Like
Haha
Sad
Wow
Hmmm
Grrr/Dislike
Send SmileNavigation
Western civilization is under attack.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 20, 2019:
Western Civilization is far from civilized, and "it" is not under attack. Freedom is under attack. The goal of all criminals everywhere all the time is to crush the spirit of liberty - adaptability - and that is what you are concerned about - in my opinion - so what is the solution to the problem of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 21, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk Your words suggest to me that you have what I call a Zero-Sum Mind-Set. If a single crime is perpetrated by a single criminal upon a single victim once in 1000 years, is the whole planet Earth uncivilized?
Check something called The National Debt Clock Real-Time. That is a forensic account of how much power flows from individuals in America to one account, one store of loot.
Each calorie spent by each individual working is not necessarily an uncivilized criminal gaining loot from victims, but some are, and that too does not mean that everyone working a job in America is a criminal in an uncivilized world. People work to make ends meet, to make a living, as a natural fact, for the most part, free in liberty. Some people work diligently, and effectively, to collect those measures of value earned by all those Americans, so as to fill that store of Loot called the National Debt.
Before 1789, and everywhere common people make it their duty to be the law power themselves, no individual could be taxed without consent. The Revolution everywhere, before American people also Revolutionized their Independence from English Tyranny, before Magna Carta in England, is the rejection of absolute power in the hands of portions of the population (a majority, minority, supper majority, supper minority, or one absolute dictator, or one absolute dictatorial aristocracy) and systematic maintenance of lawful judgment of the facts that matter in any case of controversy in the hands of the people themselves. One group of volunteers, the public, becomes the government, voluntarily: hence names like Respublica (The Public Thing). The revolutionary idea exemplified and documented between 1775 and 1789 in America.
The people check abuses perpetrated by the employees of the people, not the employees free to do whatever they want with impunity. The people hired by the people to run governments are under the people's jurisdiction, not the other way around. Is that an obvious alteration from one revolutionary ideal to a despotic one? Are you curious to know when it happened, why it happened, and who made it happen?
If "it" is this Nationalism ideal hatched in 1887 during the Con-Con, then "it" is not under attack. The current regime may be under attack by powerful people who are dead set on gaining power over that Nation (a profitable monopoly), and those powerful people will stop at nothing to gain that power. Those people got that power by any means, so they cannot allow America to become what it started out as which is a civilized people free from tyranny. If a civilized people are free from tyranny, then the tyrants (not the plebes) are held to accurate accounting, and as it was recently in Iceland, the "Bankers," not the victims, face justice....
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 20, 2019:
Western Civilization is far from civilized, and "it" is not under attack. Freedom is under attack. The goal of all criminals everywhere all the time is to crush the spirit of liberty - adaptability - and that is what you are concerned about - in my opinion - so what is the solution to the problem of...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 21, 2019:
@FrankZeleniuk Your words suggest to me that you have what I call a Zero-Sum Mind-Set. If a single crime is perpetrated by a single criminal upon a single victim once in 1000 years, is the whole planet Earth uncivilized?
Check something called The National Debt Clock Real-Time. That is a forensic account of how much power flows from individuals in America to one account, one store of loot.
Each calorie spent by each individual working is not necessarily an uncivilized criminal gaining loot from victims, but some are, and that too does not mean that everyone working a job in America is a criminal in an uncivilized world. People work to make ends meet, to make a living, as a natural fact, for the most part, free in liberty. Some people work diligently, and effectively, to collect those measures of value earned by all those Americans, so as to fill that store of Loot called the National Debt.
Before 1789, and everywhere common people make it their duty to be the law power themselves, no individual could be taxed without consent. The Revolution everywhere, before American people also Revolutionized their Independence from English Tyranny, before Magna Carta in England, is the rejection of absolute power in the hands of portions of the population (a majority, minority, supper majority, supper minority, or one absolute dictator, or one absolute dictatorial aristocracy) and systematic maintenance of lawful judgment of the facts that matter in any case of controversy in the hands of the people themselves. One group of volunteers, the public, becomes the government, voluntarily: hence names like Respublica (The Public Thing). The revolutionary idea exemplified and documented between 1775 and 1789 in America.
The people check abuses perpetrated by the employees of the people, not the employees free to do whatever they want with impunity. The people hired by the people to run governments are under the people's jurisdiction, not the other way around. Is that an obvious alteration from one revolutionary ideal to a despotic one? Are you curious to know when it happened, why it happened, and who made it happen?
If "it" is this Nationalism ideal hatched in 1887 during the Con-Con, then "it" is not under attack. The current regime may be under attack by powerful people who are dead set on gaining power over that Nation (a profitable monopoly), and those powerful people will stop at nothing to gain that power. Those people got that power by any means, so they cannot allow America to become what it started out as which is a civilized people free from tyranny. If a civilized people are free from tyranny, then the tyrants (not the plebes) are held to accurate accounting, and as it was recently in Iceland, the "Bankers," not the victims, face justice....
What do you guys think about SCOTUS decision today regarding civil asset forfeiture.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 20, 2019:
I can back up my opinion with data, or information, but I certainly cannot change your mind; nor do I want to change your mind. So-called SCOTUS is a gang of criminals. The Law-of-the-Land was replaced by a counterfeit (opposite) version in 1789; in America. Those people (what kind of people climb ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 21, 2019:
@Kheare, The way to reign every criminal in is by doing so in every single case, every single time, every single place, starting with the worst cases first, all within the limited ability we humans have at our disposal. Why is it "what we are stuck with," to accept the position you appear to accept? This position you appear to accept is a very small number of people at the top of a pyramid scheme who have exclusive power to judge who, what, when, where, and how a crime becomes a crime, and that is a crime called tyranny. They claim to have the power to judge if one of their own, including themselves, is guilty of anything, anywhere, anytime. Do they confess, fine themselves, torture themselves for confession, and then voluntarily walk into one of their Nodes in their Gulag for their preferred form of Punishment for this tyranny they perpetrate? No, then throw a few of their own in the meat grinder they call "justice," to quiet the plebes when the slaves grow restless.
They (at the top) are routinely guilty of capital crimes including treason in every single example of infringement upon individual rights, as suggested in statutes like The Bill of Rights on the National Level (counterfeit federal level) and in many State (actual Nations) Constitutions (statutes).
In actual lawful due process - on the historical record - you or I, and anyone else can reach out to our local magistrates (justices of the peace, who work for free and have no bias toward "government") and accuse anyone in or out of government office of any serious crime including the treasonous crimes perpetrated routinely at the top of the pyramid scheme. Our lawful justices are then charged with the duty to assemble a grand jury (having all legal jurisdiction) to investigate our accusations. If the facts uncovered by the justices indicate a cause to act in defense of the public at large, then that is where, and how, the people CHECK the worst abusers of government power. The people put on trial those who earn the ire of the people, and the trial is before the country: a jury. The trial is not a judgment made by the accused, or the members of the gang who are biased toward other members of their gang: the so-called government which is counterfeit does not judge for itself in actual truth-based law.
If the government (so-called) can't keep treasonous criminals out of the top spots in their organized crime ring, then why would their victims ever hatch this idea that the same criminals are going to police their lower ranks with anything close to just efficiency? Here they say, this is what you are stuck with, we judge for ourselves, and we choose not to find ourselves guilty of anything, and we judge for you too, and if you don't obey on command we will torture you, your family, ...
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 20, 2019:
I can back up my opinion with data, or information, but I certainly cannot change your mind; nor do I want to change your mind. So-called SCOTUS is a gang of criminals. The Law-of-the-Land was replaced by a counterfeit (opposite) version in 1789; in America. Those people (what kind of people climb ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 21, 2019:
@Kheare, The way to reign every criminal in is by doing so in every single case, every single time, every single place, starting with the worst cases first, all within the limited ability we humans have at our disposal. Why is it "what we are stuck with," to accept the position you appear to accept? This position you appear to accept is a very small number of people at the top of a pyramid scheme who have exclusive power to judge who, what, when, where, and how a crime becomes a crime, and that is a crime called tyranny. They claim to have the power to judge if one of their own, including themselves, is guilty of anything, anywhere, anytime. Do they confess, fine themselves, torture themselves for confession, and then voluntarily walk into one of their Nodes in their Gulag for their preferred form of Punishment for this tyranny they perpetrate? No, then throw a few of their own in the meat grinder they call "justice," to quiet the plebes when the slaves grow restless.
They (at the top) are routinely guilty of capital crimes including treason in every single example of infringement upon individual rights, as suggested in statutes like The Bill of Rights on the National Level (counterfeit federal level) and in many State (actual Nations) Constitutions (statutes).
In actual lawful due process - on the historical record - you or I, and anyone else can reach out to our local magistrates (justices of the peace, who work for free and have no bias toward "government") and accuse anyone in or out of government office of any serious crime including the treasonous crimes perpetrated routinely at the top of the pyramid scheme. Our lawful justices are then charged with the duty to assemble a grand jury (having all legal jurisdiction) to investigate our accusations. If the facts uncovered by the justices indicate a cause to act in defense of the public at large, then that is where, and how, the people CHECK the worst abusers of government power. The people put on trial those who earn the ire of the people, and the trial is before the country: a jury. The trial is not a judgment made by the accused, or the members of the gang who are biased toward other members of their gang: the so-called government which is counterfeit does not judge for itself in actual truth-based law.
If the government (so-called) can't keep treasonous criminals out of the top spots in their organized crime ring, then why would their victims ever hatch this idea that the same criminals are going to police their lower ranks with anything close to just efficiency? Here they say, this is what you are stuck with, we judge for ourselves, and we choose not to find ourselves guilty of anything, and we judge for you too, and if you don't obey on command we will torture you, your family, ...
What is a classical liberal?
PoliticalAtheist comments on Nov 17, 2019:
The modern example of a political philosophy that is most similar to what people refer to as "classical liberalism" is actually liberal conservatism. Liberal conservatism at its core is basically a philosophy centered around generally conservative fiscal policies and small, non-intrusive government,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 18, 2019:
@PoliticalAtheist,
Why would someone bet with you when I wrote that I did not read the Wikipedia article before writing my response? Do you "bet" on my ability to write the facts? I could have lied when I posted: "I don't think that I will find anything worth reading on Wikipeadia, but I can look."
Your bet was stated: "I'm willing to bet a burger and shake you didn't even really read through that Wikipedia article before typing up your post."
It is worth noting - as far as I am concerned - that the above willingness to bet (on something already stated) is moving from the subject matter to my personal activities, as if to degrade my character with a statement that suggests that I prefer ignorance, or that I prefer to make conclusions before investigations.
I've read many Wikipeadia articles, and I've even attempted to start one, having that experience to go by my appraisal of the Web Site is that the people running it are in the business of censorship, and in that way they are in the business of "shooting the messengers" who have specific messages that will be censored by those running that Web Site.
As to your take on history I see some glaring self-evident internal conflicts or contradictions. There were and are at least 2 major divisions between every attempt at social interaction in groups such as governments, religions, markets, militaries, corporations, families, and whatnot. Those 2 major divisions are voluntary associations and in opposition to the voluntary associations are involuntary associations. Which division is the one where the Classical Liberals belong as far as you are concerned?
Example: "This original form of classical liberalism branched off during the 20th century into social liberalism, which advocated for more government management of the economy but also more social freedoms, while the social conservatives which followed directly after the classical liberals focused more on the government promoting traditional values, but embracing more free market principles."
If the word "government" is employed by Adam Smith, and Adam Smith is a prime example of a "Classical Liberal," then is it thereby established that "government" is an involuntary association according to "Classical Liberalism?:" in your view? In my view, it is a self-made contradiction; a confession of either willful or unwilful deception.
"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
Clearly, that is not a government, unless by the word "government," the user of the word intended to mean organized robbery. So which is it? Are "Classical Liberals" of the mind that the word "government" means involuntary association and ...
PoliticalAtheist comments on Nov 17, 2019:
The modern example of a political philosophy that is most similar to what people refer to as "classical liberalism" is actually liberal conservatism. Liberal conservatism at its core is basically a philosophy centered around generally conservative fiscal policies and small, non-intrusive government,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 18, 2019:
@PoliticalAtheist,
Why would someone bet with you when I wrote that I did not read the Wikipedia article before writing my response? Do you "bet" on my ability to write the facts? I could have lied when I posted: "I don't think that I will find anything worth reading on Wikipeadia, but I can look."
Your bet was stated: "I'm willing to bet a burger and shake you didn't even really read through that Wikipedia article before typing up your post."
It is worth noting - as far as I am concerned - that the above willingness to bet (on something already stated) is moving from the subject matter to my personal activities, as if to degrade my character with a statement that suggests that I prefer ignorance, or that I prefer to make conclusions before investigations.
I've read many Wikipeadia articles, and I've even attempted to start one, having that experience to go by my appraisal of the Web Site is that the people running it are in the business of censorship, and in that way they are in the business of "shooting the messengers" who have specific messages that will be censored by those running that Web Site.
As to your take on history I see some glaring self-evident internal conflicts or contradictions. There were and are at least 2 major divisions between every attempt at social interaction in groups such as governments, religions, markets, militaries, corporations, families, and whatnot. Those 2 major divisions are voluntary associations and in opposition to the voluntary associations are involuntary associations. Which division is the one where the Classical Liberals belong as far as you are concerned?
Example: "This original form of classical liberalism branched off during the 20th century into social liberalism, which advocated for more government management of the economy but also more social freedoms, while the social conservatives which followed directly after the classical liberals focused more on the government promoting traditional values, but embracing more free market principles."
If the word "government" is employed by Adam Smith, and Adam Smith is a prime example of a "Classical Liberal," then is it thereby established that "government" is an involuntary association according to "Classical Liberalism?:" in your view? In my view, it is a self-made contradiction; a confession of either willful or unwilful deception.
"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than that of draining money from the pockets of the people." Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations.
Clearly, that is not a government, unless by the word "government," the user of the word intended to mean organized robbery. So which is it? Are "Classical Liberals" of the mind that the word "government" means involuntary association and ...
What is a classical liberal?
PoliticalAtheist comments on Nov 17, 2019:
The modern example of a political philosophy that is most similar to what people refer to as "classical liberalism" is actually liberal conservatism. Liberal conservatism at its core is basically a philosophy centered around generally conservative fiscal policies and small, non-intrusive government,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 17, 2019:
I recommend instead of a Wikipeadia article the aforementioned Essay on The Trial by Jury. Words like "conservative" are subject to so many diverse interpretations as to mean nothing specific: arbitrary. The same controversial subjectivity applies to the word "classical." So it goes with many other words such a republican, democrat, liberal, and then there is the compounding of errors when arbitrary, subjective, controversial words are combined into even less specific meanings such as "classical liberalism." So here we have an example of the obvious, accurately measurable, conflicts that occur when meaning-less words are combined into even more meaning-less word combinations. Stage Left is a Wikipeadia Article suggestion, and Stage Right is an Essay written in 1852 by a not-so well-known author Lysander Spooner; today. Where are the facts that matter in this particular controversy? Is a past "classical liberal" for a voluntary association? Is a modern "classical liberal" for involuntary association albeit a small one? Past "classical liberals" mark a line in the sand that is visible, clear, marked, staked out, uncontroversial, unambiguous, unarguable, self-evident, matter-of-fact, and true; as exemplified in the statement made by the "classical liberal" named Lysander Spooner. I don't think that I will find anything worth reading on Wikipeadia, but I can look.
PoliticalAtheist comments on Nov 17, 2019:
The modern example of a political philosophy that is most similar to what people refer to as "classical liberalism" is actually liberal conservatism. Liberal conservatism at its core is basically a philosophy centered around generally conservative fiscal policies and small, non-intrusive government,...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 17, 2019:
I recommend instead of a Wikipeadia article the aforementioned Essay on The Trial by Jury. Words like "conservative" are subject to so many diverse interpretations as to mean nothing specific: arbitrary. The same controversial subjectivity applies to the word "classical." So it goes with many other words such a republican, democrat, liberal, and then there is the compounding of errors when arbitrary, subjective, controversial words are combined into even less specific meanings such as "classical liberalism." So here we have an example of the obvious, accurately measurable, conflicts that occur when meaning-less words are combined into even more meaning-less word combinations. Stage Left is a Wikipeadia Article suggestion, and Stage Right is an Essay written in 1852 by a not-so well-known author Lysander Spooner; today. Where are the facts that matter in this particular controversy? Is a past "classical liberal" for a voluntary association? Is a modern "classical liberal" for involuntary association albeit a small one? Past "classical liberals" mark a line in the sand that is visible, clear, marked, staked out, uncontroversial, unambiguous, unarguable, self-evident, matter-of-fact, and true; as exemplified in the statement made by the "classical liberal" named Lysander Spooner. I don't think that I will find anything worth reading on Wikipeadia, but I can look.
Thoughts on the John Birch Society?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 16, 2019:
For anyone interested in voluntary mutual defense association (the law) it is a potential benefit to discuss the facts that matter in any case, to find agreement, which is then a basis for cooperation. To instead resort to Character Assassination as a means of destroying discussions concerning the facts that matter in any case is one of those facts that matter in all those cases where someone decides to resort to that means to that end. Either people can and will cooperate for the goal of mutual defense, or people can and will cooperate for the opposite goals: aggression.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 16, 2019:
For anyone interested in voluntary mutual defense association (the law) it is a potential benefit to discuss the facts that matter in any case, to find agreement, which is then a basis for cooperation. To instead resort to Character Assassination as a means of destroying discussions concerning the facts that matter in any case is one of those facts that matter in all those cases where someone decides to resort to that means to that end. Either people can and will cooperate for the goal of mutual defense, or people can and will cooperate for the opposite goals: aggression.
Thoughts on the John Birch Society?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 15, 2019:
@Laika Now you demonstrate dishonesty or perhaps a preference for ignorance. If you honestly think my reply was unworthy of an answer, then why did you answer? Do you see the obvious contradiction, or will you refuse to see it? Are you a member? Do you resort to a personal attack so as to shoot the messenger of the message you prefer to remain hidden?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 15, 2019:
@Laika Now you demonstrate dishonesty or perhaps a preference for ignorance. If you honestly think my reply was unworthy of an answer, then why did you answer? Do you see the obvious contradiction, or will you refuse to see it? Are you a member? Do you resort to a personal attack so as to shoot the messenger of the message you prefer to remain hidden?
Thoughts on the John Birch Society?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 15, 2019:
@Laika, You think I am missing something basic? You think that the basic something I am missing has to do with so-called "small states"? People are individuals, and one group of people in a place called Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Con-Con in 1787 for reasons that they published. There was, therefore, no lawful way to alter the existing federation (voluntary association) to then turn that federation into a Nation-State (involuntary). Is it you who are missing something basic? Do you understand that a federation is a voluntary association and a Nation-State (at least as understood by those people in 1787) is - as a rule - arbitrary, despotic, oligarchical, and aristocratic? The 13 Nation-States under the original Federal agreement (Articles of Confederation) were in a phrase: Free Market Government Options for each individual then living in those areas of North-East America. That basic Free Market (voluntary) association was then altered in 1789 by specific individuals with names, and they signed their confession of treason on that document called The Constitution of 1789. George Mason attended the Con-Con and he refused to sign the document, he also voted against it during the RAT-ification process; which was illegal.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 15, 2019:
@Laika, You think I am missing something basic? You think that the basic something I am missing has to do with so-called "small states"? People are individuals, and one group of people in a place called Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the Con-Con in 1787 for reasons that they published. There was, therefore, no lawful way to alter the existing federation (voluntary association) to then turn that federation into a Nation-State (involuntary). Is it you who are missing something basic? Do you understand that a federation is a voluntary association and a Nation-State (at least as understood by those people in 1787) is - as a rule - arbitrary, despotic, oligarchical, and aristocratic? The 13 Nation-States under the original Federal agreement (Articles of Confederation) were in a phrase: Free Market Government Options for each individual then living in those areas of North-East America. That basic Free Market (voluntary) association was then altered in 1789 by specific individuals with names, and they signed their confession of treason on that document called The Constitution of 1789. George Mason attended the Con-Con and he refused to sign the document, he also voted against it during the RAT-ification process; which was illegal.
Thoughts on the John Birch Society?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 14, 2019:
@Laika , The original Constitution (1781, Articles of Confederation) was a Federal - meaning voluntary - agreement to cooperate for mutual defense against British - criminal - aggression. The 1787/1789 Constitution was falsely claimed to also be Federal, but that falsehood was exposed by many opponents of the National (not Federal) Constitution of 1789, including George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, Malancton Smith, and others, and they published the specific differences between a Federal (voluntary) and a National (involuntary) association. In the actual Con Con (so-called Constitutional Convention) the opponents of Federation (voluntary association) admitted that they were breaking the law that gave them limited powers and they specified the need to avoid discussions about the meaning of Federation as opposed to the meaning of Nationalization. Also the African Slave trade was dying out under Federal Law (voluntary association) and so the Warmongers, Central Banking Frauds, and various other Nationalists made a deal (dirty compromise) with the Southern Nationalists (Aristocrats) to Subsidize the African Slave Trade with a National Tax and a Central Bank, doing so for 20 years, and millions of Capital Crimes (enslavement) funded in that way: Nationalism. The greatest usurpation, however, was the creation of an all-powerful - criminal - Judiciary, which usurped the Common Law Trial by Jury System. All that is document fact, documented on the official record. Those in the John Birch Society - as far as my experience goes - will not address those facts: sent down the memory hole. Those who condemn before investigation are those who volunteer to be forever subjected to ignorance.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 13, 2019:
I started my self education about counterfeit government contacting the John Birch Society. They did not want to hear the information I found along the way. They - as a rule - consider the Constitution of 1787 as a gift from God; as far as I can tell. In fact the Constitution of 1789 is a documented...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 14, 2019:
@Laika , The original Constitution (1781, Articles of Confederation) was a Federal - meaning voluntary - agreement to cooperate for mutual defense against British - criminal - aggression. The 1787/1789 Constitution was falsely claimed to also be Federal, but that falsehood was exposed by many opponents of the National (not Federal) Constitution of 1789, including George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Luther Martin, Robert Yates, Malancton Smith, and others, and they published the specific differences between a Federal (voluntary) and a National (involuntary) association. In the actual Con Con (so-called Constitutional Convention) the opponents of Federation (voluntary association) admitted that they were breaking the law that gave them limited powers and they specified the need to avoid discussions about the meaning of Federation as opposed to the meaning of Nationalization. Also the African Slave trade was dying out under Federal Law (voluntary association) and so the Warmongers, Central Banking Frauds, and various other Nationalists made a deal (dirty compromise) with the Southern Nationalists (Aristocrats) to Subsidize the African Slave Trade with a National Tax and a Central Bank, doing so for 20 years, and millions of Capital Crimes (enslavement) funded in that way: Nationalism. The greatest usurpation, however, was the creation of an all-powerful - criminal - Judiciary, which usurped the Common Law Trial by Jury System. All that is document fact, documented on the official record. Those in the John Birch Society - as far as my experience goes - will not address those facts: sent down the memory hole. Those who condemn before investigation are those who volunteer to be forever subjected to ignorance.
What's new at IDW.
Josf-Kelley comments on Oct 30, 2019:
The right and left are caricatures created to be believed by members of a cult. The Cult of Might Makes Right is the coin and the so-called right and left are the two sides of the same coin. The actual battle is moral and if those against the immoral, false, Cult of Might Makes right are placed in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 9, 2019:
@woodale OK, well I think I represent the underdog in a specific effort to ask and answer a serious moral question. The Devil's Advocates on the side opposite the underdog side claim - and make good on their claim - that might makes right. Another way to put it is to claim that the ends justify the means. Devil's Advocates may also claim that the only way to keep the peace is by enslaving everyone under one dictatorship. That last claim - by the Devil's Advocates "side" - is the accurate version and therefore unlikely to be expressed in that way by those advocates of that devilish lie. So the question put to anyone on either side is: Is it possible to keep the peace without resorting to lies, threats of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence initiated by those Devil's Advocates on that side where people use any means they care to employ in reaching their goal of dominance? I ask because the great majority of people I meet are investors in that side that I call The Cult of Might Makes Right. My experience is such that few and far between are those who oppose the lies required to cover up the Dogma that constitutes the Script read by all the members of that Cult. Examples (solid facts if you will) are abundant, so why is it even a controversy? Why is it not simply self-evident? Why do so many people read from the false script, and do so with unsupportable confidence?
Josf-Kelley comments on Oct 30, 2019:
The right and left are caricatures created to be believed by members of a cult. The Cult of Might Makes Right is the coin and the so-called right and left are the two sides of the same coin. The actual battle is moral and if those against the immoral, false, Cult of Might Makes right are placed in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 9, 2019:
@woodale OK, well I think I represent the underdog in a specific effort to ask and answer a serious moral question. The Devil's Advocates on the side opposite the underdog side claim - and make good on their claim - that might makes right. Another way to put it is to claim that the ends justify the means. Devil's Advocates may also claim that the only way to keep the peace is by enslaving everyone under one dictatorship. That last claim - by the Devil's Advocates "side" - is the accurate version and therefore unlikely to be expressed in that way by those advocates of that devilish lie. So the question put to anyone on either side is: Is it possible to keep the peace without resorting to lies, threats of aggressive violence, and aggressive violence initiated by those Devil's Advocates on that side where people use any means they care to employ in reaching their goal of dominance? I ask because the great majority of people I meet are investors in that side that I call The Cult of Might Makes Right. My experience is such that few and far between are those who oppose the lies required to cover up the Dogma that constitutes the Script read by all the members of that Cult. Examples (solid facts if you will) are abundant, so why is it even a controversy? Why is it not simply self-evident? Why do so many people read from the false script, and do so with unsupportable confidence?
Let us know your ideas on how to improve this new site!
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 4, 2019:
How about a page that encourages debate on specific controversial subject matter? Could the format be changed from the Post and Comment format to a Debate Question above and Pro, Con, and Alt columns where each Argument (or non-argument in the Alt column) is moved to the top of the list based upon ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 7, 2019:
@cisco22 Unfortunately the word republic has also been counterfeited from the original meaning. A republic is one if it is The Public Thing (res-publica), but if it (the government) is for special interests, such as an oligarchy, or corporatocracy, or any segment, division, majority, minority, other than the Public (the whole people as one), then it (the government) is not a republic. Representation in the original respublica (in America before 1789) was ensured through common law trial by jury. That fact is confirmed in the records. The Public Thing (republic) was turned into the Special Interest Thing in 1789.
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 4, 2019:
How about a page that encourages debate on specific controversial subject matter? Could the format be changed from the Post and Comment format to a Debate Question above and Pro, Con, and Alt columns where each Argument (or non-argument in the Alt column) is moved to the top of the list based upon ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 7, 2019:
@cisco22 Unfortunately the word republic has also been counterfeited from the original meaning. A republic is one if it is The Public Thing (res-publica), but if it (the government) is for special interests, such as an oligarchy, or corporatocracy, or any segment, division, majority, minority, other than the Public (the whole people as one), then it (the government) is not a republic. Representation in the original respublica (in America before 1789) was ensured through common law trial by jury. That fact is confirmed in the records. The Public Thing (republic) was turned into the Special Interest Thing in 1789.
Let us know your ideas on how to improve this new site!
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 4, 2019:
How about a page that encourages debate on specific controversial subject matter? Could the format be changed from the Post and Comment format to a Debate Question above and Pro, Con, and Alt columns where each Argument (or non-argument in the Alt column) is moved to the top of the list based upon ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 6, 2019:
@Admin I posted an example question. I posted not only a pro, but also a con, and also a Free Market Adaptive Alternative to Divided and Conquer (the default). Now you suggest that I do that again? My response is: Where? Where do you want me to "For now, just post a question with a pro or con leaving." ? Also, what it is meant with the word choice "leaving" in the above quote from Admin? Where am I leaving to or from?
Josf-Kelley comments on Nov 4, 2019:
How about a page that encourages debate on specific controversial subject matter? Could the format be changed from the Post and Comment format to a Debate Question above and Pro, Con, and Alt columns where each Argument (or non-argument in the Alt column) is moved to the top of the list based upon ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Nov 6, 2019:
@Admin I posted an example question. I posted not only a pro, but also a con, and also a Free Market Adaptive Alternative to Divided and Conquer (the default). Now you suggest that I do that again? My response is: Where? Where do you want me to "For now, just post a question with a pro or con leaving." ? Also, what it is meant with the word choice "leaving" in the above quote from Admin? Where am I leaving to or from?
What's new at IDW.
Josf-Kelley comments on Oct 30, 2019:
The right and left are caricatures created to be believed by members of a cult. The Cult of Might Makes Right is the coin and the so-called right and left are the two sides of the same coin. The actual battle is moral and if those against the immoral, false, Cult of Might Makes right are placed in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Oct 30, 2019:
@Admin The word interesting could mean just about anything in context, so I'm interested in finding out what is interesting about the view expressed so far.
Josf-Kelley comments on Oct 30, 2019:
The right and left are caricatures created to be believed by members of a cult. The Cult of Might Makes Right is the coin and the so-called right and left are the two sides of the same coin. The actual battle is moral and if those against the immoral, false, Cult of Might Makes right are placed in ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Oct 30, 2019:
@Admin The word interesting could mean just about anything in context, so I'm interested in finding out what is interesting about the view expressed so far.
What's new at IDW.
JackSplatt comments on Oct 20, 2019:
This is a great idea and although I'm not a big social media user I appreciate the ideals you are affording people to voice their thoughts with no repercussions from the politically correct, progressive 'woke', leftist socialist sheep. The attempt to hijack words, language and control speech is the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Oct 30, 2019:
I've been working on a project to rediscover the actual power of law and on this path, I've found original meanings of words that are well defined at the time the words were originated. The word counterfeit exemplifies this as the modern meaning is nearly opposite the original meaning. The original meaning is that a counterfeit is the opposite of the genuine article, not simply a copy. Other words such as freedom, liberty, democracy, republic, federation, socialism, communism, even the word law have original meanings that are demonstrably opposite current meanings. A curious exception may be the word nation, or at least that word was magically turned into the opposite meaning at the time of the founding of the American federation of independent Nation States.
JackSplatt comments on Oct 20, 2019:
This is a great idea and although I'm not a big social media user I appreciate the ideals you are affording people to voice their thoughts with no repercussions from the politically correct, progressive 'woke', leftist socialist sheep. The attempt to hijack words, language and control speech is the ...
Josf-Kelley replies on Oct 30, 2019:
I've been working on a project to rediscover the actual power of law and on this path, I've found original meanings of words that are well defined at the time the words were originated. The word counterfeit exemplifies this as the modern meaning is nearly opposite the original meaning. The original meaning is that a counterfeit is the opposite of the genuine article, not simply a copy. Other words such as freedom, liberty, democracy, republic, federation, socialism, communism, even the word law have original meanings that are demonstrably opposite current meanings. A curious exception may be the word nation, or at least that word was magically turned into the opposite meaning at the time of the founding of the American federation of independent Nation States.
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
48191 members
Jordan Peterson Group
25436 members
Ben Shapiro Group
22987 members
Joe Rogan Group
16345 members
Just Jokes and Memes
14497 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
5511 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
2267 members
Learning from Christ
2237 members
President Donald J. Trump... Latest
2065 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
898 members
COVID-19
764 members
The Great Reset
707 members
The Second Amendment Sanctuary
650 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.
326 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
44 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