun, the tool is not to blame for what is done with the tool by the users of the tool.
I've been working, so less study on Voluntary Mutual Defense.
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
With modern technology, we have evolved from a world of scarcity to one of abundance.
Every physical problem should be trending downward.
Every psychological benefit should be trending upward.
Any deviation from those patterns is caused by human corruption.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
In this IDW (Slug?) Group the idea is to process these facts that matter.
Deviations (by deviants?) from reasonable, logical, patterns of individual choices for better standards of living and lower costs of living - the natural order - constitute a cancer (virus?), and therefore a clear and present danger, to all life on earth.
Each individual enemy of each other individual enemy at war with the natural order of life - patterns of behavior - belong in a category, or set, of unique individuals. To earn a place in that category, that set, an individual must think and act according to predictable, known, patterns: patterns that constitute the behavior that willfully destroys life, as the saying goes "with malice aforethought."
In the past, the destructive category of individuals has been labeled with a word (in many languages) to accurately identify precisely why someone belongs in that specific category. In America, that word was: felon.
Someone at war with society, someone thinking insane thoughts with a corrupted brain, and someone determined to destroy life at all cost, someone incorrigible, was known as a felon.
Someone who lies pathologically, someone making false statements (under oath?) to escape a just sentence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that each lie told is a device used by the felon merely to gain access to more victims, time and time again, is someone by his own choice, proven not by his words but proven by his actions, to be outside of the law, outside voluntarily.
Once the criminals took over the government, the words used by the defenders had to be changed, for the same reasons just explained in the last paragraph.
The idea here in this group is to reestablish law in America and to reach that goal there is a mountain of lies to be avoided, so as to discover the facts that matter in this case.
A lawful thought and a lawful act results in a pattern of behavior whereby the words used by those who defend accurately account for the actions performed by the defenders.
If that pattern is employed by the defenders the investments of consumable power spent toward defense will defend and felons (real, not false) will find fewer and fewer opportunities to gain access to victims. Crime will no longer pay so well at first, and not at all once the goal is reached in time and place.
Why would defenders true to their word ever start sweeping the bottom step first? Why would defenders true to their word ever expend precious consumable power treating symptoms rather than causes, in a misguided effort to prove a misdiagnosis as if falsehood could become a fact if enough people are lead down the same false path?
My hope is to help enough people see the clear turn from fact to fiction in American history, so as then to pick up the...
SupraLibrix comments on Apr 12, 2020:
With modern technology, we have evolved from a world of scarcity to one of abundance.
Every physical problem should be trending downward.
Every psychological benefit should be trending upward.
Any deviation from those patterns is caused by human corruption.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 12, 2020:
In this IDW (Slug?) Group the idea is to process these facts that matter.
Deviations (by deviants?) from reasonable, logical, patterns of individual choices for better standards of living and lower costs of living - the natural order - constitute a cancer (virus?), and therefore a clear and present danger, to all life on earth.
Each individual enemy of each other individual enemy at war with the natural order of life - patterns of behavior - belong in a category, or set, of unique individuals. To earn a place in that category, that set, an individual must think and act according to predictable, known, patterns: patterns that constitute the behavior that willfully destroys life, as the saying goes "with malice aforethought."
In the past, the destructive category of individuals has been labeled with a word (in many languages) to accurately identify precisely why someone belongs in that specific category. In America, that word was: felon.
Someone at war with society, someone thinking insane thoughts with a corrupted brain, and someone determined to destroy life at all cost, someone incorrigible, was known as a felon.
Someone who lies pathologically, someone making false statements (under oath?) to escape a just sentence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that each lie told is a device used by the felon merely to gain access to more victims, time and time again, is someone by his own choice, proven not by his words but proven by his actions, to be outside of the law, outside voluntarily.
Once the criminals took over the government, the words used by the defenders had to be changed, for the same reasons just explained in the last paragraph.
The idea here in this group is to reestablish law in America and to reach that goal there is a mountain of lies to be avoided, so as to discover the facts that matter in this case.
A lawful thought and a lawful act results in a pattern of behavior whereby the words used by those who defend accurately account for the actions performed by the defenders.
If that pattern is employed by the defenders the investments of consumable power spent toward defense will defend and felons (real, not false) will find fewer and fewer opportunities to gain access to victims. Crime will no longer pay so well at first, and not at all once the goal is reached in time and place.
Why would defenders true to their word ever start sweeping the bottom step first? Why would defenders true to their word ever expend precious consumable power treating symptoms rather than causes, in a misguided effort to prove a misdiagnosis as if falsehood could become a fact if enough people are lead down the same false path?
My hope is to help enough people see the clear turn from fact to fiction in American history, so as then to pick up the...
[youtu.
SpikeTalon comments on Apr 10, 2020:
The Chinese Government is certainly to blame for the Covid-19 outbreak.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 11, 2020:
@Rick-A
Talk is cheap compared to Billions of dollars (at current values).
April 09, 2020
Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/government-corruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/
Here is your script, say those things, you get paid?
SpikeTalon comments on Apr 10, 2020:
The Chinese Government is certainly to blame for the Covid-19 outbreak.
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 11, 2020:
@Rick-A
Talk is cheap compared to Billions of dollars (at current values).
April 09, 2020
Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma and Mandatory Vaccination
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/government-corruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/
Here is your script, say those things, you get paid?
I first became aware of this story after coming across the attached meme.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 10, 2020:
Who benefits (cui bono)?
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/government-corruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/?fbclid=IwAR0E7wQgHckdPu9lywPfL9Vl-5h_9Z-IpygJ58Mdn1Lmu3S4xlShQq7hs6k
Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 10, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
Try a Search (I tried Google) for the following:
"In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children."
Edit: It did not work for me.
Try: children's health defense bill gates
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/tag/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation/
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 10, 2020:
Who benefits (cui bono)?
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/government-corruption/gates-globalist-vaccine-agenda-a-win-win-for-pharma-and-mandatory-vaccination/?fbclid=IwAR0E7wQgHckdPu9lywPfL9Vl-5h_9Z-IpygJ58Mdn1Lmu3S4xlShQq7hs6k
Gates’ Globalist Vaccine Agenda: A Win-Win for Pharma ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 10, 2020:
@SpikeTalon
Try a Search (I tried Google) for the following:
"In addition to using his philanthropy to control WHO, UNICEF, GAVI, and PATH, Gates funds a private pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines, and additionally is donating $50 million to 12 pharmaceutical companies to speed up development of a coronavirus vaccine. In his recent media appearances, Gates appears confident that the Covid-19 crisis will now give him the opportunity to force his dictatorial vaccine programs on American children."
Edit: It did not work for me.
Try: children's health defense bill gates
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/tag/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation/
Western Civilization is founded on values and sacrifice.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 10, 2020:
@dmatic
"I think we need to abolish interest collecting, get rid of the private central banks, and start living according to the Author of Life's instructions."
If those instructions are summed up as the Golden Rule, then I agree.
"...he question is what should we do, in your opinion?"
The Golden Rule is the answer to any criminal problem. The Golden Rule affords each individual the power to create their own magic, their own Stardom, their own best-case scenario with the life they have been given.
Those who claim otherwise are often those who take every opportunity presented to them to consume innocent people: crime.
One diagnosis is true, and the cure is self-government, or if there is any collective government it is voluntary.
The other diagnosis is false, and the false cure is to join the criminal gangs to take whatever you can while you can from innocent people, before natural law, or God steps in.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 10, 2020:
@dmatic
"I think we need to abolish interest collecting, get rid of the private central banks, and start living according to the Author of Life's instructions."
If those instructions are summed up as the Golden Rule, then I agree.
"...he question is what should we do, in your opinion?"
The Golden Rule is the answer to any criminal problem. The Golden Rule affords each individual the power to create their own magic, their own Stardom, their own best-case scenario with the life they have been given.
Those who claim otherwise are often those who take every opportunity presented to them to consume innocent people: crime.
One diagnosis is true, and the cure is self-government, or if there is any collective government it is voluntary.
The other diagnosis is false, and the false cure is to join the criminal gangs to take whatever you can while you can from innocent people, before natural law, or God steps in.
Western Civilization is founded on values and sacrifice.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 10, 2020:
@dmatic
"The 'they' and 'their', I assume, ..."
Here (to me) is the deal. If someone assumes that someone else is causing a lawful "cause of action," then a process is due that one who assumes that probable cause to act in defense.
A T.V. documentary is currently on Netflix called Dirty Money. When the story about a guy who was laundering drug money was reported I was able to predict the result of the "legal" action against that individual. That individual did not belong to the National Cabal, and that individual took steps to ensure that the National Cabal was at arms reach. That individual operated from a fictitious Indian Nation in America. That attempt to assume that legal immunity was a direct attack on the National Cabal's profitable monopoly.
It was easy to see that the order, by some individual in power at the National Cabal (Central Bank Fraud), would be handed down to the goons and the goons would show up in Ninja Attire to seize everything of value from the individual who assumed that legal immunity by operating out of a fictitious Indian Nation.
The targeted individual was processed through the injustice system and enslaved in the American Gulag.
The "crime" was competition in money laundering, and only one Legal Fiction is allowed that privilege by the National Cabal run by those individuals who were running it then.
I told my wife that would happen in that case, and then I said if the guy "made a deal" instead of assuming immunity with a competitor Nation-State, all he would have had to do was pay a "fine," and then proceed as usual under the "protection" of the National Cabal, giving up a substantial piece of the money laundering action. In other words, if the competitor money-laundering businessman was incorporated into the fold, he would then be able to return to business as usual as a "member" bank.
The very next episode in that series on Netfix called Dirty Money involved that exact transaction, whereby people running a "member" bank were "caught" money-laundering for the Mexican Drug Cartel, which as everyone in the know knows is another incorporated satellite business for the National Cabal in America: see Oliver North testimony at the whitewash herrings, or see so-called Fast and Furious under the Obama Regime.
The "member" bank found guilty of aiding and abetting the Mexican Drug Cartels (who terrorize and mass murder on a regular schedule for decades) had to pay an insignificant fine for that bad behavior.
The law is spelled out well enough for anyone to see the problem if they care to do so.
"The 'they' and 'their', I assume, ..."
If they are named John Doe, Jane Doe, Tom, Dick, or even Harry, then that name goes from the one who assumes a crime to be one, that message travels to a member of a common-law ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 10, 2020:
@dmatic
"The 'they' and 'their', I assume, ..."
Here (to me) is the deal. If someone assumes that someone else is causing a lawful "cause of action," then a process is due that one who assumes that probable cause to act in defense.
A T.V. documentary is currently on Netflix called Dirty Money. When the story about a guy who was laundering drug money was reported I was able to predict the result of the "legal" action against that individual. That individual did not belong to the National Cabal, and that individual took steps to ensure that the National Cabal was at arms reach. That individual operated from a fictitious Indian Nation in America. That attempt to assume that legal immunity was a direct attack on the National Cabal's profitable monopoly.
It was easy to see that the order, by some individual in power at the National Cabal (Central Bank Fraud), would be handed down to the goons and the goons would show up in Ninja Attire to seize everything of value from the individual who assumed that legal immunity by operating out of a fictitious Indian Nation.
The targeted individual was processed through the injustice system and enslaved in the American Gulag.
The "crime" was competition in money laundering, and only one Legal Fiction is allowed that privilege by the National Cabal run by those individuals who were running it then.
I told my wife that would happen in that case, and then I said if the guy "made a deal" instead of assuming immunity with a competitor Nation-State, all he would have had to do was pay a "fine," and then proceed as usual under the "protection" of the National Cabal, giving up a substantial piece of the money laundering action. In other words, if the competitor money-laundering businessman was incorporated into the fold, he would then be able to return to business as usual as a "member" bank.
The very next episode in that series on Netfix called Dirty Money involved that exact transaction, whereby people running a "member" bank were "caught" money-laundering for the Mexican Drug Cartel, which as everyone in the know knows is another incorporated satellite business for the National Cabal in America: see Oliver North testimony at the whitewash herrings, or see so-called Fast and Furious under the Obama Regime.
The "member" bank found guilty of aiding and abetting the Mexican Drug Cartels (who terrorize and mass murder on a regular schedule for decades) had to pay an insignificant fine for that bad behavior.
The law is spelled out well enough for anyone to see the problem if they care to do so.
"The 'they' and 'their', I assume, ..."
If they are named John Doe, Jane Doe, Tom, Dick, or even Harry, then that name goes from the one who assumes a crime to be one, that message travels to a member of a common-law ...
No, 5G is not spreading Covid-19.
Jeffisat79 comments on Apr 9, 2020:
I think the fear over 5g is more the 60ghz frequency and Millimeter waves it creates which are new to us and it’s effect on the human hemoglobin. It is said 60ghz frequency interacts with oxygen by making the 2 oxygen atoms spin preventing the hemoglobin from carrying the oxygen through the body....
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
Faster Internet was already implemented with fiber optics.
Jeffisat79 comments on Apr 9, 2020:
I think the fear over 5g is more the 60ghz frequency and Millimeter waves it creates which are new to us and it’s effect on the human hemoglobin. It is said 60ghz frequency interacts with oxygen by making the 2 oxygen atoms spin preventing the hemoglobin from carrying the oxygen through the body....
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
Faster Internet was already implemented with fiber optics.
Western Civilization is founded on values and sacrifice.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
What do you mean by leverage?
I want to get an accurate answer from you. I want the message you intend to convey with words. I want to know precisely what you mean when you use the word "leverage." Please be accurate, specific, and please do not leave room for misunderstanding.
"The only value government can create is safety. If people don't feel safe, that money becomes worthless."
I like that message because that message appears to discriminate between actual, real, lawful, legal, original, grass-roots, moral, right, defensive, voluntary, government, and the counterfeit means to a counterfeit end.
"money travels at the same speed and as far as an idea."
That is an assembly of words not ever assembled in that was as far as I know. The message, as far as I am concerned, opens a can of worms, or in other words that message can mean just about anything under the sun. If you can explain that message so as not to leave any room for misunderstanding, then please do.
"If you are a tech company, you can extract money from the entire planet regardless of geographical location."
That is an assembly of words that appears (to me) to suggest that a group of people (a "tech company") or a legal fiction (a "tech company") has a power of will, an ability to decide to act, and "it" has the power to act once a goal is decided upon, and steps to reach the goal are decided upon by "it."
What is meant by the word "extract," in that context? Again, please, be specific enough to leave no room for misunderstanding concerning the facts that matter in this case.
"They don't need to counterfeit money."
Are they "tech companies" or are they people, as in people who sleep, eat, wear clothes, procreate if possible, and do other things that people do, or are you again speaking about "tech companies"?
"A counterfeiter dilutes existing value."
The word is called stealing, as in stealing something of value that has been produced by someone able to produce something of value. That also applies to groups of people who cooperate to reach the goal of producing something of value.
If no one produces something of value, why would someone dream up the idea to counterfeit?
"When a government prints money by Fiat, it dilutes future value."
If a group of criminals dreams up a plan to steal things not yet produced by people who produce things worth stealing, then those people have, are, and will counterfeit government, counterfeit money, and counterfeit accurate information that details the facts that matter concerning their con game, and that is not news.
Original government (before counterfeiting) is a voluntary association for mutual defense. Counterfeit government is an involuntary association for mutual destruction: also known as subsidized slavery,...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
What do you mean by leverage?
I want to get an accurate answer from you. I want the message you intend to convey with words. I want to know precisely what you mean when you use the word "leverage." Please be accurate, specific, and please do not leave room for misunderstanding.
"The only value government can create is safety. If people don't feel safe, that money becomes worthless."
I like that message because that message appears to discriminate between actual, real, lawful, legal, original, grass-roots, moral, right, defensive, voluntary, government, and the counterfeit means to a counterfeit end.
"money travels at the same speed and as far as an idea."
That is an assembly of words not ever assembled in that was as far as I know. The message, as far as I am concerned, opens a can of worms, or in other words that message can mean just about anything under the sun. If you can explain that message so as not to leave any room for misunderstanding, then please do.
"If you are a tech company, you can extract money from the entire planet regardless of geographical location."
That is an assembly of words that appears (to me) to suggest that a group of people (a "tech company") or a legal fiction (a "tech company") has a power of will, an ability to decide to act, and "it" has the power to act once a goal is decided upon, and steps to reach the goal are decided upon by "it."
What is meant by the word "extract," in that context? Again, please, be specific enough to leave no room for misunderstanding concerning the facts that matter in this case.
"They don't need to counterfeit money."
Are they "tech companies" or are they people, as in people who sleep, eat, wear clothes, procreate if possible, and do other things that people do, or are you again speaking about "tech companies"?
"A counterfeiter dilutes existing value."
The word is called stealing, as in stealing something of value that has been produced by someone able to produce something of value. That also applies to groups of people who cooperate to reach the goal of producing something of value.
If no one produces something of value, why would someone dream up the idea to counterfeit?
"When a government prints money by Fiat, it dilutes future value."
If a group of criminals dreams up a plan to steal things not yet produced by people who produce things worth stealing, then those people have, are, and will counterfeit government, counterfeit money, and counterfeit accurate information that details the facts that matter concerning their con game, and that is not news.
Original government (before counterfeiting) is a voluntary association for mutual defense. Counterfeit government is an involuntary association for mutual destruction: also known as subsidized slavery,...
Western Civilization is founded on values and sacrifice.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
You may need to explain what you mean by "leverage," not simply to standardize, or stake, the message firmly on solid ground for me, but also for anyone else who may care to know precisely (rather than falsely) what you mean.
Dilution, if you or anyone cares to know, is a transfer of power from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who then use the stolen loot to steal more, so what that "just means" is probably a fact that matters in this (or any?) case involving counterfeiters counterfeiting money.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
You may need to explain what you mean by "leverage," not simply to standardize, or stake, the message firmly on solid ground for me, but also for anyone else who may care to know precisely (rather than falsely) what you mean.
Dilution, if you or anyone cares to know, is a transfer of power from those who produce anything worth stealing to those who then use the stolen loot to steal more, so what that "just means" is probably a fact that matters in this (or any?) case involving counterfeiters counterfeiting money.
Western Civilization is founded on values and sacrifice.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Money created by fake government is counterfeit, therefore something counterfeited is also original, real, tangible, accurate, and powerful for all: not just the few con men.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 9, 2020:
Money produced and enforced as a criminal Monopoly under the guise of "government," is not the same as money produced in free markets by well defended free people in liberty.
Debt owned to the criminals running the counterfeit money monopoly power is not the same as the free exchange of value ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 9, 2020:
@Supra_Librix
Money created by fake government is counterfeit, therefore something counterfeited is also original, real, tangible, accurate, and powerful for all: not just the few con men.
[youtube.com]
Actions based upon dubious assumptions, versus actions based upon facts.
LesMahagow comments on Apr 7, 2020:
It wouldn't surprise me if we discovered that the Swedish government wants a high death toll amongst the elderly 'horrible racist old fashioned' generation. It will make social transition to a post western post Christian society smoother !
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 8, 2020:
@LesMahagow
"However would you carry out an experiment on a subject that is already engaged in another experiment that may distort results."
Who is carrying out an experiment? I understand the basics of political economy and the scientific method.
Decisions based upon assumptions are examples of something called gambling. So the odds in a gamble can be calculated if the game is understood, if the gambler assumes that the gambler has a chance in hell, that gambler is known as a mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxG1cp28SCo=IwAR1QrkJ5LUaz6XFSgViqIH_PXcL7kl1uXiLUWWE2QfTeZqnSbZFof2J7GhA
LesMahagow comments on Apr 7, 2020:
It wouldn't surprise me if we discovered that the Swedish government wants a high death toll amongst the elderly 'horrible racist old fashioned' generation. It will make social transition to a post western post Christian society smoother !
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 8, 2020:
@LesMahagow
"However would you carry out an experiment on a subject that is already engaged in another experiment that may distort results."
Who is carrying out an experiment? I understand the basics of political economy and the scientific method.
Decisions based upon assumptions are examples of something called gambling. So the odds in a gamble can be calculated if the game is understood, if the gambler assumes that the gambler has a chance in hell, that gambler is known as a mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxG1cp28SCo=IwAR1QrkJ5LUaz6XFSgViqIH_PXcL7kl1uXiLUWWE2QfTeZqnSbZFof2J7GhA
[youtube.com]
Actions based upon dubious assumptions, versus actions based upon facts.
iThink comments on Apr 7, 2020:
One significant difference (of many really) to point out is the fact of Swedens much more homogenic population as compared to that of England. There just is not a huge problem in Sweden with a dozen different "demographically self identified groups" placing demands on their Gov't as there is in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 7, 2020:
The reason I posted the link has to do with competition between isolatable groups of people.
If no one on earth can be isolated from an attack (such as a really effective fraud), then to be isolated someone would have to live on another planet.
Some food for thought:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/sim/1403963037/2?o=9
iThink comments on Apr 7, 2020:
One significant difference (of many really) to point out is the fact of Swedens much more homogenic population as compared to that of England. There just is not a huge problem in Sweden with a dozen different "demographically self identified groups" placing demands on their Gov't as there is in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 7, 2020:
The reason I posted the link has to do with competition between isolatable groups of people.
If no one on earth can be isolated from an attack (such as a really effective fraud), then to be isolated someone would have to live on another planet.
Some food for thought:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
"Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
"Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely."
http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/sim/1403963037/2?o=9
[youtube.com]
Actions based upon dubious assumptions, versus actions based upon facts.
LesMahagow comments on Apr 7, 2020:
It wouldn't surprise me if we discovered that the Swedish government wants a high death toll amongst the elderly 'horrible racist old fashioned' generation. It will make social transition to a post western post Christian society smoother !
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 7, 2020:
I have no idea who you are or what your viewpoint is, other than the words you just posted, but I would like to ask if you actually will find out the facts that matter in this case.
A contest if you will:
Group A deals best with this current problem.
Group B deals second best.
Group C deals very well with this problem.
Group D deals well.
Group E is roughly halfway in the contest.
Group F dealt with this problem poorly.
Group G dealt very poorly.
Group H dealt almost as badly as is humanly possible.
Group J dealt measurably (accurately) the worst.
What is your criteria for judging the winners and losers, please be precise?
LesMahagow comments on Apr 7, 2020:
It wouldn't surprise me if we discovered that the Swedish government wants a high death toll amongst the elderly 'horrible racist old fashioned' generation. It will make social transition to a post western post Christian society smoother !
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 7, 2020:
I have no idea who you are or what your viewpoint is, other than the words you just posted, but I would like to ask if you actually will find out the facts that matter in this case.
A contest if you will:
Group A deals best with this current problem.
Group B deals second best.
Group C deals very well with this problem.
Group D deals well.
Group E is roughly halfway in the contest.
Group F dealt with this problem poorly.
Group G dealt very poorly.
Group H dealt almost as badly as is humanly possible.
Group J dealt measurably (accurately) the worst.
What is your criteria for judging the winners and losers, please be precise?
Let's see how far this getshttps://youtu.be/kmZR-EGGLtU
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 6, 2020:
https://youtu.be/xVr5oMmA7_c
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 6, 2020:
BREAKING TELECOM WORKERS DESTROY CELL TOWERS TO WARN PUBLIC OF 5G DANGERS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWFAu5IdvmU=youtu.be
Chinese are they pulling down masts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGPPoeTvFJw=youtu.be
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 6, 2020:
https://youtu.be/xVr5oMmA7_c
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 6, 2020:
BREAKING TELECOM WORKERS DESTROY CELL TOWERS TO WARN PUBLIC OF 5G DANGERS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWFAu5IdvmU=youtu.be
Chinese are they pulling down masts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGPPoeTvFJw=youtu.be
Hand sanitizer production halted as FDA stands in the way.
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
List:
1.
Miss-association with a Klinton Criminal concerning "what is is."
2.
"...bloviating winbag!!!"
If the topic isn't worth discussing, then why not choose to not discuss the topic?
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
List:
1.
Miss-association with a Klinton Criminal concerning "what is is."
2.
"...bloviating winbag!!!"
If the topic isn't worth discussing, then why not choose to not discuss the topic?
Hand sanitizer production halted as FDA stands in the way.
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
The lie there is a false association, a deception used by the cartoon character.
The term Regulation meant Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense.
Then the term "Regulation" became Blind Obedience to Falsehood Without Question.
The personal attack by the cartoon character is noted, published, and unless someone can delete it, is a Public Access confession of the facts that matter in the case.
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
The lie there is a false association, a deception used by the cartoon character.
The term Regulation meant Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense.
Then the term "Regulation" became Blind Obedience to Falsehood Without Question.
The personal attack by the cartoon character is noted, published, and unless someone can delete it, is a Public Access confession of the facts that matter in the case.
Hand sanitizer production halted as FDA stands in the way.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 5, 2020:
"Unfortunately, the United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases, partially due to government failure and partially due to circumstances beyond the control of government."
How accurate are these numbers?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
You didn't stub your toe?
For those who want to know something about the "tests" being "offered" to people, the following may be a piece of the puzzle for them. For those who don't want to know, you may get precisely what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ab1-UEOnHE=IwAR3AznmypJffy5KkOMpuIMEVwk0Sb8bT6P2xayWI8e8PYvJVvgvQGf5435U
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 5, 2020:
"Unfortunately, the United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases, partially due to government failure and partially due to circumstances beyond the control of government."
How accurate are these numbers?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
You didn't stub your toe?
For those who want to know something about the "tests" being "offered" to people, the following may be a piece of the puzzle for them. For those who don't want to know, you may get precisely what you want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ab1-UEOnHE=IwAR3AznmypJffy5KkOMpuIMEVwk0Sb8bT6P2xayWI8e8PYvJVvgvQGf5435U
Hand sanitizer production halted as FDA stands in the way.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 5, 2020:
"Unfortunately, the United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases, partially due to government failure and partially due to circumstances beyond the control of government."
How accurate are these numbers?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Uh..."
Did you stub your toe?
Which tests are used in testing? If you don't know then just say so.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 5, 2020:
"Unfortunately, the United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases, partially due to government failure and partially due to circumstances beyond the control of government."
How accurate are these numbers?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Uh..."
Did you stub your toe?
Which tests are used in testing? If you don't know then just say so.
Hand sanitizer production halted as FDA stands in the way.
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Um ... no."
Is that a fact?
"Regulation is regulation so far the Left hasn’t managed to “change the definition” ..."
What is (as you claim) "the left"? Please be exact.
"There are regulations that are beneficial overall in effect"
Define what you mean by the (current) meaning of the word "regulations"? Please be exact.
As to what you claimed to be "Um ... no." there is this:
"Organizations of citizens were formed to regulate governmental affairs and eventually operated the courts in some districts."
https://www.carolana.com/NC/Royal_Colony/nc_royal_colony_war_of_regulation.html
The modern meaning (as I see it):
Regulation:
Top-down, dictatorial, obey or suffer, enforcement of orders that must be obeyed without question, or those who dare to disobey will be tortured and murdered and their torturous death will set an example to anyone else who dares to disobey.
The previous meaning as shown in the link above:
People volunteer to defend themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic: foreign criminals entering the area defended, and domestic criminals claiming to be the ones paid to perform this vital defensive task.
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Um ... no."
Is that a fact?
"Regulation is regulation so far the Left hasn’t managed to “change the definition” ..."
What is (as you claim) "the left"? Please be exact.
"There are regulations that are beneficial overall in effect"
Define what you mean by the (current) meaning of the word "regulations"? Please be exact.
As to what you claimed to be "Um ... no." there is this:
"Organizations of citizens were formed to regulate governmental affairs and eventually operated the courts in some districts."
https://www.carolana.com/NC/Royal_Colony/nc_royal_colony_war_of_regulation.html
The modern meaning (as I see it):
Regulation:
Top-down, dictatorial, obey or suffer, enforcement of orders that must be obeyed without question, or those who dare to disobey will be tortured and murdered and their torturous death will set an example to anyone else who dares to disobey.
The previous meaning as shown in the link above:
People volunteer to defend themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic: foreign criminals entering the area defended, and domestic criminals claiming to be the ones paid to perform this vital defensive task.
Hand sanitizer production halted as FDA stands in the way.
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
The original meaning of the word regulation was opposite the current meaning. That fact is one that matters.
KeVince comments on Apr 5, 2020:
I mentioned this a while ago the biggest obstacle to doing anything in the US is government regulation. This is also the reason that we find ourselves in this present crises, it was easier to start production plants outside of the US than at home so when business started to grow they moved to ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
The original meaning of the word regulation was opposite the current meaning. That fact is one that matters.
DR KAUFMAN M.D. EXPLAINS HOW THIS IS ALL FAKE
[youtube.com]
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 5, 2020:
No idea if it’s fake but I think they are using it as leverage
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@JVIP-WTPNN
The depth of the deception can be proportionate to the power stolen by the deceivers.
What can those in power not buy?
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 5, 2020:
No idea if it’s fake but I think they are using it as leverage
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@JVIP-WTPNN
The depth of the deception can be proportionate to the power stolen by the deceivers.
What can those in power not buy?
Hand sanitizer production halted as FDA stands in the way.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 5, 2020:
"Unfortunately, the United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases, partially due to government failure and partially due to circumstances beyond the control of government."
How accurate are these numbers?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
Which tests?
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 5, 2020:
"Unfortunately, the United States leads the world in COVID-19 cases, partially due to government failure and partially due to circumstances beyond the control of government."
How accurate are these numbers?
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
Which tests?
DR KAUFMAN M.D. EXPLAINS HOW THIS IS ALL FAKE
[youtube.com]
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 5, 2020:
No idea if it’s fake but I think they are using it as leverage
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
Andrew Kaufman reported on an example in history that may help people see clearly the difference between fake and real. That report was in another video, not in the video above linked.
The example was Polio. The report on Polio was such that the injuries caused by Polio were real, not fake. The injuries caused by Polio coincided with the use of arsenic and mercury pesticides used to reduce the moth population. So the theory is that the nerve damage was done by the mercury (heavy metal) and then the "vaccine" is sold as the cure. A few people become rich selling the "vaccine," while the actual cure was to stop using arsenic and mercury pesticides.
The money-making venture (selling snake oil "vaccines") makes a few people very powerful, how powerful? If the money-making venture makes a few people powerful enough to convince everyone to buy the snake oil, then why would those in power confess that it is a hoax?
The injuries that are suffered by people, by whatever actually causes those injuries, are not fake.
If the cure is fake, but the injuries are not fake, then the injures are caused by the lies told by the few people who make so much money, gain so much power, by lying.
That then suggests a need to return to rule of law (voluntary mutual defense), as rule of law works like a lie detector and a process that connects the lies to the liars.
JVIP-WTPNN comments on Apr 5, 2020:
No idea if it’s fake but I think they are using it as leverage
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 5, 2020:
Andrew Kaufman reported on an example in history that may help people see clearly the difference between fake and real. That report was in another video, not in the video above linked.
The example was Polio. The report on Polio was such that the injuries caused by Polio were real, not fake. The injuries caused by Polio coincided with the use of arsenic and mercury pesticides used to reduce the moth population. So the theory is that the nerve damage was done by the mercury (heavy metal) and then the "vaccine" is sold as the cure. A few people become rich selling the "vaccine," while the actual cure was to stop using arsenic and mercury pesticides.
The money-making venture (selling snake oil "vaccines") makes a few people very powerful, how powerful? If the money-making venture makes a few people powerful enough to convince everyone to buy the snake oil, then why would those in power confess that it is a hoax?
The injuries that are suffered by people, by whatever actually causes those injuries, are not fake.
If the cure is fake, but the injuries are not fake, then the injures are caused by the lies told by the few people who make so much money, gain so much power, by lying.
That then suggests a need to return to rule of law (voluntary mutual defense), as rule of law works like a lie detector and a process that connects the lies to the liars.
[m.youtube.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 1, 2020:
So random selection of government employees is bad, but teaching (who teaches) people to "vote" a certain way is good, and the ship analogy serves to teach people to vote better?
What about the following information?
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 3, 2020:
@Andyman
"If you felt that set an unfair tone for the rest of the video so be it."
If I feel something, then I may be well aware of what I feel, or I may not pay much attention to what I feel, and my actions may be driven by how I feel. What does that have to do with the topic?
"So your first issue is the title “Why Socrates hated democracy “. You see that as a tired old hackneyed trick commonly used to play on people’s emotions by attributing an emotion onto a respected historical figure and then using that to cede into the argument for why he did."
Not a trick, as in a magic trick, rather a political tactic, and not as you describe it. The tactic may also "play on people's emotions" as you say, and that may then aid the use of the tool to reach the goal, and it is obvious to me that the goal is a diversion from the topic, in a discussion about the topic, moving to emotions as an alternate topic: diversion. If people can be prevented from discussing something (a noun or a verb, a stationary object or a process, hardware used for a magic trick, or devices used to deceive), then people will not share the benefits of knowledge, the pool of knowledge will be only that which is individualized: one individual knows a lot about a few things, another knows a lot about a few other things, one knows something vital but not much else, and pooling those resources allows all 3 to know what the other's know without having to expend all the expenses (other than discussion) required in discovering the facts that matter in reaching the goal of knowing. If a discussion can be turned into a contest where one victor stands victorious over the defeated combatant, and any trick in the book rules as part of the might makes-right-game, then what happens to the goal when the means is thereby changed? We want change? How about finding out the facts about the change "we" want first?
If the method of electing people in a VOLUNTARY government were elected by random, and someone came along to suggest a change to Electoral Politics electing people in an INVOLUNTARY government would that individual help or harm everyone, most everyone, or just the slaves?
If the method of determining guilt or innocence was a decision made by a majority vote of a minority segment of the population (judges on a bench), and their decision was enforceable on anyone found guilty this way, where there was no avenue for a more reasonable process of finding the facts that matter in the case so as to find a more reasonable verdict, would change be warranted so as not to turn government into a crime spree where good people are serially murdered on a regular basis: enemies of The State?
In the video, the process of electoral politics is suggested subliminally as so-called "democracy," which...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 1, 2020:
So random selection of government employees is bad, but teaching (who teaches) people to "vote" a certain way is good, and the ship analogy serves to teach people to vote better?
What about the following information?
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 3, 2020:
@Andyman
"If you felt that set an unfair tone for the rest of the video so be it."
If I feel something, then I may be well aware of what I feel, or I may not pay much attention to what I feel, and my actions may be driven by how I feel. What does that have to do with the topic?
"So your first issue is the title “Why Socrates hated democracy “. You see that as a tired old hackneyed trick commonly used to play on people’s emotions by attributing an emotion onto a respected historical figure and then using that to cede into the argument for why he did."
Not a trick, as in a magic trick, rather a political tactic, and not as you describe it. The tactic may also "play on people's emotions" as you say, and that may then aid the use of the tool to reach the goal, and it is obvious to me that the goal is a diversion from the topic, in a discussion about the topic, moving to emotions as an alternate topic: diversion. If people can be prevented from discussing something (a noun or a verb, a stationary object or a process, hardware used for a magic trick, or devices used to deceive), then people will not share the benefits of knowledge, the pool of knowledge will be only that which is individualized: one individual knows a lot about a few things, another knows a lot about a few other things, one knows something vital but not much else, and pooling those resources allows all 3 to know what the other's know without having to expend all the expenses (other than discussion) required in discovering the facts that matter in reaching the goal of knowing. If a discussion can be turned into a contest where one victor stands victorious over the defeated combatant, and any trick in the book rules as part of the might makes-right-game, then what happens to the goal when the means is thereby changed? We want change? How about finding out the facts about the change "we" want first?
If the method of electing people in a VOLUNTARY government were elected by random, and someone came along to suggest a change to Electoral Politics electing people in an INVOLUNTARY government would that individual help or harm everyone, most everyone, or just the slaves?
If the method of determining guilt or innocence was a decision made by a majority vote of a minority segment of the population (judges on a bench), and their decision was enforceable on anyone found guilty this way, where there was no avenue for a more reasonable process of finding the facts that matter in the case so as to find a more reasonable verdict, would change be warranted so as not to turn government into a crime spree where good people are serially murdered on a regular basis: enemies of The State?
In the video, the process of electoral politics is suggested subliminally as so-called "democracy," which...
[m.youtube.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 1, 2020:
So random selection of government employees is bad, but teaching (who teaches) people to "vote" a certain way is good, and the ship analogy serves to teach people to vote better?
What about the following information?
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 2, 2020:
@Andyman
School of thought:
1.
"Why Socrates Hated Democracy"
The school of thought there is the injection of emotion into a historical personality. That is a very well known, well worn, political tactic. That is also a statement of fact which would then suggest that the fact is true, and the subject matter concerns an emotion accountable to a historical personality, which means that the human being in question could have hated, likely did hate, but could also not hate at another moment. Statements of fact concerning emotions are well worn, well known political tactics for the reason of "plausible deniability," as well as a diversion from the facts that matter to personal characteristics of people when the subject matter is human interaction or politics.
2.
"We are used to thinking very highly of democracy."
Who is we? That school is known as dictatorial statements of facts about what "we" think, as told by an individual speaking for everyone as an authority over what everyone thinks.
What is democracy?
There is no definition of it, as there are clearly many definitions of it, and so the authority over what "we" think (emotionally "very highly") assumes that "we" think emotionally about either every version of democracy, every diverse and opposing definition of democracy or "we" think very highly ONLY about the version unsaid, undefined, by the authority over the thoughts and feeling of "we."
3.
In the picture, while the authority over what we think emotionally about a nebulous definition of democracy is a Ballot Box.
That suggests (subliminally, covertly, or overtly?) that "democracy" is defined as "electoral politics" where The Majority Rule by either placing their dictator at the helm of the dictatorship or the new "Majority" Rules by placing their dictator at the helm of the dictatorship. The practice of defining "democracy" as "electoral politics" or "majority rule" is a relatively modern version of the meaning of democracy used by some people, which could be a majority or a minority of the whole people, certainly not everyone, not "we."
I can go on, but my guess is that your intention is not to think deeply about the answers you are offered.
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 1, 2020:
So random selection of government employees is bad, but teaching (who teaches) people to "vote" a certain way is good, and the ship analogy serves to teach people to vote better?
What about the following information?
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 2, 2020:
@Andyman
School of thought:
1.
"Why Socrates Hated Democracy"
The school of thought there is the injection of emotion into a historical personality. That is a very well known, well worn, political tactic. That is also a statement of fact which would then suggest that the fact is true, and the subject matter concerns an emotion accountable to a historical personality, which means that the human being in question could have hated, likely did hate, but could also not hate at another moment. Statements of fact concerning emotions are well worn, well known political tactics for the reason of "plausible deniability," as well as a diversion from the facts that matter to personal characteristics of people when the subject matter is human interaction or politics.
2.
"We are used to thinking very highly of democracy."
Who is we? That school is known as dictatorial statements of facts about what "we" think, as told by an individual speaking for everyone as an authority over what everyone thinks.
What is democracy?
There is no definition of it, as there are clearly many definitions of it, and so the authority over what "we" think (emotionally "very highly") assumes that "we" think emotionally about either every version of democracy, every diverse and opposing definition of democracy or "we" think very highly ONLY about the version unsaid, undefined, by the authority over the thoughts and feeling of "we."
3.
In the picture, while the authority over what we think emotionally about a nebulous definition of democracy is a Ballot Box.
That suggests (subliminally, covertly, or overtly?) that "democracy" is defined as "electoral politics" where The Majority Rule by either placing their dictator at the helm of the dictatorship or the new "Majority" Rules by placing their dictator at the helm of the dictatorship. The practice of defining "democracy" as "electoral politics" or "majority rule" is a relatively modern version of the meaning of democracy used by some people, which could be a majority or a minority of the whole people, certainly not everyone, not "we."
I can go on, but my guess is that your intention is not to think deeply about the answers you are offered.
[m.youtube.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 1, 2020:
So random selection of government employees is bad, but teaching (who teaches) people to "vote" a certain way is good, and the ship analogy serves to teach people to vote better?
What about the following information?
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 1, 2020:
@Andyman
What happens when people are taught civics according to Marx?
You tell me.
How about civics according to Sir Edward Coke? Are you familiar with the name and the fame of Sir Edward Coke?
So are you qualified to vote in electoral politics?
Are you qualified to vote in trial by jury according to the common law?
Coke:
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."
"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Apr 1, 2020:
So random selection of government employees is bad, but teaching (who teaches) people to "vote" a certain way is good, and the ship analogy serves to teach people to vote better?
What about the following information?
The Athenian Constitution:
Government by Jury and Referendum
by Roderick ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Apr 1, 2020:
@Andyman
What happens when people are taught civics according to Marx?
You tell me.
How about civics according to Sir Edward Coke? Are you familiar with the name and the fame of Sir Edward Coke?
So are you qualified to vote in electoral politics?
Are you qualified to vote in trial by jury according to the common law?
Coke:
The Cambridge History of Law in America
Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins
"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of northern France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and savages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."
"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such ...
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 31, 2020:
@Facci
"These are the best representations of true Libertarian Society."
I tried watching Trailer Park Boys once, I can try again, but it wasn't my cup of tea the first time. I can try watching Murder Mountain, thanks for the connection: link.
Each is responsible and accountable for their own decisions as their own cost in what I know as Libertarianism, if you know a whole different world, that is cause for trade, trade of ideas if nothing else.
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 31, 2020:
@Facci
"These are the best representations of true Libertarian Society."
I tried watching Trailer Park Boys once, I can try again, but it wasn't my cup of tea the first time. I can try watching Murder Mountain, thanks for the connection: link.
Each is responsible and accountable for their own decisions as their own cost in what I know as Libertarianism, if you know a whole different world, that is cause for trade, trade of ideas if nothing else.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 29, 2020:
@dmatic
"It is confusing because there are so many words, and so many thoughts. That is not to say I don't accept the challenge of trying to understand. In fact, I love reading your stuff! Not an easy path you have chosen....to think deeply about things...but I appreciate your efforts."
If a few rules can be applied to the world as it is, and those rules work consistently, then trust in those rules builds, like an athlete working muscles. If the muscles build, then the rules governing athletic conditioning work. And there are plenty of competitive athletes to gauge progress in the right (the desired) direction.
Complications in that too can cause confusion in individuals, such as the confusions of athletes using steroids, or men (with or without surgery, and hormones) competing with women in sporting events.
As always the truth will set people free from confusion. At least with your religious perspective, you have very basic, working rules, especially when the goal is to understand the law. If someone claims that this or that is this or that, then all you have to do is apply the lawful rule (confirmed by prophets?), and that works like a litmus test, nothing confusing about a blue or red result from the test. That is not to say that someone can change the procedure of testing for their own exclusive use (something they would not allow someone else to do) and when the result is purple, they blame the test: "The test is no good."
Teacher and student roles are interchangeable roles changing constantly. Discussion, or exchange of perspectives (so long as they are honest and hopefully true, or at least close to the truth), is as any other mutually beneficial exchange, from each a greater power results, more power than adding the two sources together. This is a power relationship, an exponential growth rate, the same as it is with any other endeavor.
1.
Division of Labor:
Each individual does not have to do - learn - everything, one does one thing, another does another thing, and sharing the learning, or workload, the exponential growth rate in productivity results. The costs of learning (a new skill or a new viewpoint) is expended by one, and that one shared the "fruits of that labor" in exchange with another one who expends costs on something else.
2.
Specialization:
Again the same exponential growth rate. Where expertise in religious matters can only come from someone with a true religious perspective, and expertise in history may be a well studied earning for someone else, and combining the benefits, without each having to expend the costs (or whatever is required in any expertise, natural ability, whatever), the result is a mutual benefit much greater than simply adding up one individual productive capacity to another.
3.
Economies ...
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 29, 2020:
@dmatic
"It is confusing because there are so many words, and so many thoughts. That is not to say I don't accept the challenge of trying to understand. In fact, I love reading your stuff! Not an easy path you have chosen....to think deeply about things...but I appreciate your efforts."
If a few rules can be applied to the world as it is, and those rules work consistently, then trust in those rules builds, like an athlete working muscles. If the muscles build, then the rules governing athletic conditioning work. And there are plenty of competitive athletes to gauge progress in the right (the desired) direction.
Complications in that too can cause confusion in individuals, such as the confusions of athletes using steroids, or men (with or without surgery, and hormones) competing with women in sporting events.
As always the truth will set people free from confusion. At least with your religious perspective, you have very basic, working rules, especially when the goal is to understand the law. If someone claims that this or that is this or that, then all you have to do is apply the lawful rule (confirmed by prophets?), and that works like a litmus test, nothing confusing about a blue or red result from the test. That is not to say that someone can change the procedure of testing for their own exclusive use (something they would not allow someone else to do) and when the result is purple, they blame the test: "The test is no good."
Teacher and student roles are interchangeable roles changing constantly. Discussion, or exchange of perspectives (so long as they are honest and hopefully true, or at least close to the truth), is as any other mutually beneficial exchange, from each a greater power results, more power than adding the two sources together. This is a power relationship, an exponential growth rate, the same as it is with any other endeavor.
1.
Division of Labor:
Each individual does not have to do - learn - everything, one does one thing, another does another thing, and sharing the learning, or workload, the exponential growth rate in productivity results. The costs of learning (a new skill or a new viewpoint) is expended by one, and that one shared the "fruits of that labor" in exchange with another one who expends costs on something else.
2.
Specialization:
Again the same exponential growth rate. Where expertise in religious matters can only come from someone with a true religious perspective, and expertise in history may be a well studied earning for someone else, and combining the benefits, without each having to expend the costs (or whatever is required in any expertise, natural ability, whatever), the result is a mutual benefit much greater than simply adding up one individual productive capacity to another.
3.
Economies ...
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 28, 2020:
@dmatic
"So confusing. So, everyone has a built in conscience that knows right from wrong, but most choose to follow wrong because their deeds are evil?"
Why is it confusing? Is there a fundamental misstep somewhere?
Good (lawful): Decide on your own independent authority to act well, good, legally, lawfully, in any situation, anytime, anywhere, by one very simple rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you.
Why is that complicated, and perhaps more importantly, how is that complicated?
I, me, an individual, even without a conscience, can simply test the hypothetical competitive version of the law power, I give to other people that which I want in return, and if the gift is rejected, or "no deed goes unpunished," then have I discovered a cause of complication?
If that complication sends the individual into a tailspin, having tested the hypothesis and finding other people who are not like the selfless gift giver, does the individual, selfless gift-giver then stop giving to anyone, or just to the ones who reject or punish gift-givers?
The test will be tested, but why would the results be a cause to conclude prejudice?
How about another test?
If I ask in advance what someone wants, will I then avoid prejudice: prejudging that someone else has the same value judgment as I do concerning what they want to be done to them?
What is accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case? Is it a goal? Is it a goal worth reaching for in any case? What is the opposite goal?
If the goal is accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, and the goal is reached, how does one know? Is it a wordy way of saying that The Truth is worth the effort to find well, rather than half true?
Do you want people to decide for you what you want to be done to you by other people? Yes, no, maybe, you haven't given it a thought?
Would you rather ask someone for their preference as to how you will, by your power of will, treat them?
Would you rather be asked by someone for your preference as to how you will, by someone's power of will, treat you?
To me, the eloquence of the very short, simple, declaration of human law, in Mathew 7:12, is a word problem, and a word problem worthy of the effort to work out in fact.
"So, they don't want to come to the light because it will expose them as evil?"
I think Solzhenitsyn answers that one best:
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his ...
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 28, 2020:
@dmatic
"So confusing. So, everyone has a built in conscience that knows right from wrong, but most choose to follow wrong because their deeds are evil?"
Why is it confusing? Is there a fundamental misstep somewhere?
Good (lawful): Decide on your own independent authority to act well, good, legally, lawfully, in any situation, anytime, anywhere, by one very simple rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you.
Why is that complicated, and perhaps more importantly, how is that complicated?
I, me, an individual, even without a conscience, can simply test the hypothetical competitive version of the law power, I give to other people that which I want in return, and if the gift is rejected, or "no deed goes unpunished," then have I discovered a cause of complication?
If that complication sends the individual into a tailspin, having tested the hypothesis and finding other people who are not like the selfless gift giver, does the individual, selfless gift-giver then stop giving to anyone, or just to the ones who reject or punish gift-givers?
The test will be tested, but why would the results be a cause to conclude prejudice?
How about another test?
If I ask in advance what someone wants, will I then avoid prejudice: prejudging that someone else has the same value judgment as I do concerning what they want to be done to them?
What is accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case? Is it a goal? Is it a goal worth reaching for in any case? What is the opposite goal?
If the goal is accurate accountability of the facts that matter in any case, and the goal is reached, how does one know? Is it a wordy way of saying that The Truth is worth the effort to find well, rather than half true?
Do you want people to decide for you what you want to be done to you by other people? Yes, no, maybe, you haven't given it a thought?
Would you rather ask someone for their preference as to how you will, by your power of will, treat them?
Would you rather be asked by someone for your preference as to how you will, by someone's power of will, treat you?
To me, the eloquence of the very short, simple, declaration of human law, in Mathew 7:12, is a word problem, and a word problem worthy of the effort to work out in fact.
"So, they don't want to come to the light because it will expose them as evil?"
I think Solzhenitsyn answers that one best:
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his ...
Isn’t this the “Intellectual” dark web, a type of crowd-sourced “think tank”?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I am attempting to post a photo.
The concept of the Dictator's Dilemma may help in answering some questions on this subject matter dealing with miscommunication or non-communication.
Currency (data) flows from the origin to the subject of those messages. Call it any name you want, and a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 28, 2020:
@DesireNoDesires
The plan to control takes many forms by many individuals and many groups, but it is clear to me that they share a common means to a common end: aggressive violence, deception, entrapment, incorporation, as the means to the desired control.
Old criminals pass on their adaptive methods to new criminals, new criminals use the old methods, and they invent new methods.
Victims adapt too.
As a documented fact that matters each defensive adaptation is then an opportunity to counterfeit the defensive adaptation and turn it into offense behind a false flag.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 5, 2020:
I am attempting to post a photo.
The concept of the Dictator's Dilemma may help in answering some questions on this subject matter dealing with miscommunication or non-communication.
Currency (data) flows from the origin to the subject of those messages. Call it any name you want, and a ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 28, 2020:
@DesireNoDesires
The plan to control takes many forms by many individuals and many groups, but it is clear to me that they share a common means to a common end: aggressive violence, deception, entrapment, incorporation, as the means to the desired control.
Old criminals pass on their adaptive methods to new criminals, new criminals use the old methods, and they invent new methods.
Victims adapt too.
As a documented fact that matters each defensive adaptation is then an opportunity to counterfeit the defensive adaptation and turn it into offense behind a false flag.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 28, 2020:
@dmatic
The law power is a power built into the human species as described in the term moral conscience.
As natural laws are built into other processes, so is there a law built into human beings, a law that works to keep things together, to ensure survival, to afford things the power to defend against coexisting powers that tend to cause things to come apart, and tends to cause things to die.
A few eloquent descriptions of the law power had been offered in scripture, I'm pretty sure we have already discussed this, but it does bear repeating. I think repeating these messages is important in this context.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law..." Mathew 7: 12, also known as The Golden Rule (if you want to give people gold as money, give some to yourself too)
That is a way in which people can be reminded as to when their internal law power is missing, ignored, forgotten, beat out of them, or misled by external powers. The power is built-in.
The built-in law power works to keep people alive, keep people sustaining life, keep people armed with adaptability, and keep people FROM harming each other, which is then a measure of harm to our "collective" survivability in many minor ways, or in very seriously major ways, in cases where very helpful people are murdered by very harmful people. There is no shortage of famous cases, there are many unreported cases, cases were life was snuffed out before it could STAR in a performance that could make Isaac Newton look stupid in comparison.
Then there is the obvious (at least to those with a working conscience, one that is nurtured and at full or near full health, or at least working) consequences associated with failing to obey the internal, built-in law power, or failing to heed the warnings that ought to help warrant good behavior.
A warning that ought to help people - warrant them - to hold themselves, as well as others, to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case:
"...if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
People publishing ...
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 28, 2020:
@dmatic
The law power is a power built into the human species as described in the term moral conscience.
As natural laws are built into other processes, so is there a law built into human beings, a law that works to keep things together, to ensure survival, to afford things the power to defend against coexisting powers that tend to cause things to come apart, and tends to cause things to die.
A few eloquent descriptions of the law power had been offered in scripture, I'm pretty sure we have already discussed this, but it does bear repeating. I think repeating these messages is important in this context.
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law..." Mathew 7: 12, also known as The Golden Rule (if you want to give people gold as money, give some to yourself too)
That is a way in which people can be reminded as to when their internal law power is missing, ignored, forgotten, beat out of them, or misled by external powers. The power is built-in.
The built-in law power works to keep people alive, keep people sustaining life, keep people armed with adaptability, and keep people FROM harming each other, which is then a measure of harm to our "collective" survivability in many minor ways, or in very seriously major ways, in cases where very helpful people are murdered by very harmful people. There is no shortage of famous cases, there are many unreported cases, cases were life was snuffed out before it could STAR in a performance that could make Isaac Newton look stupid in comparison.
Then there is the obvious (at least to those with a working conscience, one that is nurtured and at full or near full health, or at least working) consequences associated with failing to obey the internal, built-in law power, or failing to heed the warnings that ought to help warrant good behavior.
A warning that ought to help people - warrant them - to hold themselves, as well as others, to an accurate accounting of the facts that matter in any case:
"...if sinners entice you, Do not consent. If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause; Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit; We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil; Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird; But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors."
People publishing ...
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
Thank you for what you say and do, it helps. Unsung heros of "do no harm" (libertarianism) in a world of people doing harm for fun and profit involves a whole lot of avoidance for defense by those unsung heros. They do not act so as to become heros. They, if you read Mostly on the Edge (you may find good company), are what they are because they do what they do for the reasons they ALONE decide to do, and it just so happens that they act only defensively, they do not act offensively.
They (we?) act only to help, not harm, in a world where so many people are harming for reasons that defy logic, reason, and common sense.
It is a power struggle. It isn't complicated. Complications are caused for obvious reasons. Those who are duped can't - for the life of their selves and their loved ones - see that which is self-evident: that is what causes them to belong to the group of DUPES.
I, for one, got very tired of being a DUPE.
I did what was necessary, what was appropriate. I did my due diligence. I discovered the facts that matter on my own authority.
It isn't something done by "HEROS."
It is simply a moral consideration: a duty.
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
Thank you for what you say and do, it helps. Unsung heros of "do no harm" (libertarianism) in a world of people doing harm for fun and profit involves a whole lot of avoidance for defense by those unsung heros. They do not act so as to become heros. They, if you read Mostly on the Edge (you may find good company), are what they are because they do what they do for the reasons they ALONE decide to do, and it just so happens that they act only defensively, they do not act offensively.
They (we?) act only to help, not harm, in a world where so many people are harming for reasons that defy logic, reason, and common sense.
It is a power struggle. It isn't complicated. Complications are caused for obvious reasons. Those who are duped can't - for the life of their selves and their loved ones - see that which is self-evident: that is what causes them to belong to the group of DUPES.
I, for one, got very tired of being a DUPE.
I did what was necessary, what was appropriate. I did my due diligence. I discovered the facts that matter on my own authority.
It isn't something done by "HEROS."
It is simply a moral consideration: a duty.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
"I sympathize with the spirit of libertarian individuals but the Libertarian organizations are grifters of the worst sort."
If I am a criminal and I want to disarm my victims will I tell my victims in advance that I am a criminal?
Which labels work best to hide the actual intentions of a criminal, so as to disarm their victims?
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
"I sympathize with the spirit of libertarian individuals but the Libertarian organizations are grifters of the worst sort."
If I am a criminal and I want to disarm my victims will I tell my victims in advance that I am a criminal?
Which labels work best to hide the actual intentions of a criminal, so as to disarm their victims?
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
You then are Libertarian.
I suggest a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Mostly-Edge-Autobiography-Karl-Hess/dp/1573926876
Mostly on the Edge: An Autobiography
Karl Hess
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
You then are Libertarian.
I suggest a book:
https://www.amazon.com/Mostly-Edge-Autobiography-Karl-Hess/dp/1573926876
Mostly on the Edge: An Autobiography
Karl Hess
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
"They despise most of American History."
They sound like people who despise something. What does that have to do with Libertarianism?
Libertarianism (actual) is simple: do no harm. The goal is complicated by people who do harm, not by libertarians. People who do harm often tell lies, not a news item.
"They are more offended by the North reuniting the States and increasing Federal power than the liberty of slaves."
They are ignorant. The federal union ended in 1789 when the criminals took over and subsidized African Slavery. The National (no longer federal) aggressive, statist, government agents caused and perpetrated the so-called Civil War which was not in any way civil: a self-evident lie.
"I've seen pitches for UBI from libertarians and the outright sale of children in place of adoption."
Universal basic income, or UBI, can be an agreement made by people investing in UBI, having nothing to do with anyone who decides, on their own authority, to choose not to invest in UBI, just like someone buying an insurance policy (in a difficult to maintain free market) for unemployment, or insurance for anything: free markets that are actually free, free from statists enforcing criminal orders that must be obeyed without question.
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
"They despise most of American History."
They sound like people who despise something. What does that have to do with Libertarianism?
Libertarianism (actual) is simple: do no harm. The goal is complicated by people who do harm, not by libertarians. People who do harm often tell lies, not a news item.
"They are more offended by the North reuniting the States and increasing Federal power than the liberty of slaves."
They are ignorant. The federal union ended in 1789 when the criminals took over and subsidized African Slavery. The National (no longer federal) aggressive, statist, government agents caused and perpetrated the so-called Civil War which was not in any way civil: a self-evident lie.
"I've seen pitches for UBI from libertarians and the outright sale of children in place of adoption."
Universal basic income, or UBI, can be an agreement made by people investing in UBI, having nothing to do with anyone who decides, on their own authority, to choose not to invest in UBI, just like someone buying an insurance policy (in a difficult to maintain free market) for unemployment, or insurance for anything: free markets that are actually free, free from statists enforcing criminal orders that must be obeyed without question.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
Conversations with RINOS are what?
Conversations with Democrats In Name Only are what?
Conversations with Federalists In Name Only are what?
If they speak the legalese common to statist then they are by their words statists.
If they speak the legalese common to statists seeking an office in the dictatorship, then they speak lies, then they act contrary to their words once in office.
I know that it is convoluted, but it is so because of a simple natural law:
One lie requires an army of liars to keep the lie working. The pile of lies grows exponentially: a power law.
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
Conversations with RINOS are what?
Conversations with Democrats In Name Only are what?
Conversations with Federalists In Name Only are what?
If they speak the legalese common to statist then they are by their words statists.
If they speak the legalese common to statists seeking an office in the dictatorship, then they speak lies, then they act contrary to their words once in office.
I know that it is convoluted, but it is so because of a simple natural law:
One lie requires an army of liars to keep the lie working. The pile of lies grows exponentially: a power law.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
My guess is that you are an authority on what is or is not libertarianism, therefore you can determine just exactly how "no one has ever lived up to" it. That is to say your version of it.
How exactly did you arrive at this authority to speak against Libertarianism? I'm curious.
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
Libertarians oppose the American Civil War and World War 2. Libertarians often oppose organized religion and openly mock the practice there of. At best, Libertarianism is an ideal that no one has ever lived up to and its strength is that it virtually doesn't exist therefore it has not track record...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
My guess is that you are an authority on what is or is not libertarianism, therefore you can determine just exactly how "no one has ever lived up to" it. That is to say your version of it.
How exactly did you arrive at this authority to speak against Libertarianism? I'm curious.
Read Biden accuser's account of his alleged sexual assault-
[thefederalist.
iThink comments on Mar 27, 2020:
don't care what she said - without some kind of evidence her accusation is meaningless.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
If witness testimony is not evidence, as you claim and some group enforces, then there is no such thing as evidence. How people got this stupid I can guess, but my guess is that they aren't stupid, they just love to lie.
iThink comments on Mar 27, 2020:
don't care what she said - without some kind of evidence her accusation is meaningless.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
If witness testimony is not evidence, as you claim and some group enforces, then there is no such thing as evidence. How people got this stupid I can guess, but my guess is that they aren't stupid, they just love to lie.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
A communist front group that supports leftist ideology despises the United States of America and siphons votes from disgruntled Republicans to keep the Democrat party in power. Anarchy precludes despotism and totalitarianism. A utopian dream that frays the threads of society by promoting a lie. A...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
I discovered the same STATIST programming infecting members of The Libertarian Party while I ran for Congress, and then during additional attempts to contact members of "The Party."
LIMO is a useful acronym.
Ron Paul was Libertarian compared to Rand Paul. I heard both speak at a Conference in Reno, Nevada, both are Libertarian compared to Trump.
It is not a Zero Sum Game if people are free to invent better options, options that cost less.
It is a Zero Sum Game (a ticket to hell) if the statists are unopposed by anyone.
"I ultimately believe the world is always in a state of Anarchism and a Libertarian Utopia."
Have you ever been on a jury?
For those who have lost hope, or those who turn to nihilism, there are options to be found by them, if they care to look for options. If they refuse to seek better options, they can reach that goal in fact, as sure as the sun will shine.
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
A communist front group that supports leftist ideology despises the United States of America and siphons votes from disgruntled Republicans to keep the Democrat party in power. Anarchy precludes despotism and totalitarianism. A utopian dream that frays the threads of society by promoting a lie. A...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@Facci
I discovered the same STATIST programming infecting members of The Libertarian Party while I ran for Congress, and then during additional attempts to contact members of "The Party."
LIMO is a useful acronym.
Ron Paul was Libertarian compared to Rand Paul. I heard both speak at a Conference in Reno, Nevada, both are Libertarian compared to Trump.
It is not a Zero Sum Game if people are free to invent better options, options that cost less.
It is a Zero Sum Game (a ticket to hell) if the statists are unopposed by anyone.
"I ultimately believe the world is always in a state of Anarchism and a Libertarian Utopia."
Have you ever been on a jury?
For those who have lost hope, or those who turn to nihilism, there are options to be found by them, if they care to look for options. If they refuse to seek better options, they can reach that goal in fact, as sure as the sun will shine.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@dmatic
"What then, would the existing tyranny employ?"
Aggression has been a staple. An adaptation has been exemplified in The Federalist Papers. Rather than aggression the tyrants impose mind control, or brainwashing, or in legal terms: fraud.
If the slaves can be led to believe that slavery is desired by the slaves, then the slaves will fight to keep themselves enslaved.
It works up to a point, just like aggression.
Aggression and falsehood have a natural bond, explained well by someone who had a few years of personal experience with tyrants:
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970
It may be a good idea to expose the lies that cause people to love their chains - or not - if someone love's their chains they will fight to keep them firmly attached.
Violence and falsehood move from individual to individual as does a cancer or virus internally from cell to cell, as well as externally from individual to individual human being.
The opposite works too, as a kindness (Golden Rule) can spread like the truth spreads, to uncover the roaches and the rats who scramble for the last bit of cover.
If the lies are not exposed (the law power) the inevitable shift to aggressive violence will expose itself.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very ...
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
@dmatic
"What then, would the existing tyranny employ?"
Aggression has been a staple. An adaptation has been exemplified in The Federalist Papers. Rather than aggression the tyrants impose mind control, or brainwashing, or in legal terms: fraud.
If the slaves can be led to believe that slavery is desired by the slaves, then the slaves will fight to keep themselves enslaved.
It works up to a point, just like aggression.
Aggression and falsehood have a natural bond, explained well by someone who had a few years of personal experience with tyrants:
"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood."
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970
It may be a good idea to expose the lies that cause people to love their chains - or not - if someone love's their chains they will fight to keep them firmly attached.
Violence and falsehood move from individual to individual as does a cancer or virus internally from cell to cell, as well as externally from individual to individual human being.
The opposite works too, as a kindness (Golden Rule) can spread like the truth spreads, to uncover the roaches and the rats who scramble for the last bit of cover.
If the lies are not exposed (the law power) the inevitable shift to aggressive violence will expose itself.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very ...
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
" A libertarian, as he or she does not agree with the government that exists, believes the system has to be fixed to suit his or her views of the world. An anarchist, on the other hand, does not believe that the system can be fixed. So, he or she wants to abolish the system once and for all."
I don't think that there is any difference at all between a libertarian, an anarchist, or whatever name the individual uses, or whatever name the individuals agree to use in their group, so long as each individual shares the same means to the same ends.
Ends: "abolish the system once and for all."
Means: "open the market of system providers up to competition and the investors will invest in the highest quality at the lowest cost."
Example:
Libertarianism 101 (there will be a test after reading)
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, ...
iThink comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Good question.
You get a good understanding what libertarianism is by comparing it to other philosophies. I tend to think of Libertarianism being a cousin of Anarchism. Here is an article on comparing both ideas. Read it and draw your own conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from the article which ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
" A libertarian, as he or she does not agree with the government that exists, believes the system has to be fixed to suit his or her views of the world. An anarchist, on the other hand, does not believe that the system can be fixed. So, he or she wants to abolish the system once and for all."
I don't think that there is any difference at all between a libertarian, an anarchist, or whatever name the individual uses, or whatever name the individuals agree to use in their group, so long as each individual shares the same means to the same ends.
Ends: "abolish the system once and for all."
Means: "open the market of system providers up to competition and the investors will invest in the highest quality at the lowest cost."
Example:
Libertarianism 101 (there will be a test after reading)
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States.
"If the trial by jury were reëstablished, the Common Law principle of taxation would be reëstablished with it; for it is not to be supposed that juries would enforce a tax upon an individual which he had never agreed to pay. Taxation without consent is as plainly robbery, when enforced against one man, as when enforced against millions; and it is not to be imagined that juries could be blind to so self-evident a principle. Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself.
"If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, ...
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
A communist front group that supports leftist ideology despises the United States of America and siphons votes from disgruntled Republicans to keep the Democrat party in power. Anarchy precludes despotism and totalitarianism. A utopian dream that frays the threads of society by promoting a lie. A...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
A communist front group is a communist front group, and they often claim to be republicans, democrats, independents, libertarians, anarchists, or anything other than what they really are, so it might be a good idea to put the accurate label on whatever is in view.
Facci comments on Mar 27, 2020:
A communist front group that supports leftist ideology despises the United States of America and siphons votes from disgruntled Republicans to keep the Democrat party in power. Anarchy precludes despotism and totalitarianism. A utopian dream that frays the threads of society by promoting a lie. A...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
A communist front group is a communist front group, and they often claim to be republicans, democrats, independents, libertarians, anarchists, or anything other than what they really are, so it might be a good idea to put the accurate label on whatever is in view.
I’m sorry, but could someone explain what is a libertarian?
Kravman2 comments on Mar 27, 2020:
It seems to consist of people who basically want their own way and demand that others are prevented from stopping them. I had an exchange of views some time ago with a British member of Parliament who described himself as a libertarian. The exchange was about pressures on the health services caused ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
"His beliefs were that people should be free to decide how they lived and that the state (ie taxpayers) must bear the financial cost of the consequences."
Those are the words of a Statist or LIMO (Libertarian In Name Only)
Kravman2 comments on Mar 27, 2020:
It seems to consist of people who basically want their own way and demand that others are prevented from stopping them. I had an exchange of views some time ago with a British member of Parliament who described himself as a libertarian. The exchange was about pressures on the health services caused ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 27, 2020:
"His beliefs were that people should be free to decide how they lived and that the state (ie taxpayers) must bear the financial cost of the consequences."
Those are the words of a Statist or LIMO (Libertarian In Name Only)
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
Habits can run deep. Finding them is possibly difficult, help may help: actual help. Your help is actual, very much so, as I had not discovered the Trial of Thomas Paine on my own, not until your welcome help.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
Habits can run deep. Finding them is possibly difficult, help may help: actual help. Your help is actual, very much so, as I had not discovered the Trial of Thomas Paine on my own, not until your welcome help.
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
" I apologize for wasting your time..."
That is called transference or projection. I've stated:
This, to me, is why discussion is so vital. I would not have been looking for famous English Trials of Conscience had you not responded, or had the topic not be published.
Far from your opinion stated as fact - as you falsely claim now - that my time is wasted by you, my thanks has gone to you, is going to you, and if you continue to provide useful information, useful inspiration, then I can credit your help (not wasting my time as you now claim) in the future.
Is it a failure on your part to actually read the responses you ellicit?
"Thank you for the patience you've managed to maintain as you've attempted to convey information."
That is a direct falsification of the facts. I did not "attempt to convey information," as you now claim. The information offered is information from primary sources: actual information.
"I'll explore some of it as time allows, but doubt I'll again bother you with any attempts at conversation."
That is called a Parthian Shot, or Parthian Arrow tactic. You decide to attack in retreat. Well done, as if regurgitating a well worn script.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
" I apologize for wasting your time..."
That is called transference or projection. I've stated:
This, to me, is why discussion is so vital. I would not have been looking for famous English Trials of Conscience had you not responded, or had the topic not be published.
Far from your opinion stated as fact - as you falsely claim now - that my time is wasted by you, my thanks has gone to you, is going to you, and if you continue to provide useful information, useful inspiration, then I can credit your help (not wasting my time as you now claim) in the future.
Is it a failure on your part to actually read the responses you ellicit?
"Thank you for the patience you've managed to maintain as you've attempted to convey information."
That is a direct falsification of the facts. I did not "attempt to convey information," as you now claim. The information offered is information from primary sources: actual information.
"I'll explore some of it as time allows, but doubt I'll again bother you with any attempts at conversation."
That is called a Parthian Shot, or Parthian Arrow tactic. You decide to attack in retreat. Well done, as if regurgitating a well worn script.
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"The colonists came..."
No. I do not agree. The slaves ran from slavery, on the one hand. On the other hand, mercenaries were sent to accomplish the goal of enslaving everyone who can produce anything worth stealing in an area rich with resources.
And that is not play. That is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter. To suggest that my "lens" is something unique to me is, to me, with my lens, more than simply insult. I am a third party, an observer, a recorder, and a messenger, a node on a network where information can travel without restriction: a free market of information. If you have a contention with the information, then contend with the information, please.
If you have a need to personalize this, to put me, and my personality, and my character, in the spotlight, then please leave me out of your list of things to do to people.
"The governing structures within the colonies, over time, organically shifted away from authoritarian structures toward ones that more accurately reflected a common consensus of what law and justice looks like within a wide variety of differing communities."
Optics? What something looks like? What happened to what is? You use "governing structures" in a legal fiction sense, and I have to then ask what is your sense? There are two uses of legal fictions that I know about as follows:
1. Legal Fiction as a confidence scheme which misdirects defensive efforts away from actual perpetrators of crimes and defensive efforts are then shunted to deal with a fictional being (Man of Straw) that is claimed to be both responsible and accountable, and that is clearly false.
2. Legal Fiction as a shorthand method of referring to a number of individuals who all share a common interest, goal, idealogy, methodology, means, ends, belief, cause to act, or other shared phenomenon common to everyone in that group, whereby everyone in that group shares responsibility and accountability for the actions they, as individuals, act out in time and place.
An example of the first case is a phenomenon called inflation. A very few individuals decide by some process to double the money supply, which then roughly halves the purchasing power of that unit of money over time. The victims of that scam soon are led to blame The FED for price increases. The men behind the curtain get to spend the money they create out of thin air, on anything they want to buy. That has been going on in America since - roughly - 1789.
An explanation of Legal Fiction follows:
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer XVIII
"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head; and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"The colonists came..."
No. I do not agree. The slaves ran from slavery, on the one hand. On the other hand, mercenaries were sent to accomplish the goal of enslaving everyone who can produce anything worth stealing in an area rich with resources.
And that is not play. That is an accurate accounting of the facts that matter. To suggest that my "lens" is something unique to me is, to me, with my lens, more than simply insult. I am a third party, an observer, a recorder, and a messenger, a node on a network where information can travel without restriction: a free market of information. If you have a contention with the information, then contend with the information, please.
If you have a need to personalize this, to put me, and my personality, and my character, in the spotlight, then please leave me out of your list of things to do to people.
"The governing structures within the colonies, over time, organically shifted away from authoritarian structures toward ones that more accurately reflected a common consensus of what law and justice looks like within a wide variety of differing communities."
Optics? What something looks like? What happened to what is? You use "governing structures" in a legal fiction sense, and I have to then ask what is your sense? There are two uses of legal fictions that I know about as follows:
1. Legal Fiction as a confidence scheme which misdirects defensive efforts away from actual perpetrators of crimes and defensive efforts are then shunted to deal with a fictional being (Man of Straw) that is claimed to be both responsible and accountable, and that is clearly false.
2. Legal Fiction as a shorthand method of referring to a number of individuals who all share a common interest, goal, idealogy, methodology, means, ends, belief, cause to act, or other shared phenomenon common to everyone in that group, whereby everyone in that group shares responsibility and accountability for the actions they, as individuals, act out in time and place.
An example of the first case is a phenomenon called inflation. A very few individuals decide by some process to double the money supply, which then roughly halves the purchasing power of that unit of money over time. The victims of that scam soon are led to blame The FED for price increases. The men behind the curtain get to spend the money they create out of thin air, on anything they want to buy. That has been going on in America since - roughly - 1789.
An explanation of Legal Fiction follows:
Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer XVIII
"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head; and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United ...
Here is an interesting perspective to what's going on.
[beforeitsnews.com]
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
"Greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the world And it seems the people are tolerating it. We haven’t had real news in 30 years."
I think it has been a battle between accurate information (found by each individual, or found the lawful way) against lies. If people in the government lie, it is ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@Cariboome
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
U.S. (Legal Fiction, not Public Thing as in Republic) Debt to GDP Ratio Now:
108.88%
The Legal Fiction creates zeros and spends zeros at will. The Legal Fiction buys stuff, voters, cooperators, fellows, assets, powers, control, obedience, enforcement, etc.
The Legal Fiction is in debt, it owes, it owes because it borrowed all the zeros it spends from actual people who produce anything worth stealing: including children.
Behind the curtain that hides the people are the people who create zeros and spends zeros at will, buying stuff.
They owe.
Who pays?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
"Greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the world And it seems the people are tolerating it. We haven’t had real news in 30 years."
I think it has been a battle between accurate information (found by each individual, or found the lawful way) against lies. If people in the government lie, it is ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@Cariboome
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
U.S. (Legal Fiction, not Public Thing as in Republic) Debt to GDP Ratio Now:
108.88%
The Legal Fiction creates zeros and spends zeros at will. The Legal Fiction buys stuff, voters, cooperators, fellows, assets, powers, control, obedience, enforcement, etc.
The Legal Fiction is in debt, it owes, it owes because it borrowed all the zeros it spends from actual people who produce anything worth stealing: including children.
Behind the curtain that hides the people are the people who create zeros and spends zeros at will, buying stuff.
They owe.
Who pays?
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"Are you basically comparing organically evolved as result of reality and pragmatism toward consensual governance vs. artificially designed and imposed as a ruling regime?"
That is a very concise way to put that which is basically my principled approach to life on earth as human beings negotiate time and space as one species.
There has been, is, and probably always will be (so long as we remain genetically human) a power struggle between those who decide, on their own authority, to police themselves first, then set about on the duty to protect and serve the innocent against the other side of the power struggle. The other side of the power struggle are those who lie (artificially design and impose), cheat, steal, rob, rape, enslave, entice, cajole, control, brainwash, torture, horrify, incorporate, enjoin, collect, annex, conscript, debase, corrupt, innocent people for fun or profit.
Example:
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787
And:
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic."
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine, 1802
And:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
Those are people speaking as advocates of the "organically evolved as result of reality and pragmatism toward consensual governance" side against those who are clearly (by their actions if not their ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"Are you basically comparing organically evolved as result of reality and pragmatism toward consensual governance vs. artificially designed and imposed as a ruling regime?"
That is a very concise way to put that which is basically my principled approach to life on earth as human beings negotiate time and space as one species.
There has been, is, and probably always will be (so long as we remain genetically human) a power struggle between those who decide, on their own authority, to police themselves first, then set about on the duty to protect and serve the innocent against the other side of the power struggle. The other side of the power struggle are those who lie (artificially design and impose), cheat, steal, rob, rape, enslave, entice, cajole, control, brainwash, torture, horrify, incorporate, enjoin, collect, annex, conscript, debase, corrupt, innocent people for fun or profit.
Example:
"The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor."
George Mason, 1787
And:
"But a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the "Rights of Man" was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic."
To the citizens of the United States by Thomas Paine, 1802
And:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, An Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852
Those are people speaking as advocates of the "organically evolved as result of reality and pragmatism toward consensual governance" side against those who are clearly (by their actions if not their ...
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"Mine are kind of rose colored, and smudged with classical liberalism, individualism, libertarianism, constitutionalism, a bit of Christian traditionalism, etc, almost none of which I retain any confidence as to their "truth." I was wondering if you had a lens that colors your interpretation of things, and if it has a standard name. I'm not talking about something it would be necessary to defend through argumentation; I'm just trying to look at what you present from a perspective similar to your own, but I haven't been able to figure out you angle over the months."
Classical Liberalism: see Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian School of Economics. I agree with almost everything by Mises, all but Rothbard's "libertarian light" and his specious attack on Spooner and Tucker in "Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature." The "Austrian School" threw me off of their Forum, erased everything I published on their Forum, and that was sparked by my report on evidence that 911 was an inside job. I had written extensively on their forum.
Individualism: see Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Benjamin Tucker for in-depth reporting on individualism as an accurately measurable natural process, and the beginnings of so-called Individualist Anarchism in America (mid 19th century). Lysander Spooner lived at this time also, but his work is more along the lines of Classical Liberalism because he reports on classical, liberal, law processes: the common law.
Libertarianism: see Ron Paul. The man exemplifies the principles of Libertarianism: do no aggressive harm. Why he does not promote The Law, I don't know, he ought to know better.
Constitutionalism: Here are 2 opposing interpretations with a clearly defined demarcation line:
1. Libertarian Constitutionalism: The Sovereignty of the Individual, the State is subject to the people through clearly delineated LAW - common law for example - with such examples as a Declaration of Independence, a Solemn Notice of Mixed War, Commercial Lean Rights, Bills of Rights, and non-criminal Constitutions, such as The Articles of Confederation and the first State Constitutions at the founding in America 1774 through 1789.
2. Legal Fiction Constitutionalism: Subsidized Slavery couched in legalese, see for example The Constitution of 1789, The Judiciary Act of 1789, The Naturalization Acts of 1790, Central Bank creation and enforcement 1791, The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation and enforcement 1794, Alien and Sedition Acts 1798, for a start. Moving fast forward there is this:
XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"Mine are kind of rose colored, and smudged with classical liberalism, individualism, libertarianism, constitutionalism, a bit of Christian traditionalism, etc, almost none of which I retain any confidence as to their "truth." I was wondering if you had a lens that colors your interpretation of things, and if it has a standard name. I'm not talking about something it would be necessary to defend through argumentation; I'm just trying to look at what you present from a perspective similar to your own, but I haven't been able to figure out you angle over the months."
Classical Liberalism: see Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian School of Economics. I agree with almost everything by Mises, all but Rothbard's "libertarian light" and his specious attack on Spooner and Tucker in "Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature." The "Austrian School" threw me off of their Forum, erased everything I published on their Forum, and that was sparked by my report on evidence that 911 was an inside job. I had written extensively on their forum.
Individualism: see Josiah Warren, Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Benjamin Tucker for in-depth reporting on individualism as an accurately measurable natural process, and the beginnings of so-called Individualist Anarchism in America (mid 19th century). Lysander Spooner lived at this time also, but his work is more along the lines of Classical Liberalism because he reports on classical, liberal, law processes: the common law.
Libertarianism: see Ron Paul. The man exemplifies the principles of Libertarianism: do no aggressive harm. Why he does not promote The Law, I don't know, he ought to know better.
Constitutionalism: Here are 2 opposing interpretations with a clearly defined demarcation line:
1. Libertarian Constitutionalism: The Sovereignty of the Individual, the State is subject to the people through clearly delineated LAW - common law for example - with such examples as a Declaration of Independence, a Solemn Notice of Mixed War, Commercial Lean Rights, Bills of Rights, and non-criminal Constitutions, such as The Articles of Confederation and the first State Constitutions at the founding in America 1774 through 1789.
2. Legal Fiction Constitutionalism: Subsidized Slavery couched in legalese, see for example The Constitution of 1789, The Judiciary Act of 1789, The Naturalization Acts of 1790, Central Bank creation and enforcement 1791, The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation and enforcement 1794, Alien and Sedition Acts 1798, for a start. Moving fast forward there is this:
XIV - Citizen rights not to be abridged
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions...
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Naomi comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Are there any members here who are well-read in history, theories and politics? @N0DD? @Edgework? @JimbobNE? @timon_phocas? @FrankZeleniuk? @Facci? @WilyRickWiles? @RobBlair? @SpikeTalon? @jnaatjes? @Boardwine? @Haraldson? @rway? @Aurelien?
Anyone at all? No pressure.😁😂
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
The current book I am reading is Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
I have on deck, almost done The Conviction Factory, by Roger Roots.
Just started (200.00 purchase) is a Cambridge History of Law book.
My recommendations (I have read these):
Equitable Commerce, by Josiah Warren
True Civilization, Josiah Warren
Socialism, Ludwig Von Mises
The Science of Society, Stephen Pearl Andrews
The Disadvantages of Being Educated, Albert J. Nock
An Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner (a must)
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Erich Fromm
The Sane Society, Erich Fromm
Shays's Rebellion, Leonard L. Richards
The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas P. Slaughter
The 7 Years War, Daniel Marston
The Global Brain, Howard Bloom
The Lucifer Principle, Howard Bloom
Unintended Consequences, John Ross
Failed States, Noam Chomsky
Blackwater, Jeremy Scahill
A Different Kind of War, H. C.Von Sponeck
Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
"Are there any members here who are well-read in history, theories and politics?"
I'm not on the list, but I challenge anyone to a debate on any fact that matters in history and politics.
Naomi comments on Mar 26, 2020:
Are there any members here who are well-read in history, theories and politics? @N0DD? @Edgework? @JimbobNE? @timon_phocas? @FrankZeleniuk? @Facci? @WilyRickWiles? @RobBlair? @SpikeTalon? @jnaatjes? @Boardwine? @Haraldson? @rway? @Aurelien?
Anyone at all? No pressure.😁😂
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
The current book I am reading is Conceived in Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
I have on deck, almost done The Conviction Factory, by Roger Roots.
Just started (200.00 purchase) is a Cambridge History of Law book.
My recommendations (I have read these):
Equitable Commerce, by Josiah Warren
True Civilization, Josiah Warren
Socialism, Ludwig Von Mises
The Science of Society, Stephen Pearl Andrews
The Disadvantages of Being Educated, Albert J. Nock
An Essay on The Trial by Jury, Lysander Spooner (a must)
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Erich Fromm
The Sane Society, Erich Fromm
Shays's Rebellion, Leonard L. Richards
The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas P. Slaughter
The 7 Years War, Daniel Marston
The Global Brain, Howard Bloom
The Lucifer Principle, Howard Bloom
Unintended Consequences, John Ross
Failed States, Noam Chomsky
Blackwater, Jeremy Scahill
A Different Kind of War, H. C.Von Sponeck
Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
"Are there any members here who are well-read in history, theories and politics?"
I'm not on the list, but I challenge anyone to a debate on any fact that matters in history and politics.
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"Toward what succinct idea are you arguing?"
I am not arguing, why do you feel the need to make a false statement?
The Topic was succinct.
My reply to the topic was succinct. The subject matter involves many people over many years with their minds full of data, a lot of processing of that data, and a lot of action inspired by those processes of that data in times and places. To condense all that down to a superficial, general, statement of fact, succinctly, is going to be a competitive enterprise.
If you have a better succinct answer to the topic question, then you can offer it, and then there are two answers to the topic question to compare or argue about if that is your goal.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 26, 2020:
@govols
"Toward what succinct idea are you arguing?"
I am not arguing, why do you feel the need to make a false statement?
The Topic was succinct.
My reply to the topic was succinct. The subject matter involves many people over many years with their minds full of data, a lot of processing of that data, and a lot of action inspired by those processes of that data in times and places. To condense all that down to a superficial, general, statement of fact, succinctly, is going to be a competitive enterprise.
If you have a better succinct answer to the topic question, then you can offer it, and then there are two answers to the topic question to compare or argue about if that is your goal.
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
@govols
Having nailed down the message (at least to some degree) you sent - a question - it seems to me that your determination is such that my comment was a leaning and not a statement of fact: a fact that can be proven.
So as far as I am concerned you have received a useful statement of fact, but rather than use it, or even contend with it, you turn the statement of fact into my personal ideological leaning.
Example:
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
From my understanding of your question, your question has nothing to do with that statement of a fact that matters and your question turns instead to me personally; "my" so-called ideological bent.
So now you have "my" so-called ideological bent reported factually to you, and what are you going to do now?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
@govols
Having nailed down the message (at least to some degree) you sent - a question - it seems to me that your determination is such that my comment was a leaning and not a statement of fact: a fact that can be proven.
So as far as I am concerned you have received a useful statement of fact, but rather than use it, or even contend with it, you turn the statement of fact into my personal ideological leaning.
Example:
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
From my understanding of your question, your question has nothing to do with that statement of a fact that matters and your question turns instead to me personally; "my" so-called ideological bent.
So now you have "my" so-called ideological bent reported factually to you, and what are you going to do now?
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
@govols
OK, thanks.
I looked up and found this:
bent
"dishonest; corrupt"
": different from the normal or usual"
": extremely upset or angry"
So, I'd like to proceed as if you said:
"Can you state or coin, without providing argument, a name for your ideological leanings?"
My ideological leanings is a leaning toward accurate accountability of the facts that matter while employing due process of law as known by roughly half of the Founding Fathers, those Founding Fathers who were bent on conserving the ancient law, also known as the common law, also known as legem terrae, also known as the law of the land.
That is my leanings.
How about explaining what you mean by the words "state" and "coin" in context? I can reply with a comment after you explain what you mean by those words.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
@govols
OK, thanks.
I looked up and found this:
bent
"dishonest; corrupt"
": different from the normal or usual"
": extremely upset or angry"
So, I'd like to proceed as if you said:
"Can you state or coin, without providing argument, a name for your ideological leanings?"
My ideological leanings is a leaning toward accurate accountability of the facts that matter while employing due process of law as known by roughly half of the Founding Fathers, those Founding Fathers who were bent on conserving the ancient law, also known as the common law, also known as legem terrae, also known as the law of the land.
That is my leanings.
How about explaining what you mean by the words "state" and "coin" in context? I can reply with a comment after you explain what you mean by those words.
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
@govols
Can you define the meaning of the word "bent" in context?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 25, 2020:
At the time of the Revolution in America the words progressive and conservative roughly mean the opposite meaning when compared with modern usage of those words.
Past:
Conservative: Religious Intolerance
Progressive: Religous Tolerance
Present:
Conservative: Nationalist in opposition to...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
@govols
Can you define the meaning of the word "bent" in context?
Was the American Revolution a progressive or a conservative movement? What is your interpretation?
Xtra comments on Mar 25, 2020:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-revolutionary-war-was-conservative
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
"On this day 241 years ago, our Founding Fathers, who had those American values and character, severed ties with Great Britain, cutting the "political bands which have connected them to one another," as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence."
It is half true to claim anything about THE Founding Fathers as if everyone in that group had the same ideas and the same actions.
"In contrast, American independence and the revolution that put it in place were necessary not because the revolutionaries and their leaders wanted everything to change. The revolution here was about upholding timeless ideals. America itself was a new idea, but the unalienable rights we fought for of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are those with which we have been endowed by our Creator since the dawn of time."
If there were people in the Founding Fathers group who were thinking and acting as that article claims, then those people would be the ones who were against The Constitution of 1789.
Such as:
Luther Martin
Robert Yates
George Mason
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Patrick Henry
Those who were for Consolidation of the former Federation of Independent States into One Profitable Monopoly, and those who were for annihilating the existing federation under The Articles of Confederation (a treasonous crime) were:
Alexander Hamilton
George Washington
Robert Morris
James Madison
John Adams
Those in the first list were for unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of everyone's happiness, not just an elite group of aristocrats. Those in the second list were against inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for their subjects, they were certainly for their own sovereign power to enslave whoever they want whenever they want with impunity.
So if the revolution was a rejection of the all-powerful nanny state, which was at the time a so-called Divine Right of Kings, and the revolution was a move toward each individual as a king in the castle of their own making, then those in the first list were for that vocally and by their actions. In the second group, they only fought one all-powerful nanny state so as to take control of another one.
The first group was conserving freedom, including the religious freedom of conscience, and they were conserving the common laws of free people, laws based upon natural law, organic law, grass-roots law, as in "of the people, by the people, and for all the people."
The second group was for conserving power to enslave the slaves.
The first group progressed from enslavement of all to freedom for all.
The second group progressed from freedom for all to enslavement of all.
I hope that helps.
Xtra comments on Mar 25, 2020:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-revolutionary-war-was-conservative
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 25, 2020:
"On this day 241 years ago, our Founding Fathers, who had those American values and character, severed ties with Great Britain, cutting the "political bands which have connected them to one another," as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence."
It is half true to claim anything about THE Founding Fathers as if everyone in that group had the same ideas and the same actions.
"In contrast, American independence and the revolution that put it in place were necessary not because the revolutionaries and their leaders wanted everything to change. The revolution here was about upholding timeless ideals. America itself was a new idea, but the unalienable rights we fought for of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are those with which we have been endowed by our Creator since the dawn of time."
If there were people in the Founding Fathers group who were thinking and acting as that article claims, then those people would be the ones who were against The Constitution of 1789.
Such as:
Luther Martin
Robert Yates
George Mason
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Patrick Henry
Those who were for Consolidation of the former Federation of Independent States into One Profitable Monopoly, and those who were for annihilating the existing federation under The Articles of Confederation (a treasonous crime) were:
Alexander Hamilton
George Washington
Robert Morris
James Madison
John Adams
Those in the first list were for unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of everyone's happiness, not just an elite group of aristocrats. Those in the second list were against inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for their subjects, they were certainly for their own sovereign power to enslave whoever they want whenever they want with impunity.
So if the revolution was a rejection of the all-powerful nanny state, which was at the time a so-called Divine Right of Kings, and the revolution was a move toward each individual as a king in the castle of their own making, then those in the first list were for that vocally and by their actions. In the second group, they only fought one all-powerful nanny state so as to take control of another one.
The first group was conserving freedom, including the religious freedom of conscience, and they were conserving the common laws of free people, laws based upon natural law, organic law, grass-roots law, as in "of the people, by the people, and for all the people."
The second group was for conserving power to enslave the slaves.
The first group progressed from enslavement of all to freedom for all.
The second group progressed from freedom for all to enslavement of all.
I hope that helps.
A Good, Relatively Short Refutation of the Re-Writing of American History known as the “1619 ...
timon_phocas comments on Mar 21, 2020:
This agrees with what I've read of the writings of people of the times. George Washington had slaves. He considered them inferior workmen to free men as they had no hope of gain from their labors. Jefferson had slaves and was deeply conflicted. He was torn between his ideals and the very practical ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 21, 2020:
"As a general issue, American slavery was at best barely profitable at the time of the Revolution."
Perhaps that is why they subsidized it?
timon_phocas comments on Mar 21, 2020:
This agrees with what I've read of the writings of people of the times. George Washington had slaves. He considered them inferior workmen to free men as they had no hope of gain from their labors. Jefferson had slaves and was deeply conflicted. He was torn between his ideals and the very practical ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 21, 2020:
"As a general issue, American slavery was at best barely profitable at the time of the Revolution."
Perhaps that is why they subsidized it?
WHAT IF?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 17, 2020:
I'm not buying the "China" against "Trump" road map.
In China as in everywhere else on the planet there are very powerful, very evil, very much people who wear clothes and speak messages.
Next to those very powerful people are lesser evil people.
Next to those very powerful people are ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 19, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Maybe this IS the Light (Trump) vs the Dark (the CCP)"
Then again maybe that statement is no different than any other example of "identity politics."
Trump is an individual in command of a Nation-State Legal Fiction complete with all the branches and organs of that corporate being. It is an aggregate sum total of all the people who agree to maintain the corporate work to get to the corporate goals, as happens in any other incorporation of like-minded individuals. Trump at the highest position appears to be authoritative and therefore in command of the ship, but if it smells like a dictatorship, floats like a dictatorship, and does all the things done by dictatorships, then maybe it is a dictatorship. Dictators don't act alone, it takes a village, to coin a phrase from the dictatorship dogma.
"So ... I guess you’re RIGHT ... at This Moment it IS Trump (who embodies the WILL of the USA’s Conservative Citizenry) vs. CHINA (the CCP ... who embodies the WILL of the Chinese Communist Party)"
Roughly 3% of the membership of a dictatorial social structure (dictatorship) lead the way that the ship navigates through open waters. That 3% can call themselves anything they want for any reason they want, and often the name is a false front.
The term Conservative was once meant as those people conserving the dominant religious dictatorship in power at that time, to be against that dictatorship was to be progressive. Example:
"Martin Luther, (born November 10, 1483, Eisleben, Saxony [Germany]—died February 18, 1546, Eisleben), German theologian and religious reformer who was the catalyst of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. Through his words and actions, Luther precipitated a movement that reformulated certain basic tenets of Christian belief and resulted in the division of Western Christendom between Roman Catholicism and the new Protestant traditions, mainly Lutheranism, Calvinism, the Anglican Communion, the Anabaptists, and the Antitrinitarians."
Conservatives conserved intolerance.
Progressives progressed from intolerance to tolerance.
My guess is that your version of what conservatives do, you and whoever is a conservative by your definition, is not intolerance of individuals exerting their own power of moral conscience in their beliefs concerning religion.
So your use of the word conservative isn't the original use of the word, and so it may be a good idea to figure out what you and or the other conservatives are working to conserve if it isn't religious dogma and the enforcement of a dictatorial religious regime such as the Catholic Empire run by the Pope and so many Jesuits and members of that dictatorial regime.
This is an important point worth pointing out because the fusion of Church and State, the Roman ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 17, 2020:
I'm not buying the "China" against "Trump" road map.
In China as in everywhere else on the planet there are very powerful, very evil, very much people who wear clothes and speak messages.
Next to those very powerful people are lesser evil people.
Next to those very powerful people are ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 19, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
"Maybe this IS the Light (Trump) vs the Dark (the CCP)"
Then again maybe that statement is no different than any other example of "identity politics."
Trump is an individual in command of a Nation-State Legal Fiction complete with all the branches and organs of that corporate being. It is an aggregate sum total of all the people who agree to maintain the corporate work to get to the corporate goals, as happens in any other incorporation of like-minded individuals. Trump at the highest position appears to be authoritative and therefore in command of the ship, but if it smells like a dictatorship, floats like a dictatorship, and does all the things done by dictatorships, then maybe it is a dictatorship. Dictators don't act alone, it takes a village, to coin a phrase from the dictatorship dogma.
"So ... I guess you’re RIGHT ... at This Moment it IS Trump (who embodies the WILL of the USA’s Conservative Citizenry) vs. CHINA (the CCP ... who embodies the WILL of the Chinese Communist Party)"
Roughly 3% of the membership of a dictatorial social structure (dictatorship) lead the way that the ship navigates through open waters. That 3% can call themselves anything they want for any reason they want, and often the name is a false front.
The term Conservative was once meant as those people conserving the dominant religious dictatorship in power at that time, to be against that dictatorship was to be progressive. Example:
"Martin Luther, (born November 10, 1483, Eisleben, Saxony [Germany]—died February 18, 1546, Eisleben), German theologian and religious reformer who was the catalyst of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. Through his words and actions, Luther precipitated a movement that reformulated certain basic tenets of Christian belief and resulted in the division of Western Christendom between Roman Catholicism and the new Protestant traditions, mainly Lutheranism, Calvinism, the Anglican Communion, the Anabaptists, and the Antitrinitarians."
Conservatives conserved intolerance.
Progressives progressed from intolerance to tolerance.
My guess is that your version of what conservatives do, you and whoever is a conservative by your definition, is not intolerance of individuals exerting their own power of moral conscience in their beliefs concerning religion.
So your use of the word conservative isn't the original use of the word, and so it may be a good idea to figure out what you and or the other conservatives are working to conserve if it isn't religious dogma and the enforcement of a dictatorial religious regime such as the Catholic Empire run by the Pope and so many Jesuits and members of that dictatorial regime.
This is an important point worth pointing out because the fusion of Church and State, the Roman ...
Looks like the smoking "gun" bioweapon has been traced back to the origin. [youtu.be]
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 18, 2020:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 18, 2020:
@808scotty
Yup.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 18, 2020:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 18, 2020:
@808scotty
Yup.
Looks like the smoking "gun" bioweapon has been traced back to the origin. [youtu.be]
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 18, 2020:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 18, 2020:
@808scotty
I think first that the power struggle at every level is between very evil people against victims and a whole lot of lesser evil people who just want a bigger piece of the pie, which ought to lend some reasonable data to people wanting to figure this stuff out: those in power have those under them to fear more so than the slaves in revolt.
Slaves in revolt is a problem, of course, I'm saying that those in power in these criminal organizations (claimed to be The Law) are often "suicided" as a means of removing competitors seeking a higher place in the order of things.
With that in mind, the concept of building a better mouse (slave) trap works for both problems.
How to:
1.
Avoid being suicided.
2.
Keep the slaves happy with their slavery.
A pogrom, which is culling of the herd, is not a novel solution, even if the novel virus is man-made, weaponized, unnatural, mutation of a virus, designed for the routine solution to the problem that has been called The Final Solution in other ages, in other situations.
The herd, if allowed to become more powerful through freedom in liberty, will no longer be happy with the condition of slavery, so there must only be a carefully doled out amount of freedom to the herd. An old solution to the problem of too much freedom too soon - too much liberty - is the divided and conquered herd solution. Cause roughly half of the herd to hate the other half and visa versa, and then ignite the volatile Molotov cocktail. See for example The American "Civil" War.
If that does not ring true, if you have data that leads you to believe that other reasons for The American "Civil" War caused that pogrom, then a much better example is World War I, II, and III.
We are at III now. World War II was well documented by Anthony Sutton in his three reports:
1.
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
2.
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
3.
Wall Street and FDR
If those in power at the top want something they have no shortage of counterfeit money to buy whatever it is that they want, anything that counterfeit money can buy, they can buy it. They can buy a pogrom. They can buy methods by which the agitated herd of slaves can be culled.
So they will be designing weapons of mass destruction: MAD.
How hard is it to get just the right amount of destruction, not too much, not too little?
Keep in mind that those in power don't often confess, but their minions have and in droves, so the often repeated response to "Conspiracy Theorists" with their Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Theories: "if what you say is true then someone by now would have reported it," is moot. Ignorance is a choice. Aggressively attacking people who pass on the unwanted message is a choice: see Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 18, 2020:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/harvard-university-professor-and-two-chinese-nationals-charged-three-separate-china-related
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 18, 2020:
@808scotty
I think first that the power struggle at every level is between very evil people against victims and a whole lot of lesser evil people who just want a bigger piece of the pie, which ought to lend some reasonable data to people wanting to figure this stuff out: those in power have those under them to fear more so than the slaves in revolt.
Slaves in revolt is a problem, of course, I'm saying that those in power in these criminal organizations (claimed to be The Law) are often "suicided" as a means of removing competitors seeking a higher place in the order of things.
With that in mind, the concept of building a better mouse (slave) trap works for both problems.
How to:
1.
Avoid being suicided.
2.
Keep the slaves happy with their slavery.
A pogrom, which is culling of the herd, is not a novel solution, even if the novel virus is man-made, weaponized, unnatural, mutation of a virus, designed for the routine solution to the problem that has been called The Final Solution in other ages, in other situations.
The herd, if allowed to become more powerful through freedom in liberty, will no longer be happy with the condition of slavery, so there must only be a carefully doled out amount of freedom to the herd. An old solution to the problem of too much freedom too soon - too much liberty - is the divided and conquered herd solution. Cause roughly half of the herd to hate the other half and visa versa, and then ignite the volatile Molotov cocktail. See for example The American "Civil" War.
If that does not ring true, if you have data that leads you to believe that other reasons for The American "Civil" War caused that pogrom, then a much better example is World War I, II, and III.
We are at III now. World War II was well documented by Anthony Sutton in his three reports:
1.
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
2.
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
3.
Wall Street and FDR
If those in power at the top want something they have no shortage of counterfeit money to buy whatever it is that they want, anything that counterfeit money can buy, they can buy it. They can buy a pogrom. They can buy methods by which the agitated herd of slaves can be culled.
So they will be designing weapons of mass destruction: MAD.
How hard is it to get just the right amount of destruction, not too much, not too little?
Keep in mind that those in power don't often confess, but their minions have and in droves, so the often repeated response to "Conspiracy Theorists" with their Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Theories: "if what you say is true then someone by now would have reported it," is moot. Ignorance is a choice. Aggressively attacking people who pass on the unwanted message is a choice: see Martin Luther King Jr. Conspiracy Murder Trial ...
Strange thought; I have hurt some feelings on social media I am sure.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 17, 2020:
@jakuboj
"The challenge is that our legal system is corrupt. Our judges are all appointed for life with no accountability. For this reason I do not have high hopes for these private informations."
LINO - Law In Name Only
RINO - Republic In Name Only
DINO - Democracy In Name Only
FINO - Federation In Name Only
I think the term is Fraud, and on that level it is Treason.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 17, 2020:
@jakuboj
"The challenge is that our legal system is corrupt. Our judges are all appointed for life with no accountability. For this reason I do not have high hopes for these private informations."
LINO - Law In Name Only
RINO - Republic In Name Only
DINO - Democracy In Name Only
FINO - Federation In Name Only
I think the term is Fraud, and on that level it is Treason.
Strange thought; I have hurt some feelings on social media I am sure.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
"In Canada the average citizen has the same charge laying authority as a cop."
That is exactly what I thought was worth discussing. If that is true, as it is also true in America in principle, then are there any examples of that happening, so as to demonstrate that it is not simply true in principle, it is in fact true?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
"In Canada the average citizen has the same charge laying authority as a cop."
That is exactly what I thought was worth discussing. If that is true, as it is also true in America in principle, then are there any examples of that happening, so as to demonstrate that it is not simply true in principle, it is in fact true?
Strange thought; I have hurt some feelings on social media I am sure.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
"Video surveillance and chip insertions would almost eliminate crime. But people need to accept the good woth the potential bad."
The point that may not be easy to make is the point concerning who is in power to determine what is or is not a crime.
A criminal worthy of the name is not going to want to have a chip inserted, or even better a criminal worthy of the name would have ready a way to counterfeit the data stored or broadcast from the chip.
I was thinking more along the lines of people in government abusing their powers, infringing upon this and that right, which is a crime if words mean anything, and just exactly how many crimes these people perpetrate that aren't right there confessed on their own paperwork?
An obvious example is a crime that the Nazi's were found guilty of perpetrating, war of aggression, and what exactly was Desert Storm, or any war since Shays's Rebellion in 1787? Infringing, infringing, infringing, out in the open, no problem. Stealth for other crimes, human trafficking, drug running, "regime change," printing money out of thin air, and no one dares to do anything about it, but it is relatively important to make sure someone doesn't consume a plant or travel without authorization papers?
What is the process by which regular old Joe can lawfully file criminal charges, and have something actually done, in cases of very serious treasonous crimes? No one knows, not even the authorities?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
"Video surveillance and chip insertions would almost eliminate crime. But people need to accept the good woth the potential bad."
The point that may not be easy to make is the point concerning who is in power to determine what is or is not a crime.
A criminal worthy of the name is not going to want to have a chip inserted, or even better a criminal worthy of the name would have ready a way to counterfeit the data stored or broadcast from the chip.
I was thinking more along the lines of people in government abusing their powers, infringing upon this and that right, which is a crime if words mean anything, and just exactly how many crimes these people perpetrate that aren't right there confessed on their own paperwork?
An obvious example is a crime that the Nazi's were found guilty of perpetrating, war of aggression, and what exactly was Desert Storm, or any war since Shays's Rebellion in 1787? Infringing, infringing, infringing, out in the open, no problem. Stealth for other crimes, human trafficking, drug running, "regime change," printing money out of thin air, and no one dares to do anything about it, but it is relatively important to make sure someone doesn't consume a plant or travel without authorization papers?
What is the process by which regular old Joe can lawfully file criminal charges, and have something actually done, in cases of very serious treasonous crimes? No one knows, not even the authorities?
Voluntary Mutual Defense:
Equitable Commerce:
Free Market Government Service Provider ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
From the new book I found:
"The fact that Warren was critical of the state did not make him less traditional: the state as Warren knew it was a recent invention. There was nothing traditional in government established only fifty years ago in the course of a revolutionary war. It is rarely ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
Here is another telling quote:
"Even if we supposed that Warren himself could sincerely believe that his ideas were totally novel, it would not actually contradict our main thesis. A person, who proposes a conservative scheme of commerce within a growing market-ridden bourgeois ideology, is not necessarily socialist. It is actually more natural to call him conservative or, to be precise, paleoconservative. This term, which appeared in 1980s, was used to define the conservative beliefs which had their origins not in the essentially modern concept of state and bourgeois society, but in the values of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. This layer of thought, which has never been fully abandoned, continued to influence modern thinkers. Some of the latter fully acknowledged this influence,39 but even those who did not, could not fully abstain from the legacy of the past.
39 E.g. the Anti-Federalist thinkers, the state right theorists, the Southern Agrarians."
Can this writer be unaware of the fact that the people advocating voluntary association for mutual defense (free market government services: federation) were falsely called "anti," by the Nationalists who hid behind a false Federalist Party label?
Example:
"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
Was that "anti" Federalist one of the "Southern Agrarians"? Is New York part of the south?
Was Pennsylvania part of the South?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
From the new book I found:
"The fact that Warren was critical of the state did not make him less traditional: the state as Warren knew it was a recent invention. There was nothing traditional in government established only fifty years ago in the course of a revolutionary war. It is rarely ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
Here is another telling quote:
"Even if we supposed that Warren himself could sincerely believe that his ideas were totally novel, it would not actually contradict our main thesis. A person, who proposes a conservative scheme of commerce within a growing market-ridden bourgeois ideology, is not necessarily socialist. It is actually more natural to call him conservative or, to be precise, paleoconservative. This term, which appeared in 1980s, was used to define the conservative beliefs which had their origins not in the essentially modern concept of state and bourgeois society, but in the values of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. This layer of thought, which has never been fully abandoned, continued to influence modern thinkers. Some of the latter fully acknowledged this influence,39 but even those who did not, could not fully abstain from the legacy of the past.
39 E.g. the Anti-Federalist thinkers, the state right theorists, the Southern Agrarians."
Can this writer be unaware of the fact that the people advocating voluntary association for mutual defense (free market government services: federation) were falsely called "anti," by the Nationalists who hid behind a false Federalist Party label?
Example:
"He was pleased that, thus early in debate, the honorable gentleman had himself shown that the intent of the Constitution was not a confederacy, but a reduction of all the states into a consolidated government. He hoped the gentleman would be complaisant enough to exchange names with those who disliked the Constitution, as it appeared from his own concessions, that they were federalists, and those who advocated it were anti-federalists."
FRIDAY, June 20, 1788
Melancton Smith
Was that "anti" Federalist one of the "Southern Agrarians"? Is New York part of the south?
Was Pennsylvania part of the South?
Strange thought; I have hurt some feelings on social media I am sure.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
The concept offered is merely the actual law power, so my idea here is to get someone else to deliberately discuss that law power.
If there is a criminal causing injury to innocent people, then there ought to be something that can be done effectively, expediently, efficiently, and economically to deter, discourage, and to prevent further crimes, further injuries.
If the one causing the injury is causing one small injury each month to one victim, then that can be compared to someone causing a lot more injuries, much more serious injuries, much more often, to a whole lot more people, and the greater evil appears to be gaining power each day, accelerating the rate of crime rapidly.
Someone volunteering to do something about crime might make a serious decision as to which criminal warrants the time and energy first, as a priority decision such as is manifested in the term triage.
A judge guilty of bad behavior, for example, could be allowed to continue bad behavior because he alone is the judge in power to judge what is or is not bad behavior for a judge.
How many innocent people flowing into the correctional facilities (learning a thing or two while inside), people who have injured no one, not even themselves, does it take before a warrant is warranted in this case of this judge?
Can one of the victims of this hypothetical judge set in motion the wheels of justice, or is that type of warrant old fashioned?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
The concept offered is merely the actual law power, so my idea here is to get someone else to deliberately discuss that law power.
If there is a criminal causing injury to innocent people, then there ought to be something that can be done effectively, expediently, efficiently, and economically to deter, discourage, and to prevent further crimes, further injuries.
If the one causing the injury is causing one small injury each month to one victim, then that can be compared to someone causing a lot more injuries, much more serious injuries, much more often, to a whole lot more people, and the greater evil appears to be gaining power each day, accelerating the rate of crime rapidly.
Someone volunteering to do something about crime might make a serious decision as to which criminal warrants the time and energy first, as a priority decision such as is manifested in the term triage.
A judge guilty of bad behavior, for example, could be allowed to continue bad behavior because he alone is the judge in power to judge what is or is not bad behavior for a judge.
How many innocent people flowing into the correctional facilities (learning a thing or two while inside), people who have injured no one, not even themselves, does it take before a warrant is warranted in this case of this judge?
Can one of the victims of this hypothetical judge set in motion the wheels of justice, or is that type of warrant old fashioned?
Strange thought; I have hurt some feelings on social media I am sure.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
What are your thoughts on the following:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
Fact:
"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@jakuboj
What are your thoughts on the following:
The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America's Criminal Courts, by Roger Roots
Page 40
Private Prosecutors
"For decades before and after the Revolution, the adjudication of criminals in America was governed primarily by the rule of private prosecution: (1) victims of serious crimes approached a community grand jury, (2) the grand jury investigated the matter and issued an indictment only if it concluded that a crime should be charged, and (3) the victim himself or his representative (generally an attorney but sometimes a state attorney general) prosecuted the defendant before a petit jury of twelve men. Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions - the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim. Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state - but for their own vindication. The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person. A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding. When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name - even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.
Private prosecution meant that criminal cases were for the most part limited by the need of crime victims for vindication. Crime victims held the keys to a potential defendant's fate and often negotiated the settlement of criminal cases. After a case was initiated in the name of the people, however, private prosecutors were prohibited from withdrawing the action pursuant to private agreement with the defendant. Court intervention was occasionally required to compel injured crime victims to appear against offenders in court and "not to make bargains to allow [defendants] to escape conviction, if they...repair the injury."
Page 42
Law Enforcement as a Universal Duty
"Law enforcement in the Founders' time was a duty of every citizen. Citizens were expected to be armed and equipped to chase suspects on foot, on horse, or with wagon whenever summoned. And when called upon to enforce the laws of the state, citizens were to respond "not faintly and with lagging steps, but honestly and bravely and with whatever implements and facilities [were] convenient and at hand. Any person could act in the capacity of a constable without being one, and when summoned by a law enforcement officer, a private person became a temporary member of the police department. The law also presumed that any person acting in his public capacity as an officer was rightfully appointed."
Liberty activist 'murdered as he slept' by swat team seizing his guns-
[thefreethoughtproject.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
"Lemp was Caucasian, according to Sandler. She did not know the race of the unidentified officer involved because she said the officers were wearing masks. The officer was placed on administrative leave, a standard procedure after police shootings."
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@JVIP-WTPNN
Each new abuse of power by anyone in government, anywhere, anytime, is cause to act lawfully. If murder is an indictable crime, then it is more so when perpetrated by someone trusted with police power.
If people don't learn the power of law - the real thing - those in power will do whatever they want to anyone with impunity.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 16, 2020:
"Lemp was Caucasian, according to Sandler. She did not know the race of the unidentified officer involved because she said the officers were wearing masks. The officer was placed on administrative leave, a standard procedure after police shootings."
...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 16, 2020:
@JVIP-WTPNN
Each new abuse of power by anyone in government, anywhere, anytime, is cause to act lawfully. If murder is an indictable crime, then it is more so when perpetrated by someone trusted with police power.
If people don't learn the power of law - the real thing - those in power will do whatever they want to anyone with impunity.
Australia. ABC. Public Broadcast. "Jordan Peterson Destroys Q and A."
[youtu.be]
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 15, 2020:
At time 46:00 or so the subject matter turned to quotas for representative democracy according to the woman in red and Jordan Peterson.
WIR (Woman in red) appears to think that government as it exists now is a form of representative democracy and that quotas may be a good idea to fill government...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 15, 2020:
@808scotty
If all there was, is, or could be forevermore is arbitrary (criminal) government power, then I can agree. If, on the other hand, actual government power is merely voluntary association for the specified purpose of mutual defense, then someone seeking that govt power isn't after the ring, they are merely volunteering to do a job that they, on their own authority, consider to be worth doing.
Someone seeking actual government power (not counterfeit government power) is no more worthy of being rejected than someone seeking a job at farming their own chickens, or making their own toilet paper and selling any excess to someone who may be offering eggs.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 15, 2020:
At time 46:00 or so the subject matter turned to quotas for representative democracy according to the woman in red and Jordan Peterson.
WIR (Woman in red) appears to think that government as it exists now is a form of representative democracy and that quotas may be a good idea to fill government...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 15, 2020:
@808scotty
If all there was, is, or could be forevermore is arbitrary (criminal) government power, then I can agree. If, on the other hand, actual government power is merely voluntary association for the specified purpose of mutual defense, then someone seeking that govt power isn't after the ring, they are merely volunteering to do a job that they, on their own authority, consider to be worth doing.
Someone seeking actual government power (not counterfeit government power) is no more worthy of being rejected than someone seeking a job at farming their own chickens, or making their own toilet paper and selling any excess to someone who may be offering eggs.
I think this is WRONG .
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 12, 2020:
Enforced orders by anyone are subject to natural laws including just exactly how many people will obey. That is the problem with dictatorships: they sink.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 14, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
I will first answer with the base principle, then the devil in the details.
We are only a Nation is a legal fiction sense under 2 opposing conditions:
1. We are one Nation so long as we blindly obey orders without question, those who won't: don't (see my first response)
2. We are one Nation so long as we agree that orders ought to be followed as suggested, doing so after questioning those orders deliberately, diligently, reasonably, logically, and by a lawful, legal, process that ensures consent among the group known as we, those who won't: don't.
We in America are under military dictatorship and have been since 1789, so those who won't, and those who don't blindly obey National orders without question, are summarily punished if caught, those who don't get caught, don't, and those who are a part of the military dictatorship (following orders blindly) are not punished for following orders: as a general order.
Dictators can order some people to stop making or start making "Nationally Sensitive/Required material or product" at will, and execute the enforcement of those dictatorial orders at will.
Now moving onto the state within the State, as enumerated above in 2:
Among all those who may or may not produce stuff that does or does not constitute "Nationally Sensitive/Required material or product" some people will find it reasonable to do so, with or without suggestive orders to do so, and some people may simply forgo the duty to reason things out on their own and they may simply do as suggested because they trust the people suggesting the suggestion to produce this or that stuff.
Now it may be a table with cards laid out to start playing a type of game where people deliberately discuss specific materials or products and deliberately discuss who ought to produce them or not produce them, and deliberately discuss where they ought to be produced by those ought to produce them.
The game won't be the same game when deliberately discussing weaponized viruses as it will be when discussing anti-viruses produced in defense of weaponized viruses, or will it?
I can ask for clarification.
Will the same discussion be warranted when determining who ought to produce weaponized viruses for use in destroying enemies of the people in charge of producing weaponized various as will be the warranted discussion concerning the production of an anti-virus produced to defend against people executing orders to unleash a weaponized virus?
Will the same warranted discussion be the same for the following cases:
1. Who will we not attempt to prevent from producing as they may produce weapons of mass destruction for our use, or for our purchase once those products are on the market?
2. Who will we attempt to prevent from producing weapons of mass ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 12, 2020:
Enforced orders by anyone are subject to natural laws including just exactly how many people will obey. That is the problem with dictatorships: they sink.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 14, 2020:
@Bay0Wulf
I will first answer with the base principle, then the devil in the details.
We are only a Nation is a legal fiction sense under 2 opposing conditions:
1. We are one Nation so long as we blindly obey orders without question, those who won't: don't (see my first response)
2. We are one Nation so long as we agree that orders ought to be followed as suggested, doing so after questioning those orders deliberately, diligently, reasonably, logically, and by a lawful, legal, process that ensures consent among the group known as we, those who won't: don't.
We in America are under military dictatorship and have been since 1789, so those who won't, and those who don't blindly obey National orders without question, are summarily punished if caught, those who don't get caught, don't, and those who are a part of the military dictatorship (following orders blindly) are not punished for following orders: as a general order.
Dictators can order some people to stop making or start making "Nationally Sensitive/Required material or product" at will, and execute the enforcement of those dictatorial orders at will.
Now moving onto the state within the State, as enumerated above in 2:
Among all those who may or may not produce stuff that does or does not constitute "Nationally Sensitive/Required material or product" some people will find it reasonable to do so, with or without suggestive orders to do so, and some people may simply forgo the duty to reason things out on their own and they may simply do as suggested because they trust the people suggesting the suggestion to produce this or that stuff.
Now it may be a table with cards laid out to start playing a type of game where people deliberately discuss specific materials or products and deliberately discuss who ought to produce them or not produce them, and deliberately discuss where they ought to be produced by those ought to produce them.
The game won't be the same game when deliberately discussing weaponized viruses as it will be when discussing anti-viruses produced in defense of weaponized viruses, or will it?
I can ask for clarification.
Will the same discussion be warranted when determining who ought to produce weaponized viruses for use in destroying enemies of the people in charge of producing weaponized various as will be the warranted discussion concerning the production of an anti-virus produced to defend against people executing orders to unleash a weaponized virus?
Will the same warranted discussion be the same for the following cases:
1. Who will we not attempt to prevent from producing as they may produce weapons of mass destruction for our use, or for our purchase once those products are on the market?
2. Who will we attempt to prevent from producing weapons of mass ...
Woke media calls term 'Wuhan Virus' racist after using the term 'Wuhan Virus'-
[thefederalist.
Lt-JW comments on Mar 13, 2020:
That's right, Wuhan Virus is racist.
Why don't we call it 'Oriental Infectious Agent'
Or 'Bat Eating Nation's Plague' instead?
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 13, 2020:
This is big! The battle over language is huge! OK, calm down Joe.
Lt-JW comments on Mar 13, 2020:
That's right, Wuhan Virus is racist.
Why don't we call it 'Oriental Infectious Agent'
Or 'Bat Eating Nation's Plague' instead?
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 13, 2020:
This is big! The battle over language is huge! OK, calm down Joe.
Yes, there are Libertarians in pandemics-
[reason.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 12, 2020:
@dmatic
The concern offered is the concern concerning the source of authority to judge the difference between information leading to a belief that external power is good or bad.
In other words, an individual is at a time and in a place where that individual is exposed to 2 contradicting steams of information.
1 stream of information is specifically constructed so as to lead people toward evil.
1 steam of information is specifically constructed so as to lead people toward good.
Both are claimed as information specifically constructed by God.
Should an individual be concerned (not worry) about their own internal power to judge which one above is worthy of all the effort required to maintain a belief that the source of the information is in fact from God, and not a poser?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 12, 2020:
@dmatic
The concern offered is the concern concerning the source of authority to judge the difference between information leading to a belief that external power is good or bad.
In other words, an individual is at a time and in a place where that individual is exposed to 2 contradicting steams of information.
1 stream of information is specifically constructed so as to lead people toward evil.
1 steam of information is specifically constructed so as to lead people toward good.
Both are claimed as information specifically constructed by God.
Should an individual be concerned (not worry) about their own internal power to judge which one above is worthy of all the effort required to maintain a belief that the source of the information is in fact from God, and not a poser?
Yes, there are Libertarians in pandemics-
[reason.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
My guess is that you are playing the comedian, and I can smile.
"So, there's nothing to worry about then, is there? Natural Law will take care of all the criminals!"
Why worry? If there is a concern, such as free fall from buildings and bridges, then said structures can be purposefully built so as to prevent free fall.
If a voluntary mutual defense association (government) is built, it too can be built to prevent predictable results when the structure is not specifically built to lawful specifications.
If it is a fake government, then it is built to a different, unlawful, specification, built so on purpose.
Why worry? The Empire will consume itself soon enough?
How about applying natural laws to prevent that predictable result, doing so without worry, rather the idea is to access internal, built-in, natural law powers: conscience.
"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
Why worry? Let them eat cake?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
My guess is that you are playing the comedian, and I can smile.
"So, there's nothing to worry about then, is there? Natural Law will take care of all the criminals!"
Why worry? If there is a concern, such as free fall from buildings and bridges, then said structures can be purposefully built so as to prevent free fall.
If a voluntary mutual defense association (government) is built, it too can be built to prevent predictable results when the structure is not specifically built to lawful specifications.
If it is a fake government, then it is built to a different, unlawful, specification, built so on purpose.
Why worry? The Empire will consume itself soon enough?
How about applying natural laws to prevent that predictable result, doing so without worry, rather the idea is to access internal, built-in, natural law powers: conscience.
"Pilate was not innocent because he washed his hands, and said, He would have nothing to do with the blood of that just one. There are faults of omission as well as commission. When you are legally called to try such a cause, if you shall shuffle out yourself, and thereby persons perhaps less conscientious happen to be made use of, and so a villain escapes justice, or an innocent man is ruined, by a prepossessed or negligent verdict; can you think yourself in such a case wholly blameless? Qui non prohibet cum potest, jubet: That man abets an evil, who prevents it not, when it is in his power. Nec caret scrupulo sosietatis occultae qui evidenter facinori definit obviare: nor can he escape the suspicion of being a secret accomplice, who evidently declines the prevention of an atrocious crime."
Englishman’s Right: A Dialogue between a Barrister at Law and a Juryman, John Hawles, 1763
Why worry? Let them eat cake?
Yes, there are Libertarians in pandemics-
[reason.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
Natural laws applied to people are ways that people deal with people.
An example may suffice.
Gravity is a natural law that applies to people in a predictable way. People will accelerate at approximately 9.8 meters per second per second when nothing prevents that natural law from working that way: free fall.
That natural law helps people predict what might happen if people jump off of buildings.
Apply the same effort to predict people dealing with other people and a natural law spoken or written in so many words might arrive on Earth like this:
Do unto others as you would have others do to you.
That is almost as certain as jumping off of a building. But there are exceptions.
A building built off-planet is not going to subject someone to 9.8 m/s/s acceleration on a given vector, clearly an exception to the natural law that was measured and communicated precisely by error-prone humans.
Error-prone humans might view the natural law expressed as The Golden Rule (Law) and decide that they are the one exception to that natural law.
The error-prone human may then do unto others those things that would be defended against were those same things done to the error-prone human.
The thing about accurate natural laws (on Earth the rate of falling is about 9.8 m/s/s) is that failing to abide by nautral laws results in predictable results.
So the one error-prone individual may punch someone in the eye, expecting to "get away" with breaking the known natural law expressed as The Golden Rule.
If the error-prone individual didn't fail to abide by that natural law that one could possibly have saved himself from being thrown off a bridge by the one who he punched in the eye.
That is why I thought it was worth knowing the following additional (fine print) associated with natural law:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
People with faith don't have...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
Natural laws applied to people are ways that people deal with people.
An example may suffice.
Gravity is a natural law that applies to people in a predictable way. People will accelerate at approximately 9.8 meters per second per second when nothing prevents that natural law from working that way: free fall.
That natural law helps people predict what might happen if people jump off of buildings.
Apply the same effort to predict people dealing with other people and a natural law spoken or written in so many words might arrive on Earth like this:
Do unto others as you would have others do to you.
That is almost as certain as jumping off of a building. But there are exceptions.
A building built off-planet is not going to subject someone to 9.8 m/s/s acceleration on a given vector, clearly an exception to the natural law that was measured and communicated precisely by error-prone humans.
Error-prone humans might view the natural law expressed as The Golden Rule (Law) and decide that they are the one exception to that natural law.
The error-prone human may then do unto others those things that would be defended against were those same things done to the error-prone human.
The thing about accurate natural laws (on Earth the rate of falling is about 9.8 m/s/s) is that failing to abide by nautral laws results in predictable results.
So the one error-prone individual may punch someone in the eye, expecting to "get away" with breaking the known natural law expressed as The Golden Rule.
If the error-prone individual didn't fail to abide by that natural law that one could possibly have saved himself from being thrown off a bridge by the one who he punched in the eye.
That is why I thought it was worth knowing the following additional (fine print) associated with natural law:
"8 Hear, my son, your father's instruction And do not forsake your mother's teaching ; 9 Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck. 10 My son, if sinners entice you, Do not consent. 11 If they say, "Come with us, Let us lie in wait for blood, Let us ambush the innocent without cause ; 12 Let us swallow them alive like Sheol, Even whole, as those who go down to the pit ; 13 We will find all kinds of precious wealth, We will fill our houses with spoil ; 14 Throw in your lot with us, We shall all have one purse," 15 My son, do not walk in the way with them. Keep your feet from their path, 16 For their feet run to evil And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the baited net In the sight of any bird ; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood ; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence ; It takes away the life of its possessors."
People with faith don't have...
Yes, there are Libertarians in pandemics-
[reason.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
The market place of accurate words is not yet "free," as demonstrated.
If natural laws hold counterfeit laws enforced by criminals running counterfeit governments accountable, then a natural law that applies to hold slaves enslaved by criminals running counterfeit governments is the law that can be expressed as:
Those who are deceived by language don't know it, for if they did know it they would no longer be deceived by language.
"In a sense, the "free market" holds 'centralized government directives' accoutable."
If you speak about natural laws not "free markets" in quotation marks, then I get the message. I get the message if the intended message (without quotation marks) is that natural laws hold everyone (including criminals running fake governments) to account.
"Of course we are talking in ideological terms....as the marketplace is not yet "free"."
When people use language to communicate facts that matter they often encounter problems with duplicitous words that can be interpreted in many ways, including opposite meanings. The free flow of accurate meanings is made less free for reasons that are difficult to convey in practice, if not in "ideological terms."
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
The market place of accurate words is not yet "free," as demonstrated.
If natural laws hold counterfeit laws enforced by criminals running counterfeit governments accountable, then a natural law that applies to hold slaves enslaved by criminals running counterfeit governments is the law that can be expressed as:
Those who are deceived by language don't know it, for if they did know it they would no longer be deceived by language.
"In a sense, the "free market" holds 'centralized government directives' accoutable."
If you speak about natural laws not "free markets" in quotation marks, then I get the message. I get the message if the intended message (without quotation marks) is that natural laws hold everyone (including criminals running fake governments) to account.
"Of course we are talking in ideological terms....as the marketplace is not yet "free"."
When people use language to communicate facts that matter they often encounter problems with duplicitous words that can be interpreted in many ways, including opposite meanings. The free flow of accurate meanings is made less free for reasons that are difficult to convey in practice, if not in "ideological terms."
Yes, there are Libertarians in pandemics-
[reason.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
I'm not giving up on language. Words mean things on purpose, or words don't mean things on purpose. How about holding "centralized government directives" accountable? If they are confessions that document a criminal act by a criminal, then the first step toward holding those criminals to account for their documented crimes is to acknowledge the fact that it is a crime.
Which "centralized government directives" might one want to be freed?
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
"Your coronavirus prepping would be a lot tougher in a world without free markets."
Free from what, exactly?
A criminal organization may injure someone reporting the existence of a dangerous virus, and in that way the criminal organization spreads the virus in fact, while the "free market" ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@dmatic
I'm not giving up on language. Words mean things on purpose, or words don't mean things on purpose. How about holding "centralized government directives" accountable? If they are confessions that document a criminal act by a criminal, then the first step toward holding those criminals to account for their documented crimes is to acknowledge the fact that it is a crime.
Which "centralized government directives" might one want to be freed?
For people who think, when the feds decide total tyranny will be successful and depend on the cops ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
In America it is a crime to infringe upon specified natural rights, so...
Calling these criminals anything other than criminals is aiding and abetting the criminals in a small way.
Small infringements tend to add up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARPJJSPcFhM
Get real, real soon.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@KCSantiago
I'd like to point out that murderers getting away with routine murder are murderers, not law enforcement.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 10, 2020:
In America it is a crime to infringe upon specified natural rights, so...
Calling these criminals anything other than criminals is aiding and abetting the criminals in a small way.
Small infringements tend to add up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARPJJSPcFhM
Get real, real soon.
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 11, 2020:
@KCSantiago
I'd like to point out that murderers getting away with routine murder are murderers, not law enforcement.
CHINA VIRUS - NEW JERSEY DECLARES ''STATE OF EMERGENCY'' - LIVE COVERAGE - WORLD UPDATE COVI-19 - ...
SpikeTalon comments on Mar 10, 2020:
Oh boy, I have family living in New Jersey...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 10, 2020:
I have a lot of family still in New Jersey. Nothing from them yet.
SpikeTalon comments on Mar 10, 2020:
Oh boy, I have family living in New Jersey...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 10, 2020:
I have a lot of family still in New Jersey. Nothing from them yet.
[castbox.fm]
You don't need a socialist government to be a socialist.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 6, 2020:
"What if proponents of Socialism practiced it with their own money?"
I've had enough of the left versus right dogma.
Either people grant each other exclusive control of specified forms of property or rights or people turn instead to crime.
Not left or right, not republican or democrat, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 7, 2020:
@Facci
I registered at Castbox earlier, and I just now found the link to "Send in a voice message:" The link was not working, but I cut and pasted the url and it may be a problem on my end having to do with a microphone setup.
When you are recording is there a link to join the podcast as a guest? Yes, it has to start somewhere, and each step has to proceed in order to get to a goal, even if there is a shortcut, the step to discovering the short cut had to be made from the step where the shortcut was hidden.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 6, 2020:
"What if proponents of Socialism practiced it with their own money?"
I've had enough of the left versus right dogma.
Either people grant each other exclusive control of specified forms of property or rights or people turn instead to crime.
Not left or right, not republican or democrat, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 7, 2020:
@Facci
I registered at Castbox earlier, and I just now found the link to "Send in a voice message:" The link was not working, but I cut and pasted the url and it may be a problem on my end having to do with a microphone setup.
When you are recording is there a link to join the podcast as a guest? Yes, it has to start somewhere, and each step has to proceed in order to get to a goal, even if there is a shortcut, the step to discovering the short cut had to be made from the step where the shortcut was hidden.
[castbox.fm]
You don't need a socialist government to be a socialist.
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 6, 2020:
"What if proponents of Socialism practiced it with their own money?"
I've had enough of the left versus right dogma.
Either people grant each other exclusive control of specified forms of property or rights or people turn instead to crime.
Not left or right, not republican or democrat, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 7, 2020:
@Facci
Thanks, awhile back, while I was filling the position of California State Coordinator for National Liberty Alliance, and I saw serious problems in that organization, I tried my own podcast, but I managed only a couple of recordings, and a few listeners, no comments, no written feedback.
A while ago I also ran into a description of something called the Dictator's Dilemma having to do with the ideal communication device of dictators dictating dictations (one-way communication) which was identified, and I think properly as Television.
Television may be compared to Public Education (Organ of Propaganda), and now there is serious talk concerning a direct link from a human brain to a network of computers. So there is that...
Think tanks, focus groups, marketing surveys, and whatever other extracted (often by stealth) "feedback," was supplied to meet the demand for the feedback demanded by dictators, tyrants, or just organized criminal mob bosses. These things I mention because they describe more clearly the demarcation line between actual law and the counterfeit version we are sold through media.
When the law works as it should dictatorial dictates by dictators upon their subjects is checked by the common law due process. The feedback loop is thereby enforced by the people who maintain supreme jurisdiction both civil and criminal over the government. Far from the power to "vote" someone in or out of office, this power included the power afforded anyone, anywhere, anytime to set in motion the law to discover the facts that matter in the case, and to offer the accused a court date before the country, before a trial jury.
So that side of the story, a side missing to most Americans today, puts all this political talk, which is so often a one-way dictatorial communication, in the context of the actual law, and what ought to shine as brightly as the sun, is JUST how unjust the counterfeit system of law is in fact: a fact that matters in this case.
When I ran a podcast (a few times) it was just me rambling on whatever came to mind, much like writing, but here is a point worth pondering. Writing is one-way, unless responding to an article, or commenting on a comment. That two-way communication is precisely what is found in a trial jury as lawful jurists with all lawful jurisdiction civil and criminal deliberately engage each other in two way communication while sharing a common goal, which is to get to the truth, and then decide on their own authority JUST what to do with those facts that matter in that case.
This look into the actual law is not too unlike any other rabbit hole one might choose to go down in that each new bit of evidence does not (at least at the beginning) appear to end the question for answers, rather the new bit of ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Mar 6, 2020:
"What if proponents of Socialism practiced it with their own money?"
I've had enough of the left versus right dogma.
Either people grant each other exclusive control of specified forms of property or rights or people turn instead to crime.
Not left or right, not republican or democrat, ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 7, 2020:
@Facci
Thanks, awhile back, while I was filling the position of California State Coordinator for National Liberty Alliance, and I saw serious problems in that organization, I tried my own podcast, but I managed only a couple of recordings, and a few listeners, no comments, no written feedback.
A while ago I also ran into a description of something called the Dictator's Dilemma having to do with the ideal communication device of dictators dictating dictations (one-way communication) which was identified, and I think properly as Television.
Television may be compared to Public Education (Organ of Propaganda), and now there is serious talk concerning a direct link from a human brain to a network of computers. So there is that...
Think tanks, focus groups, marketing surveys, and whatever other extracted (often by stealth) "feedback," was supplied to meet the demand for the feedback demanded by dictators, tyrants, or just organized criminal mob bosses. These things I mention because they describe more clearly the demarcation line between actual law and the counterfeit version we are sold through media.
When the law works as it should dictatorial dictates by dictators upon their subjects is checked by the common law due process. The feedback loop is thereby enforced by the people who maintain supreme jurisdiction both civil and criminal over the government. Far from the power to "vote" someone in or out of office, this power included the power afforded anyone, anywhere, anytime to set in motion the law to discover the facts that matter in the case, and to offer the accused a court date before the country, before a trial jury.
So that side of the story, a side missing to most Americans today, puts all this political talk, which is so often a one-way dictatorial communication, in the context of the actual law, and what ought to shine as brightly as the sun, is JUST how unjust the counterfeit system of law is in fact: a fact that matters in this case.
When I ran a podcast (a few times) it was just me rambling on whatever came to mind, much like writing, but here is a point worth pondering. Writing is one-way, unless responding to an article, or commenting on a comment. That two-way communication is precisely what is found in a trial jury as lawful jurists with all lawful jurisdiction civil and criminal deliberately engage each other in two way communication while sharing a common goal, which is to get to the truth, and then decide on their own authority JUST what to do with those facts that matter in that case.
This look into the actual law is not too unlike any other rabbit hole one might choose to go down in that each new bit of evidence does not (at least at the beginning) appear to end the question for answers, rather the new bit of ...
The Petition to Release the GroomingReport is Live - YouTube
Lt-JW comments on Mar 6, 2020:
One line of defence quite often used by muslims themselves as well as the left liberal to dismiss reports like this is to state it's a tiny minority of Muslim population....
Well, there are 1.8 billion muslims around the world, let's say only the smallest minority of 1% committing these ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 6, 2020:
Maybe the point worth pointing out here is that Muslims haven't been able to keep the criminals out of their various forms of incompetent government.
If the government can't keep the worst criminals out of government then why do people still call it the government?
911 was in an inside job, so...
How about a return to rule of law in America instead of giving absolute arbitrary power to a few dictators in a very small area in one of the 50 (or so) States?
How about this perspective worked out some, doing so deliberately rather than sweeping it under the rug as an inconvenient fact that matters?
1.8 Billion Musims
18 Million terrorists, extremists, child molesters, and who exactly (give names) perpetrated which crimes on September the eleventh?
327,000,000 (or so) Americans
435 Seats of the House of Representatives
99 Senator seats
1 President seat
12 Summary JustUS "Supreme" Court seats
How many of those seats were, are, or will soon be filled with more terrorists, extremists, child molesters, and go right ahead and claim otherwise, because they are never held to account for their crimes, which are documented treasonous crimes on the official record so, point the finger, please.
Lt-JW comments on Mar 6, 2020:
One line of defence quite often used by muslims themselves as well as the left liberal to dismiss reports like this is to state it's a tiny minority of Muslim population....
Well, there are 1.8 billion muslims around the world, let's say only the smallest minority of 1% committing these ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Mar 6, 2020:
Maybe the point worth pointing out here is that Muslims haven't been able to keep the criminals out of their various forms of incompetent government.
If the government can't keep the worst criminals out of government then why do people still call it the government?
911 was in an inside job, so...
How about a return to rule of law in America instead of giving absolute arbitrary power to a few dictators in a very small area in one of the 50 (or so) States?
How about this perspective worked out some, doing so deliberately rather than sweeping it under the rug as an inconvenient fact that matters?
1.8 Billion Musims
18 Million terrorists, extremists, child molesters, and who exactly (give names) perpetrated which crimes on September the eleventh?
327,000,000 (or so) Americans
435 Seats of the House of Representatives
99 Senator seats
1 President seat
12 Summary JustUS "Supreme" Court seats
How many of those seats were, are, or will soon be filled with more terrorists, extremists, child molesters, and go right ahead and claim otherwise, because they are never held to account for their crimes, which are documented treasonous crimes on the official record so, point the finger, please.
Details
- BirthdayJuly 5
- Education2-Year
- Top tags#government #USA #rights #video #truth #crime #money #world #reason #laws #evidence #freedom #justice #evil #god #children #death #federal #society #media
- Level8 (85,725pts)
- Followers 17
- Fans 0
- Following 1
- Referrals11
- Joined Oct 29th, 2019
- Last Visit 6+ months ago
Josf-Kelley's Groups
Q is for question
460 members, Host
Voluntary Mutual Defence
37 members, Host
End Game (formerly Ryan Faulk Fans)
14 members, Host
Controversial Charts
48193 members
Jordan Peterson Group
25437 members
Ben Shapiro Group
22987 members
Joe Rogan Group
16345 members
Just Jokes and Memes
14496 members
Tucker Carlson Fans
13549 members
Dinesh D'Souza Fans
10234 members
IDW Topic-of-the-Day
9848 members
News From All Views
7280 members
DaisyCousens
5902 members
Tim Pool Group
5879 members
Sydney Watson Fanspace
5513 members
Classical Liberalism
4844 members
Canadian Politics
4021 members
Arielle Scarcella FanSpace!
2802 members
IDW Political Party
2798 members
Politically Incorrect folks
2479 members
Anti-Socialism
2269 members
Learning from Christ
2237 members
President Donald J. Trump... Latest
2066 members
Saving Western Civilisation
2056 members
RamZPaul
1889 members
John Paul Watson Group
1610 members
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder
1568 members
Alex Jones Fans
1301 members
Conspiracy Truth : Wolves And Sheeple
1227 members
Stefan Molyneux Fans
1049 members
Anti Communists
1022 members
Emergency Preparedness and Survival
949 members
Libertarian Freethinkers
897 members
COVID-19
765 members
The Great Reset
708 members
The Second Amendment Sanctuary
649 members
True Crime Discussion Group
597 members
Conspiracy Research
575 members
Words of Wisdom
480 members
Feminism = cancer
474 members
International News
396 members
Comedy, Laughs and Humor.
327 members
Vaccine Education & Discussion Group
307 members
Ideas of God
291 members
The Case Against Corona Panic
250 members
Dr. Steve Turley Group
185 members
Joe Biden Is Not My President
178 members
United We Stand
153 members
The History Corner
150 members
Brain soup
128 members
IDW.Community Senate
124 members
ORIGINAL MEMES ( GREGORY ALAN ELLIOTT )
118 members
Liz Wheeler Fans Page.
116 members
Red Pilled Hotties (Yes you can still flirt & remain politically engaged)
107 members
Propaganda Clearing House
95 members
MGTOW: Exodus From The Plantation
63 members
Anarcho-Capitalism / Voluntaryism
55 members
IDW Liberty Alliance Culture War Room
49 members
Now You Are Talking With
48 members
Rednecks Anonymous
43 members
Current Events
28 members
50 Policies
23 members
Anthony Brian Logan Fans
21 members
Freemerica
19 members
Children's Health Defense
16 members
UnCommon Sense 42020 PodCast
9 members