22 votes

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

I thought this a fitting Sunday read…I first came across it in my Citizens Rule Book and have looked this afternoon for a source document on the web. I found the information recopied several times, but never did find an original source. Perhaps you have an original source document for the following:

This lawyer, a former farmer and storekeeper, rode into Culpepper, Virginia in March, 1775. As he approached the center of town, he was disgusted and shocked by the sight that met his stare. In the middle of the towne square, a man was lashed to a whipping post, his back was bloody and raw, being laid bare by the metal-tips of the whip that had persecuted him. Henry inquired of the crowd what the man did to deserve such a beating as this. The answer was that he was a Preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, one of a dozen, who refused to take out a license to preach from the Anglican (English) church. The governor was under an edict from King George III to force all preachers to take the license and the 'renegade ministers' were put on trial - without the benefit of a jury. This particular minister had greatly resisted, declaring in court, "I will never submit to taking your license. I am controlled by the Holy Spirit, and authorized by God Almighty, and I will not allow you to control me by a license, no matter what you may do to me."

This man, and his (11) fellow preachers, were all publicly flogged for their 'treasonous behavior' - they had resisted to blood - and this man ... unto death. The beating he withstood was so brutal that the outraged Patrick Henry could count the man's ribs. The courage and thirst for liberty of this 'man of God' inspired Patrick Henry deeply. There is little doubt that the event blazed in his mind as he spoke a short while later the words that he would become most famous for - "give me liberty - or give me death” Continue reading here: http://www.truthontheweb.org/liberty.htm

Also found the information at http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Annotated_Citizen's_Rule_Book#PATRICK_HENRY_SHOCKED.21
And at
http://www.meetup.com/ronpaul-281/messages/boards/thread/722...

Perhaps you have a favorite Liberty Quote you would like to leave as a comment.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Stop and Start

"At least that is what I thought I heard. Perhaps the goal is to amass and educate friends of liberty? For what end? I cannot completely understand how an ideological battle will accomplish freedom."

Stop using the counterfeit "freedom", and start using the true freedom.

As you help someone unfamiliar with the word of God, there are specialists who help people who are unfamiliar with ideas not common or not known by average Joe and Jane.

Celente has figured out, as I have, that there is much power in the evil use, or the false use, of language, including the false and evil use of English, and including the false and evil use of Legal Money.

Example:

Presstitute

That is a word made up by Gerald Celente, or made up by someone other than Celente and he started using it too, and now the word presstitute is gaining currency.

You, by your words, appear to desire, or see a need for, the word of God gaining currency, so that people stop using false and evil words of false and evil Gods, and start using true and good words of God.

You work to translate such things as the examples we have already discussed and while on that subject how about working on another example in Romans 13: can you offer a reasonable true and good example of that part of your word of God? You claim that The Bible IS the word of God, and that is fine by me, but the point here is to point out that your version of meaning is not the same as another person's version of the meaning of these words, as you have suggested yourself, in various ways so far in this effort to employ this medium of exchange called a Forum.

The link by Celente intends to convey specific meaning, and if you find nothing of value in it, then that is fine too. I find a person who has consistently put the pieces together and is then powerful enough to invent, produce, and maintain a message of warning, like a modern day Paul Revere, and a message of remedy, for ears seeking such things.

One if by land, so don't get ready for a strong defense on the beach, and two if by sea, so don't get ready for a strong defense up in the mountains, or at least know better as to exactly where the danger will strike first.

"Perhaps the goal is to amass and educate friends of liberty? For what end? I cannot completely understand how an ideological battle will accomplish freedom."

The use of the words "ideological battle" convey to me a viewpoint of such character as is common among people who claim that I am a "utopian dreamer" when they are nice to me, and I am a "tin hat wearing nutcase conspiracy theorist" when they are not as nice, and stoned to death, or shot, when the messenger must be shot, or stoned to death, when that is the rule of the day, without any room for superfluous niceness.

Celente accurately identifies the names of actual people who have committed actual crimes and the actual crimes are well researched and he offers much in the way of actual evidence, and there is an actual competitive comparison done so as to inform people as to how things actually work in this world of Legal Crime.

If there is any color of ideology involved then the battle isn't in Celente's mind, the ideological battle, as he points out, is in the minds of the people who obviously don't know any better, since those who don't know any better still cling to a very thin veil of legitimacy covering up the crimes done by these identifiable criminals holding "public" office.

A. It is OK for this specific person to commit grand theft by fraud.

B. Everyone else will be hunted down, kidnapped, and imprisoned for doing the same grand theft by fraud.

Celente points out that either A is wrong or B is wrong if the JUDGE in any case is operating under the "ideology" of justice.

Celente also employs the English term JUST-US in place of justice, to further support the factual perception of reality.

Where is this ideological battle in your view?

In my view the ideological battle is still going on in your brain, not mine, and not Celente's mind either, yet we messengers are figuratively shot, or tagged as people who are limited in having ONLY an ideological perspective?

Seriously?

"Perhaps the goal is to amass and educate friends of liberty? For what end? I cannot completely understand how an ideological battle will accomplish freedom."

Celente was another one of those people, like Alex Jones, who was coincidentally aligned along side of Ron Paul on the End the FED and End the Income Tax and End the Wars of Aggression for the profit of a few actionable goals for reasonable remedy to very serious real problems.

Celente, like me, but not so much like Alex Jones, actually offers illustrative examples of what can be done, so as to at the very least remove the often regurgitated claims made by victims whereby the claim made is that there are no solutions other than, I suppose, the Final Solution which is the thing being shown as the problem by these modern day Friends of Liberty.

Patrick Henry is dead, and his advice was not heeded, so the lesson offered by Patrick Henry may be "too little and too late", so what do we do now boss?

"Perhaps the goal is to amass and educate friends of liberty? For what end?"

End, for one thing, The FED crime in progress, and end it in a competitive (Liberty) way, by inventing, producing, and maintaining an alternative money of higher quality and lower cost to US.

End, for two things, The National Income Tax Extortion Racket, which can be done peacefully, if enough people figure out the need to stop "providing the means by which we suffer" at once.

Ending the End Times Scenario, or World War III, by ordering The Troops Home, requires that office to be held by a True Friend of Liberty, and if that one True Friend of Liberty is "disapeared" or "rendered" or "turned" or "corrupted" or "defeated" then another True Friend of Liberty and another, and another, and another, and another, are ready to take that office back so as to keep the Troops ordered to do lawful, moral, orders, according to their own Uniform Code of Military Justice, or dismantle a Standing Army, or anything but allowing Legal Criminals to order all that power unlawfully, immorally, and against their own Uniform Code of Military Justice.

What would Jesus do to Celente, throw the stone of conviction according to some nebulous "ideology"?

I see Celente as one of the few outspoken Friends of Liberty, a person who consistently spreads accurate warnings concerning current events and at the same time is capable of illustrating reasonable solutions so as to dispel any false claims of Doom Day inevitability.

Here is the problem, and here is a competitive solution.

You can't see it, so the fault is on the messenger, of course?

"I cannot completely understand how an ideological battle will accomplish freedom."

Celente offers something he calls direct democracy and as far as I can tell the concept concerns the office of The President of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC).

This is similar to the suggestions made by Jesse Ventura, again as illustrations of competitive solutions, so as to at the very least dispel any notions by anyone claiming that there are no workable solutions, but in the case of Jesse Ventura the suggestion isn't direct democracy, it is along the lines of breaking up the Monopoly of Political Party; where there is a false choice between A and B, when in fact it is one thing AB.

Ron Paul offered a competitive solution, and so do I, so there are at least 4 competitive solutions that are based upon ideas, not ideology, and the solutions work out in real time, but each solution is dependent upon the numbers of people involved in applying anything but the ONE false solution which happens to be The Problem.

Do you have a useable term for The Problem?

I do.

Legal Crime.

Legal Crime is not an Ideology, nor is the solution to Legal Crime; the solution is to avoid being either victim or criminal in Legal Crime, not an ideology.

Stop "providing the means by which we suffer" and what happens?

Start using the power we produce in the work required to produce more power for us and what happens?

Is that an ideology?

Celente offers a competitive example of a person who uses the productive power he earns to gain more productive power, which is a net increase in power compared to the net measure of power before he started working, and when his "account" is stolen by people with badges then he is one of the canaries in the coal mine, but not yet dead, as that canary is still singing.

Hey, guess what, those people with those licenses just committed Grand Theft on me, this way, and here are their names, so what are you going to do about it: send them more authority?

"Is it for this: Does defenseLESS violence lead to defensive violence? What if my Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death post origin was true? (The preacher who was scourged to death because he would not take a state liscense.) Does defenseless violence lead to oratory to defensive violence?"

I tried to report to you of my experience on one of those Ron Paul Chat Groups, where I was told that I cannot speak of defensive violence, because they, on their own, made such talk against their own laws, in their own Chat Group.

I was told to Gag, censor, and "do not question" the powers that be aggressively violent, in no uncertain terms. Shut up.

With Friends of Liberty like those, who needs Legal Criminals with badges - there is an army of pro bono legal criminal amateurs ready to strike down any modern day Paul Revere who happens upon a horse, or soap box, or Chat Room.

Confusing the solution with the problem is, perhaps, an "ideological battle" going on in too many of God's Creation, at this time.

"Is it for this: Does defenseLESS violence lead to defensive violence? What if my Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death post origin was true? (The preacher who was scourged to death because he would not take a state liscense.) Does defenseless violence lead to oratory to defensive violence?"

If a person is struck down by a mother bear because the person happens upon the bear and her cubs that is entirely different than a cancer entering your body and you failing to defend against it by early detection and precise removal of that cancer - before it is too late.

Legal Crime is a cancer, just like narcissism is an abnormality, just like cancer is a serous threat to human life.

Is it violence, is it a case of violence, is it willful violence, is it ideological violence to find cancer before it is too late and destroy it before it consumes another human being?

If Legal Crime is traced back to the very root cause of it and the physical reality of it is embodied within a certain few examples of human being whereby those human beings are as rabid as a pack of rabid dogs then is the solution to that problem a steady feeding of those rabid dogs with every baby we can make and throw out to that pack of rabid dogs to keep them at bay?

That is the solution; to provide the means by which we suffer?

What if instead we stop feeding them so well, stop feeding them whenever they appear to be hungry, whenever their stomachs growl, instead we cut off that steady flow of our posterity, and we prepare well for what will happen next.

We stop feeding them. They grow hungry, and they begin to insist upon being fed more babies.

Now which scenario is more akin to a mother bear protecting, defensively, her cubs?

"Does defenseless violence lead to oratory to defensive violence?"

Which method of defense works to preserve life when faced with clear and present danger, when it is your baby, your posterity, at risk if you make the wrong choice?

More from patrick Henry:
"It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?"

Patrick Henry did not go to the Secret Meetings and Proceedings that was later claimed to be The Constitutional Convention.

How tangled has the web of deceit become in over 200 years?

Why are We The People falling for the same old lies today?

The solution to The Problem is easy to see.

Stop "providing the means by which we suffer", and to so so: Start using the power we earn to make our power abundant.

What is so difficult about that "ideology"?

Joe

As Far as

As far as I can tell, I was not trying to be critical of Celente. I am trying to understand the end goal.

As far as I am concerned, this world needs “Utopian Dreamers.” If their gifts had not been supplied would we have all the amenities we enjoy?

As far as a "Tin Hat," I have seen that term several times on the DP and I have no idea what it means,

As far as defensive violence, your report on your censor on the Chat is what inspired this Give me Liberty post.

As far as Romans 13. I cannot understand how the Revolutionary War was OK. I have asked Jeff repeatedly why it was OK then. I think perhaps Chuck Baldwin offers a competitive summary view: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=140

Book, I have not read and afraid if I order it I will get on some list somewhere: http://www.amazon.com/ROMANS-13-TRUE-MEANING-SUBMISSION/dp/1...

The Bible also says: Acts 5:29Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said , We ought to obeyGod rather than men. Full Context http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+...

As far as Presstitute, Hannity uses the word and as far as I can tell he is one of those P words…perhaps non-counterfeit language has been counterfeited

As far as an ideological battle going on in my brain and no one else’s, yes, you are correct, I am still trying to figure it all out, and in doing so I am going to ask as many questions as I can to try to find out what the truth of the whole matter is as much as I am able to understand. I don’t know who to trust so basically I trust no one, unlike a 2 year old.

As far as this question, QUOTE: “What would Jesus do to Celente, throw the stone of conviction according to some nebulous "ideology"?” What is your point? That I am throwing stones? I am throwing questions so I can understand and that is all.

As far as, QUOTE: “Stop "providing the means by which we suffer", and to so so: Start using the power we earn to make our power abundant. What is so difficult about that "ideology"?” I think it is a perfect idea, but I don’t know how. Have you been able to do this? Or are we waiting for the states to give us Gold Monetary options?

As far as WWIII, I am concerned that WWIII may be on our own soil as Liberty tries to assert itself.

As far as ideology, I think it is a great term: An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions per wiki. I did not use it in a derogatory fashion as far as I can tell.

As far as your energy on my behalf is concerned, I am appreciative.

Thanks

Clarification is appreciated.

If a war is worth fighting it will be won without any injury to anyone other than hurt feelings as the aggressors are no longer able to seriously count their chickens before they hatch.

The choice of war however is a choice made by aggressors when they do feel happy about their prospects of getting something for nothing more than a few million tortured and dead victims.

So the question to be answered may be the one that identifies how to keep power flowing to the aggressors before that power overpowers the potential victims.

In the case of The Revolutionary War period in the 18th century the runaway slaves who ran away from persecution in England, taking those long journeys to The New World out West, may have done better, to avoid repeating the same mistakes, by not believing in the same lies, not becoming Tory Loyalists, and as one, in unison, each could have been solid in refusing to become that which we supposedly abhor, we supposedly abhor enough to run away from, and then proven by the fact that we don't become the same thing we supposedly abhor, and we don't for the same reasons we ran from them in the first place.

Involuntary associations are bad, so don't be a part of them in the first place, and if born into such things, at least learn how to minimize the connections instead of falling into the trap that lures each in turn to supposedly employ the problem as if it were a solution.

In other words, in context, only the aggressors check the box that says War is OK, while the defenders end up with two choices, as the aggressors offer only one choice: an offer you can't refuse offered by the aggressors and Liberty or Death realized by the defenders in time or too late.

Joe

Clarification may be helpful

"Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development."

That and this are from Solzhenitsyn:

"Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings."

The first quote had to do with "The Welfare State" and an observation that suggested an abundance of all things that make people happy - given away for "free".

The second quote was made by Solzhenitsyn before he dove into the Welfare State criticism of the Western World.

A misunderstanding may be occurring in someone's mind when there is an idea or thought conjured up by the word competition.

I see two things when I see competition, which is my general practice, to see two competitive versions of the same thing, and typically there will be one version that appears to be higher in quality and lower in cost compared to another version and often there is a true version and a counterfeit version of the same things as such:

Competition A:
An animated contest among human beings who seek to find by trial and error an improved method by which to proceed toward higher quality and lower cost where each individual offers a competitive example to compare to each other during that contest or process.

As in:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom - go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" - Speech at the State House, Philadelphia, August 1, 1776 Sam Adams

The animated contest of freedom is one version of competition, the true version, and the version that inspires human beings to adapt, to learn from error, to avoid repeating non-competitive errors, to reach for higher standards of living, by earning, and to reach lower costs of living by being better today than yesterday, providing posterity with an improved example.

The counterfeit version of competition is provided well by two sources for your consideration - please - but I will get the relevant quotes after my own short definition of the counterfeit version of competition:

Competition B:
Might makes Right, as individuals seek to gain at the expense of each other, resorting to deceit, resorting to threats of violence, and resorting to violence as a means of earning at the expense of their targeted supply of ready victims: do unto others before they have time to defend themselves effectively.

Before quoting from two sources as to the counterfeit version of Competition may it be known that Competition A will be defending against Competition B naturally, or as a matter of fact, as each human being will choose, from moment to moment, one or the other method or process by which happiness, or profits at the expense of victims, is the path taken at any given moment.

Source:
The Prince by Nicoli Machiavelli
Introduction

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

That is a self contained lie, of course, since two opposites cannot be true as such:
A. Men are Bad
B. One exceptional man can make men good

If men are bad then the last thing to do is make a bad man very powerful.

If only some men are very bad (competitively worse than lesser bad competitors at being bad) then it may be a good idea to stop making those bad ones very powerful.

The second source comes from a book written about an egregious example of power flowing to bad people in ways that exemplify a welfare state or a counterfeit version of competition. The Book title is The Crimes and Punishment of I.G. Farben which was a German Fascist Corporation being financed by an American Fascist Corporation and in fascism, as you well know, most of you perhaps, well know, that in a fascist state the largest flow of power flowing from those who earn that power competitively, stolen from them, flows to the largest welfare recipients known as Bankers and Corporations since fascism is a Corporate Welfare State.

Quote:

"The construction of I.G. Auschwitz has assured I.G. a unique place in business history. By adopting the theory and practice of Nazi morality, it was able to depart from the conventional economics of slavery in which slaves are traditionally treated as capital equipment to be maintained and serviced for optimum use and depreciated over a normal life span. Instead, I.G. reduced slave labor to a consumable raw material, a human ore from which the mineral of life was systematically extracted. When no usable energy remained, the living dross was shipped to the gassing chambers and cremation furnaces of the extermination center at Birkenau, where the S.S. recycled it into the German war economy – gold teeth for the Reichsbank, hair for mattresses, and fat for soap. Even the moans of the doomed became a work incentive, exhorting the remaining inmates to greater effort."

And the coup de grace from the same source:

"Conditions were such that sickness was a pervasive fact of life among the inhabitants of Monowitz. The hospital wards built by I.G. were so inadequate that even the S.S. suggested additional wards be built. I.G. refused because of the cost."

The people running legal fictions known as corporations tend to be the worst type of people anyone should ever contemplate as "needing" a hand out, or a continuous flow of "charity" or "welfare" flowing to them since they tend to use that "corporate welfare" in ways that make them very happy, in ways that make their victims terrified, tortured, and piled high in mass graves or left out in the open to rot, stinking to high heaven.

Back to Solzhenitsyn concerning competition:

"Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development."

Tense competition my be exemplified by the corporate ladder as a sycophantic minion may be fawning over the bosses latest attire (a naked emperor), seeking favor, trying not to be crushed if the boss perceives the slightest threat from below, while, at the same time, the sycophantic minion turns on his inferiors, ever ready to stab those above in the back, while being ever ready to defend against those below stabbing from behind. The corporate knife is a handle in the middle with blades protruding out each end, thrust forward to stab those above in the back, and thrust backward to stab those below who are also armed, dangerous, and stabbing in this counterfeit form of competition where crime is made legal, on purpose, for profits of a few, at the expense of the many.

A sycophantic minion flush with free Bonus Money from The Federal Reserve Bosses, may pollute the halls of a former Republic (or Confederation) seeking to crush the competition seeking access to a Senator or Congressmen willing to take the bribe and look the other way when the stolen loot is spent slaughtering natives in the Banana "Republic" or Regime Change a Democratically Elected President of Iran, or sign the order to make it so, on our dime, in our names.

Welfare States, with Fascism as the shining example, where people capable of producing an abundant supply of goods and services, of the highest competitive quality, at the lowest competitive costs, where those honest productive people are so damn productive, so damn generous, as to be able to afford such massive charity to Corporate People, to such a high degree of competition, the greatest, highest, flow of wealth ever, in human history, flowing from those extremely productive people to those extremely evil people as never before in the history of mankind:

Corporate Welfare State Counterfeit Competition

That is the polar opposite of the animated contest of freedom, as Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn aught to know better than to confuse one with the other. Readers can also know better - it seems to me.

"People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution."

A Spiritual connection may be the highest quality and lowest cost connection from individual to individual, making happiness more affordable, as compared to a goal of reaching political or economic power over other people, sure, even granted, but the reference to Western society is misunderstood from a person who spent his life where crime was made legal to an extreme (competitive) level of evil.

What may be missing in Solzhenitsyn's viewpoint can be offered, competitively, by Lysander Spooner in his Essay on Trial by Jury.

I won't link the essay or quote from it, instead, competitively, I can offer my understanding of it.

In England a process was borrowed from the East, which was Germany, whereby each individual person claimed authority over law, in the form of Trial by Jury. Each individual person secured for exclusive power a power of nullification on any law in any case whatsoever. King John, at the time, in England, didn't like the idea, since his power was thereby diluted, divided, competitively, among every free man in the Kingdom.

Americans borrowed that process, to some extent, but the power of it was not as competitive as the original version, since the original version of Trial by Jury was absolute power held by each individual juror, again: exclusive power of nullification. Any juror took command of the power to judge any law, any meaning of any law, any interpretation of any law, without requirement to be authorized to know the meaning of any law, and therefore any law had better be written well enough to be understood by any free man in England.

Returning instead to Patrick Henry in his speech against Ratification of a Consolidated Government Constitution, where Patrick Henry astutely smelled a rat, we can see his perspective on Trial by Jury:

Against Legal Crime

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

The reason why Patrick Henry astutely claims that Trial by Jury is "our best [legal] privilege" is well elucidated in the work done by Lysander Spooner in his essay titled Trial by Jury.

When Trial by Jury worked as designed originally the power to enforce law is taken away from despots and that power to enforce law is retained by The People: each individual in fact, or in practice. Any law written to be too complicated for a Juror to understand is no longer a competitive law, no longer useful to anyone, since any juror on any jury can merely acquit anyone being claimed to be guilty of a law that has been written in "legalese" or written so as to confuse anyone on purpose.

Contracts in particular had better be written without ambiguity or having failed to avoid such deceitful things: each signer of the contract would discount their power to enforce their side of the contract in front of a jury where the jurors held the power to convict the accused of wrongdoing. A juror would demand to know precisely what was mean with any arrangements of words of any kind, and if the effort to know better was met with even more lies, even more ambiguity, the juror, not wanting to waste any more time, would form the obvious opinion: the wording was meant to confuse someone on purpose, the wording was as far from honest as can be, so the "word smith" not the accused was at fault.

"Thus mediocrity triumphs with the excuse of restrictions imposed by democracy."

When crime is made legal there is a subsidy flowing to liars, a charity, a reward for better liars, and this may be something missed by Solzhenitsyn whose authority has to do with just how bad legal crime can get as his authority is derived from personal experience.

An enforcement mechanism is demanded, in any case, and there are competitive examples of such things, one being Dictatorship (Crime made Legal) and another being that example provided in history known as Magna Carte with a working Trial by Jury, and another being a Confederation in Holland, and another being a Republic in Switzerland, and closer to home in America there was that period between 1776 and 1788 where a Democratic Federated Republic worked as it did work, competitively, for anyone to see, if anyone cared to see how one enforcement mechanism compared competitively one against another.

The Legal Crime version supplied by The British with their aggressive occupying war for profit was compared with the Separate Sovereign State Voluntary Competitive Union or Confederation and an all volunteer defensive army (even if it was led by a practicing despot) competed, and one won, the other lost, in one example of one animated contest where the competition left behind the moral boundaries as dictated by the aggressive dictators - the defenders and morality be damned.

Then there was the time after the British were thrown out and before the Consolidated Dictatorial Regime Change occurred, again that time between 1776 to 1788 when a supply of an enforcement mechanism was supplied to meet that demand competitively - including a still working Trial by Jury.

"The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals."

Solzhenitsyn speaking critically of the West, again, but speaking about a Nation State or Consolidated Government which was what Patrick Henry astutely described it would become at the time it was not yet the non-competitive enforcement mechanism of choice, chosen by Legal Criminals seeking to make crime legal - Alexander Hamilton in particular.

"There is yet another surprise for someone coming from the East where the press is rigorously unified: one gradually discovers a common trend of preferences within the Western press as a whole. It is a fashion; there are generally accepted patterns of judgment and there may be common corporate interests, the sum effect being not competition but unification. Enormous freedom exists for the press, but not for the readership because newspapers mostly give enough stress and emphasis to those opinions which do not too openly contradict their own and the general trend."

Solzhenitsyn employing the non-criminal version of competition which is in competition with the criminal version of competition wherein cases exist as one speaker, informer, or source of information employs deceit, threats of violence, and acts of violence to silence competitive viewpoints.

My own recent experience in the Chat Room exemplifies this Gag order.

The deceit is made obvious when comparing the advertized welcome to any "free thinking" individuals in support of Liberty and then that actual practice of silencing anyone who dares to repeat words that report on how history provides examples of Liberty minded people regaining control over criminal governments by armed rebellion, even non-violent armed rebellion, merely defensive deterrence.

Note the wisdom of Solzhenitsyn on the point of identifying the force involved, which is custom, or fashion, or peer pressure, or merely the effects of brain washing, behavioral modification, response conditioning, manufactured consent, or other powers infecting each individual from external sources: the connecting mediums compete as such:

1.
One way connecting mediums such as Television (or the press)
2.
Chat Rooms and Forums
3.
Money
4.
A Spiritual Connection

Which one is the most dictatorial in nature, which one is a method by one person, or one small group, to alter the behavior of targeted victims?

Which one reaches closer to a connection that manages to reach the goal of everyone knowing better soon enough to avert becoming victim to crime made legal?

"At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days."

The honest earning producers in each country, any country, are armed by each other, and then set against each other, by the same Legal Crime Class, or Cabal, which is made powerful through the ONE MONEY FRAUD routine.

That quote on China was written in 1978, how much power has transferred from both sets of producers, producers in America, and producers in China, to Legal Criminals in each place, and then that power is used to build up a new World War, how much power has transferred exactly that way, leaving a very precise money trail, since 1978?

A recent story covered by Mass Media (corporate welfare media) involved computer parts Made in China which are vital for The War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc. according to the "reporters" reporting on that flow of power flowing in that specific way - incontrovertibly.

Chinese people who honestly produce an earned income are having their futures stolen from them too, as their "leaders" loan their earnings to "our leaders" so that "our leaders" can keep their Perpetual Wars for Perpetual Peace going on, and on, and on, until Kingdom Come, or at least until China arms up enough to win World War III as planned, so as to move World Reserve Currency Headquarters from U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) The Dollar Hegemony to China or wherever the new Corporate Welfare Central Bank will occupy.

Who do you think will be behind the supposed need to pay off all that supposed LEGAL MONOPOLY MONEY DEBT?

If the actual fighting, and not just the fallout, reaches into these Disunited States, which companies do you think will get the no bid contracts to rebuild our crushed competitive cities once World Reserve Currency Status, backed by all the Gold stolen out of Fort Knox, moves to wherever that capital fight has flown?

Regime Change is afoot, people, and this isn't news.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And yet -- no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. Thus at the shameful Belgrade conference free Western diplomats in their weakness surrendered the line where enslaved members of Helsinki Watchgroups are sacrificing their lives.

Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes. This debilitating dream of a status quo is the symptom of a society which has come to the end of its development. But one must be blind in order not to see that oceans no longer belong to the West, while land under its domination keeps shrinking. The two so-called world wars (they were by far not on a world scale, not yet) have meant internal self-destruction of the small, progressive West which has thus prepared its own end. The next war (which does not have to be an atomic one and I do not believe it will) may well bury Western civilization forever.

Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Taking a Dive for Conservatism?

Does that sound at all familiar?

I am going to end my responses right here with a claim that you can take to any competitive bank, but don't bother taking my claim to a Central Bank, they won't credit it.

My claim:

Elect me, or someone at least as competitive as me, into the office of the President, and get at least three things done by July 4th 2013.

1. End the FED
Stop enforcing money competition (return to steady improvement in the quality of money and steady reduction of the cost of money)

2. End IRS
Stop enforcing a Direct Tax upon The People from a Consolidated Nation State (return to a Confederation or Republic form of competitive government and return to a steady improvement of the quality of defensive government while steadily reducing the cost of defensive government)

3. Bring the Troops Home
Order all the Cannon Fodder HOME (be prepared to defend against any power that has just lost US as their victims as they may want to get that power back once we no longer volunteer to be victims any more)

If Ron Paul won't do it, I will, and if no one does it, we get what we pay for, see you all in hell.

Joe

Choices

Solzhenitsyn/Harvard 1978 http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harva...
"Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development."

You offered an A and B for Solzhenitsyn’s quote above: A as a true version and B as a counterfeit version.

Expanding Solzhenitsyn’s quote: “Every citizen has been granted the desired freedom and material goods in such quantity and of such quality as to guarantee in theory the achievement of happiness, in the morally inferior sense which has come into being during those same decades. In the process, however, one psychological detail has been overlooked: the constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to obtain them imprints many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to conceal such feelings. Active and tense competition permeates all human thoughts without opening a way to free spiritual development. The individual's independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment.”

I did not focus on the thought of the welfare state when I read that paragraph. I saw rather American prosperity and the continual drive to pursue more material wealth. I saw the word competition as meaning to compete to get more out of life.

I would like to offer C: Proverbs 39:7Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die : 8 Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: 9 Lest I be full , and deny thee, and say , Who is the LORD? or lest I be poor , and steal , and take the name of my God in vain.

According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?

I would also like to offer D: Matthew 6:28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow ; they toil not, neither do they spin :29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is , and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?31Therefore take no thought , saying , What shall we eat ? or, What shall we drink ? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed ?32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek :) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.34Taketherefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Perhaps active and intense competition should not be focused at all on gaining a more and better quality of life. Rather we are to seek God first and let Him add to our lives such as He sees sufficient.

Maybe there is room for E: Acts 4:32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither *said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.33And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.34Neither *was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them , and brought the prices of the things that were sold , 35And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need..

Perhaps the real problem is that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves and so what is mine is mine and it is not yours and I will not give you what is mine even if I see that you might need some of mine because I am too busy getting more of mine so that mine will be more than yours.

As the counterfeit of E, I would like to offer F: James 2: 14What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can *faith save him?15If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute * of daily food,16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled ; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

In other words, I see you have a need, but I am not going to help you, so “Good Luck,” hopefully God will help you, but God may not use me or my resources in the process.

Finally this takes us to G) which brings us back to Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

QUOTE: “When crime is made legal there is a subsidy flowing to liars, a charity, a reward for better liars, and this may be something missed by Solzhenitsyn whose authority has to do with just how bad legal crime can get as his authority is derived from personal experience.”

Do you think perhaps he alluded to it here:

“An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.”

QUOTE: “An enforcement mechanism is demanded, in any case, and there are competitive examples of such things, one being Dictatorship (Crime made Legal) and another being that example provided in history known as Magna Carte with a working Trial by Jury, and another being a Confederation in Holland, and another being a Republic in Switzerland, and closer to home in America there was that period between 1776 and 1788 where a Democratic Federated Republic worked as it did work, competitively, for anyone to see, if anyone cared to see how one enforcement mechanism compared competitively one against another.”

Do you know a good source to read about America during 1776-1788 so I can understand how things (individuals and states and civil governments etc) worked as a Democratic Federated Republic?

QUOTE: “Note the wisdom of Solzhenitsyn on the point of identifying the force involved, which is custom, or fashion, or peer pressure, or merely the effects of brain washing, behavioral modification, response conditioning, manufactured consent, or other powers infecting each individual from external sources: the connecting mediums compete as such:
1. One way connecting mediums such as Television (or the press)
2. Chat Rooms and Forums
3. Money
4. A Spiritual Connection
Which one is the most dictatorial in nature, which one is a method by one person, or one small group, to alter the behavior of targeted victims?”

My first impression was to say #1 because the masses are tuned in, but that source can be turned off at will or reasoned against. However, #3 is perhaps the most controlling method because money is something that for the most part all victims depend upon for commerce and sustenance...Money Talks. I pick 3 because of JK education

QUOTE: “Which one reaches closer to a connection that manages to reach the goal of everyone knowing better soon enough to avert becoming victim to crime made legal?”

#2 was my guess because it is what has influenced me. Maybe I should say money again because that is the vehicle by which we must disconnect from the Legal Criminals?
_______________________________________
"At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days."

That is the quote that scared me. I don’t think about such things. I do not believe most Americans are thinking about such things. For the most part we the people are thinking about the trinkets in the cage and how to get some more of them. (However, I do believe people are waking up to the fact that the trinkets are disappearing.) We are fixated on luxury instead of safety; upon Mammon instead of God. Our enemy has caged us. Solzhenitsyn also said

“it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment. So who should now renounce all this, why and for what should one risk one's precious life in defense of common values, and particularly in such nebulous cases when the security of one's nation must be defended in a distant country?
Even biology knows that habitual extreme safety and well-being are not advantageous for a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to reveal its pernicious mask.”

I dare say the majority of Americans, do not even recognize the enemy, so how is one to even fight against it?

QUOTE: “Chinese people who honestly produce an earned income are having their futures stolen from them too, as their "leaders" loan their earnings to "our leaders" so that "our leaders" can keep their Perpetual Wars for Perpetual Peace going on, and on, and on, until Kingdom Come, or at least until China arms up enough to win World War III as planned, so as to move World Reserve Currency Headquarters from U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) The Dollar Hegemony to China or wherever the new Corporate Welfare Central Bank will occupy.”

Do you think Solzhenitsyn understood the depths of the plan as you state it?

QUOTE: “Who do you think will be behind the supposed need to pay off all that supposed LEGAL MONOPOLY MONEY DEBT?”

I suppose the Legal Criminals will tell us we must pay it off.

QUOTE: “Regime Change is afoot, people, and this isn't news.”

Yes this appeared to be spoken about openly in this interview from the front page of the DP http://www.dailypaul.com/240948/lawyers-for-ron-paul-on-the-... . I do not believe I have heard anyone else publicly verbalize the dire straight we, non criminal American people, are in other than you and then here in this interview. The Lawyer seemed alarmed. I am not well informed though, and once again, I do not know who to trust.

QUOTE: “Taking a Dive for Conservatism?”

How do you define Conservatism?

QUOTE: “Elect me, or someone at least as competitive as me, into the office of the President, and get at least three things done by July 4th 2013.”

How are we going to elect you? You see, I think I am one of those follower sorts.

QUOTE: “If Ron Paul won't do it, I will, and if no one does it, we get what we pay for, see you all in hell.”

I think someone will do it, but it seems we are having a hard time electing someone to do it.

I thought you might be interested in hearing Doug Wead on Self-Defense:

http://www.dailypaul.com/240247/doug-wead-full-facebook-chat... Doug Wead at 40 minutes discusses self-defense. I thought the whole chat somewhat interesting.

Steven Pearl Andrew on the topic:

LMD-10.7 Upon the same principle, I can judge better than you can of the purity of your motives in this very act, and I determine that you were influenced by an undue desire to increase the popularity of your journal, by parading your zeal for the current morality of the day, and that such an example of the venality of the press is extremely vitiating to the public mind. My impartial position for judging authorizes me to judge and to punish you for deviating from my judgment. hence, I resort to the mob, and burn down your printing-office, or throw your types into the ocean. Now, then, how is your mob any better than my mob – except that yours is called “the State?” Do you find it in the distinction you attempt to establish between freedom of utterance and freedom of action – one of which is to be tolerated and the other not? That would only be to turn my vengeance from you personally to the passive instruments of your opinion – the juries and prison-keepers.

Permit me, on this point, to substitute, for what I might have said, an extract from a communication I have just received, suggested by your remarks, from a noble and pure-minded American woman, one to whom the world owes more than to any other man or woman, living or dead, for through investigation and appreciation of the Causes of Disease and the Laws of Health especially in all that concerns the Sexual Relations and the reproduction of the race:*

LMD-10.32 “Often the greatest crime a man can commit is to reproduce himself, though it be done legally.
LMD-10.33 “We must have a Maine Law and capital punishment for the children born of hate in indissoluble marriage. Hundreds of Women in such marriage murder their children rather than bear them.

Is the above quote an example of defenseless violence? I don’t quite understand what is being offered as the remedy. Is it Eugenics?

Did you hear Chuck Baldwin on Alex Jones last week?

I went to the Library to get the Gulag book. I found out there were Three 600 or so page volumes. Did you read all 3? I have checked out Vol 1, but have not started reading it yet as I wanted to finish reading Andrews on Marriage. I finally finished it today. Jeff bought me a netbook and now I can read at will while waiting for the Amish to finish their appointments. The Amish man I took to Kansas City today was kicked in the face by a horse last week. He could have easily lost his life as he was dragged along behind the horse near a busy highway. They gave me fresh garden tomatoes when I took them back home. The first ones of the season! ...And more potatoes. I guess I will start storing potatoes in the basement. At least I know they haven't been irradiated.

Warfare State

"I did not focus on the thought of the welfare state when I read that paragraph. I saw rather American prosperity and the continual drive to pursue more material wealth. I saw the word competition as meaning to compete to get more out of life."

In Equitable Commerce there was an example of how the pursuit of happiness can be competitively earned without passing on costs competitively as such:

A.
Earn what you want to earn by not gaining at the expense of targeted victims.

B.
Earn what you want while having to pass on costs to other people.

C.
Wanting to make other people pay.

The pursuit of happiness can be accomplished by people who do not want other people to suffer as a rule not an exception.

The pursuit of happiness can be accomplished by people who want other people to suffer because that makes some people happy as a rule not an exception.

When the sociopaths take over government the price of admission is to make people suffer if you want to survive.

I think that Solzhenitsyn has not thought through political economy under voluntary rule since his life was spent under involuntary rule.

"According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?"

Last night I skimmed through your whole response which is something I don't do often, and it may be significant that I woke this morning with a competitive angle of view on that question above.

There are people who find themselves attracted to capitalism as a method of pricing. Can we agree on calling this type of person by their names first and then any person fitting into this category can volunteer to join the list of names, but we need a name for the category and so I offer:

Category A: Extroverts

Extroverts, so named, are those who do not have any desire to hurt anyone but they will play by the rules of life at the time they are alive and they will seek to gain more tomorrow than today. They don't wait for other people to tell them what to do, they go out and get what they want, and they want happiness, and they will not settle for anything counterfeit. They want real, measurable, happiness as they see it, and they are going to get it one way or the other.

Category B: Workers

I do this on purpose, now, to illustrate a point and the point is to point out a need to avoid confusion.

So far there are two categories of A) described as extroverts or employers or capitalists and B) described as workers or employees but a third category aught to be identified so as not to confuse the other two categories for the purpose of knowing better as to who does what, why, when, and how much, and to who.

Category C: Sociopaths

If there are a whole lot of Workers, so named, it may be a good idea to identify what a worker is, exactly, compared to the other two categories in view with this angle of view offered now, and this angle of view that returned to me this morning, after I slept on your resent well communicated angle of view, concerning this forum subject, and The Problem in general.

A. Extroverts
B. Neither
C. Sociopaths

Who runs the world? Who moves capital here and there so as to accomplish this and that on their exclusive schedules, on their calendars?

A Capitalist (extrovert), not necessarily being a sociopath, will call the people being employed by such names as employee or worker.

A Socialist (sociopath, not necessarily being a capitalist) will call the people being exploited by such names as cattle or cannon fodder.

Neither capitalist, socialist, extrovert, or sociopath, just people, have one thing in common, and this group that is neither capitalist/socialist/extrovert/employer/mover and shaker is the largest number of people in the human condition, where these people are driven to live and let live, giving rise to sayings such as The Golden Rule, and such notions as charity, sympathy, empathy, conscience, justice, equality, equity, due process of equitable law, agreement, peace, love, kindness, meekness, etc.

Back to your question:

"According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?"

I do not think so because I think that life must adapt in such a way as to learn how to move from one planet to another planet and absent that adaptation accomplished the force of life is powerless which is not good in my opinion. God, according to anyone else, may see a different angle of view. My angle of view is that the life force, the true life force, is forcing life to adapt, so why stop here, what makes here and now the stopping point of adaptation? We can adapt to cold by moving to warmer places, why stop there?

To me the reason why here and now is the stopping point of adaptation is an enforced limit on power by sociopaths who have taken over control with false things such as false advertizements, false governments, and false money. Absent that power forcing an end to adaptation there would be more adaptation, more liberty, more competition, and a harmony between people whose happiness is found in making more out of less on the one hand and on the other hand are those other people who merely want to get along in peace - those who will work for food, peace, harmony, and appreciation.

A. Highly motivated toward production (extroverts)
B. Highly motivated toward acceptance (workers)
C. Highly motivated toward destruction (sociopaths)

Why confuse any person with any other person as if the deeds done by one person are deeds done by the person who did not do those deeds?

"According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?"

Settling for only what is necessary is the same thing as refusing to store extra tomatoes in jars. The principle is the same there is a difference in degree of storage. Just because sociopaths have destroyed everything including banking, making the counterfeit version more powerful than the true version, does not mean that the true version is bad.

A very spiritual group of people, such as many Native American people, although not Christian, and therefore damned to eternal hell, on earth, and after life, were hindered in spiritual development by being slaughtered by their conquers who had more opportunity for spiritual development since they were alive not slaughtered. That is one measure of hindering spiritual development, so who is doing the measuring? Those Christians doing the measuring were doing the measuring with swords, spreading spiritual development in the form of piles of dead bodies, for the crime of not being as spiritually developed?

So if the shoe was on the other foot, and the Native Americans had invaded the Christian people's lands, slaughtering them, enforcing whatever dominant spiritual development they had reached, over and above the Christian version, would you be championing some other religion, or would you be hiding from the sword now?

When the Chinese take over the world and enforce their spiritual development upon everyone else will your kind, Christians, be once again slaughtered, and this time that competition will reach the final solution?

Why blame anything other than the people who decide to resort to deceit, threats of violence, and resort to violence upon the innocent for those things done by them exactly?

Why blame (counterfeit) Christians for slaughtering non-Christians.

Why blame greedy capitalists for the crime of making it much less labor intensive to create as much food, clothing, and shelter as is needed for good life, and therefore having much more time to pursuit other things, including spiritual development?

Is the thinking such that the only way to gain true spiritual development is to labor constantly? If that is the thinking then I can see how that thinking would produce a ready supply of workers who are willing to work for nothing - how convenient is that type of thinking for someone who wants to get something for nothing, or lower labor costs so as to increase personal profits?

"Perhaps active and intense competition should not be focused at all on gaining a more and better quality of life. Rather we are to seek God first and let Him add to our lives such as He sees sufficient."

If I were a capitalist seeking to reduce labor costs I'd say that those ideas are great for the workers, let them eat cake. The response may be to say that workers are seeking profits too, rather than seeking spiritual development, and all those starving people around the globe merely need to be born again, and once they accomplish that goal, then they will no longer starve, and they will no longer be fighting each other for any job offer that may arrive at their doorstep, hand delivered from the same people who took over control of the land, the water, and the money.

I'm not so confident in that type of thinking.

I see patterns here, no different than the patters recorded in the books I've read about American history, whereby a very few very bad people take over the power supplies and they use those power supplies to destroy things because that is what they do, and that is what they know that the need so as to keep the power supply flowing to them. They take over all the power supplies, and they use that power to destroy anyone else seeking to take over that same power.

So blame the people who have an interest in making more power out of less power? Blame honest productive people for the crime of making more than they need at any given moment in time? Blame those honest productive people for the things done by the Legal Criminals who steal that surplus wealth and then use that stolen power to steal more, or blame it on surplus wealth?

Too much power is the problem, so stop making more power than the power needed right now?

Why does that sound so convenient for Legal Criminals to have their targeted victims thinking such things?

Rather than accurately identifying the actual people who commit these horrible crimes: the victims and the witnesses are blaming each other, or blaming honest productivity, or blaming things, anything but actually holding the responsible people to account for what they alone have done.

How convenient is that, and how powerless is that, compared to the competition: if any extra power could be employed in a high profit investment with exceptionally wealthy returns on investments it would be a capacity to earn enough extra today to then be able to purchase the knowledge required to disconnect the victims from the criminals and then make that happen on our schedule.

A.
Blame things for the crimes committed by actual people, which is an employment of extra power, an investment of time and energy, a use of power in the work required to blame things for the crimes committed by actual people. Stop working, but have enough spare power to stay alive while work is momentarily stopped, and in that window of opportunity the concept here is to blame THINGS for the crimes done by actual people.

B.
Use that same time, effort, and energy, that was spent on blaming things, or blaming victims, or blaming bystanders, or blaming witnesses, for the crimes committed by actual people, and instead of using up that power for that useless, or destructive, purpose, instead, use that power to accurately identify the actual people committing the actual crimes, so as to at the very least, avoid being the next victim.

If there is no supply of surplus wealth then there is a reason for it, and if the reason is that everyone is no longer creating any surplus wealth, including tomatoes in jars, because everyone is working all day, to make only what is needed for today, because everyone is gaining spiritual development that way, then that may be our salvation when everyone does exactly that every day.

If one person doesn't follow that method of spiritual development and that one person resorts to deceit, to threats of violence, and acts of violence, while everyone else stays on the spiritual development course by working all day for only enough to eat that day, then how ready are all those victims for that one criminal?

How easy is that situation for the one criminal? Like taking candy from a baby?

Will one of the ready victims ever say, hey, we may want to do something about that one criminal among us, seriously causing some of us injury, and if so, then what is done?

Make just enough more today to be able to have time tomorrow to deal effectively with the one criminal?

At least know who the next victim may be and warn them?

"Perhaps the real problem is that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves and so what is mine is mine and it is not yours and I will not give you what is mine even if I see that you might need some of mine because I am too busy getting more of mine so that mine will be more than yours."

We do that? You do that? I do that? Where is this nebulous "we"? A person who seeks to use the power God gave them to make more power today than yesterday can be someone who then gives half of the extra production away in the form of higher wages, and the other half of the extra production is invested in starting another venture of similar design, whereby the object is to use the power God gave them to make more power, and that is done on a regular basis, and to top it all off the extra production is priced very low, or at cost, so that the workers, even those workers, can afford one of the things produced.

Where is the harm in that unless there is added to the network of producers, workers, employers, consumers, suppliers, builders, designers, and accountants, added to all those people, "we" add a criminal or two?

So blame the rest and ignore the 2 criminals among us?

Are there 3 criminals among us now?

Blame everyone for the deeds of the criminals?

How convenient is that type of mind set for the criminals?

How dangerous is that type of mind set for the ready victims?

"In other words, I see you have a need, but I am not going to help you, so “Good Luck,” hopefully God will help you, but God may not use me or my resources in the process."

Harkening back to my "run" for congress where an old woman responded to my speech concerning voluntary taxes as opposed to the involuntary taxes she needed to keep the bad guys at bay. She asks the candidate a question, me, and the question had to do with who will help her when the bad guys are breaking into her house if taxes are voluntary and no one wants to pay any taxes?

My answer was for her to get a gun, or for her to know her neighbor well enough to inspire them to be charitable enough to help her in any case such as that case, since the neighbor may be a lot closer than any one responding to a 911 call.

That was the quick answer and not verbatim. I was not elected of course. The point is that many of us are born into a mind set that transfers responsibility to a THING called government while the same mindset transfers all accountability to each individual as in:

Who do you call when you need help? 911.

Who do you blame when things go wrong? Your neighbor.

My neighbors, I know, will help me and at least one is a very good shot with his .308.

None of my neighbors are kidnapping child sex slaves, running torture chambers extracting confessions, or mass murdering "collateral damage" piled high reaching for the stars, yet each one of us are financing, hiring, and employing people who are doing those things, and those Legal Criminals aren't even hiding their crimes anymore.

Those Legal Criminals are boasting about their crimes now that they are so filled with hubris and our stolen surplus wealth. Those neighbors of mine who are still duped to a point of thinking that their tax payments are voluntary, or necessary, are still, in my view, victims: failing to know any better yet.

The affordability of stupidity is evaporating, so the flow of power will stop soon, but it may be too late to avoid shooting in defense of Liberty - unfortunately.

++++++++++++++++++++++
"Do you think perhaps he alluded to it here:

“An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.”
++++++++++++++++++++++

It is what I call Legal Crime. Why call it "capitalism"? Capitalism is a method of pricing, and if that method of pricing is connected to "government" (counterfeit government) then Legal Crime includes that method of pricing. What is more important?

A.
The pricing method.
B.
The fact that victims are being injured by criminals with badges.

Why convict everyone as being guilty for everything when very few people are actually causing very serious injuries to real people right now and those worst of the worst criminals are acting willfully, not by accident, actual, real, and very destructive, crimes, by criminals, made legal: why not call it by a name that accurately identifies what it actually is, instead of calling it a name that misdirects defensive power away from an actual remedy?

"Do you know a good source to read about America during 1776-1788 so I can understand how things (individuals and states and civil governments etc) worked as a Democratic Federated Republic?"

My study is very limited and focused along the lines of a specific legal precedent, so my offering of reading material will be along those lines as such:

Shays's Rebellion

Franklin State

Not Counterfeit Federalists

Gag order

After the Usurpation

Shays's Rebellion showed how a Democratic Federated Republic is supposed to work whereby the employees at the Federal Level are employed by the employees at the State level and the Federal employees have no power to "return runaway slaves" such as the case of Daniel Shays as he was deemed by law to be a slave in Massachusetts and failing an effort to regain control of the criminal Massachusetts State government Daniel Shays, and others, fled (voted with their feet) to Vermont. The Federal government could not force Vermont to return the runaway slaves back to Massachusetts. That was a legal precedent under The Articles of Confederation, and it was a well known legal precedent at the time, despite there having been no Internet to rely upon and despite the fact that much of the major media was owned by the Legal Crime Class.

That was the significant legal precedent that sent Alexander Hamilton to George Washington to get him out of retirement because the writing was officially being written on the walls, so to speak, and something had to be done about those Rebels, those Insurgents, those people who still think they have the right, or the duty, to abolish a government gone bad.

That Shays's Rebellion precedent was cause for getting rid of a voluntary Democratic Federated Republic and instead of it the Legal Criminals had to construct their Nation State, and they had to do so behind closed doors, with a Gag Order, so as to fool the targeted victims, keep them in the dark, until it was too late for those targeted victims to know better, and too late for those victims to do something to remedy that move from voluntary government to involuntary government.

From a Democratic Federated Republic Voluntary Competitive Government

To a Consolidated Legal Crime Nation State Despotism used by Legal Criminals to make all competition against the law

The State of Franklin helps in seeing what type of person took control of government, including false flags of dressing up as Indians, slaughtering white settlers, blaming the Indians, and then slaughtering Indians to get the prime land from the slaughtered Indians. War made legal, warfare state.

The Non-Counterfeit Federalists (called the "other founders" or "anti-federalists) blows the lid off the supposed Monopoly of Founding Fathers being one thing, when in fact there were many groups of people trying to deal with many problems at the time and there were definitely two groups, at least, where one was Counterfeit Federalists who where actually Nationalists, and there were actual Federalists who were called Anti-Federalists; whereby the Founding of a Democratic Federated Republic was done between 1776 and 1788 by the True Federalists and then there was a "founding" of a Nation State in 1788 by the Nationalists hiding behind a very thin veil of "Federalism".

The Gag order ordered into being at the Secret Proceedings confirms any notion of there being one Monopoly Group of "Founding Fathers" as the insiders to the Club blew the whistle on the Secret Proceedings and Debates: there were two sets of founders, one counterfeit and one real, founders of a Republic on one side, and the counterfeiters won when they got their Nation State: the Counterfeit Founders were self confessed Nationalists.

The last reference (Whiskey Rebellion) had to do with King George (Washington) assembling a conscripted National army in order to enforce a money monopoly, perpetrated by King George after the Nation State was constructed and it was no longer a Declaration of Independence to abolish a criminal government, now it was against the law to abolish a criminal government, now according to King George: so fatal a spirit as exercising your duty to abolish a criminal government will be crushed by King George and his conscripted Army of aggressive war for profit as the National army invaded the formerly Sovereign State of Pennsylvania so as to enforce a tax on whiskey, payable in gold, whereby whiskey was the money competitor invented and produced because the counterfeit legal money used to finance the previous rebellion (legal then) and the counterfeit legal money kept on the books since the previous rebellion drove all the gold out of the colonies by way of Gresham's Law (importers refused payment in counterfeit money).

I have to get work done so I'll will return here to this welcome exchange later.

"#2 was my guess because it is what has influenced me. Maybe I should say money again because that is the vehicle by which we must disconnect from the Legal Criminals?"

Counterfeit money aught to be compared competitively with honest money before fully realizing the true answer to the question which asks:

Which connecting medium is the most dictatorial in nature, which one is a method by one person, or one small group, to alter the behavior of targeted victims?

How many competitive money counterfeiters exist now, and how much power is being spent on reducing the number of competitive money counterfeiters to ONE?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. One way connecting mediums such as Television (or the press)
2. Chat Rooms and Forums
3. Money
4. A Spiritual Connection

QUOTE: “Which one reaches closer to a connection that manages to reach the goal of everyone knowing better soon enough to avert becoming victim to crime made legal?”

#2 was my guess because it is what has influenced me. Maybe I should say money again because that is the vehicle by which we must disconnect from the Legal Criminals?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My opinion is that a spiritual connection will be the power than people find when people finally realize the need to disconnect from the Legal Criminals. A legal criminal may even connect spiritually and decide, voluntarily, to stop being a Legal Criminal.

"I dare say the majority of Americans, do not even recognize the enemy, so how is one to even fight against it?"

Common Sense was a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1776 and it was a sold at the cost of printing so as to gain as much currency as possible.

46 Pages

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

When the demand for knowledge, by spiritual connection or by whatever power imaginable, is gaining currency, when more of us demand to know better, there will be a supply of accurate perception that will be well communicated as has happened in the past.

We will stop providing the means by which we suffer or we will continue to suffer on our own dimes and in our own names, and that path, that providing the means by which we suffer, can continue to be capital flight flowing into World War III on the calenders of those who own us and when World War III is over those owners will then be demanding payments of war debts - Made in China.

I'm not the only one seeing these facts, but there are too few who care enough to even look - at this time.

Times are changing.

"Do you think Solzhenitsyn understood the depths of the plan as you state it?"

I think that Solzhenitsyn was spiritually connected much more so than I am, but as far as his understanding of Political Economy in a way that can be well communicated, the evidence I've seen does not support much agreement between my viewpoint and his; however he does, obviously, point out the very obvious fact that China is gaining power relative to all the other Political/Economy Powers, which leads to obvious conclusions.

"How do you define Conservatism?"

How did Solzhenitsyn define Conservatism?

"Western thinking has become conservative: the world situation should stay as it is at any cost, there should be no changes."

I think that there are two forms of conservatism where one is originally based upon that spiritual connection to do good and the other is counterfeit. The good version, or true version, of conservatism is the one that intends to conserve the spiritual connection and conserve the use of power to do good things, not wasteful things, and not sinful things (crimes).

The false, or counterfeit version, is a method by which Legal Criminals modify the behavior of their targeted victims into making their victims believe that they, the victims, are powerless, and unable to adapt to anything, unless the victims are given permission by authorities to adapt, and then the victims are led to believe that they can only adapt in the way they are told to adapt, and that Master/Slave connection is the THING to be conserved in that counterfeit version of conservatism.

"How are we going to elect you? You see, I think I am one of those follower sorts."

The idea is to begin thinking in terms of hiring someone who actually represents the goals shared by the employers, you, or any voter, in a Democratic Federated Republic or voluntary government. Once you get that in mind you are then working that way, not the default way, not the "follower" way. That is a huge step for each person, and then the power of numbers may, or may not, work out in time.

If you connect to someone else (not spiritually because that connection works for good by definition) through speaking, or writing, and you see a need to communicate to someone based upon an obvious measure of the person being connected to you as being a "follower", then it may be worth the effort to offer a competitive viewpoint. You can say, why vote for that person? Why not vote for yourself? If you are too busy, then vote for me, just don't sell out your power to a lesser of two evils, or any other nonsense, because, seriously, that is the problem, not the solution.

"Is the above quote an example of defenseless violence? I don’t quite understand what is being offered as the remedy. Is it Eugenics?"

Stephen Pearl Andrews was obviously (obvious to me) speaking out against abortion. The connection was made where women (property) were enslaved by "legal" marriage, being raped legally, bearing rape babies, and murdering the rape babies rather than bear them. So the "legal" marriage thing turns women into murderers all nice and legal.

How nice.

Joe

Who is the Liberator?

Let me see if I have this correct.
I. The pursuit of happiness can be accomplished by people who do not want other people to suffer as a rule not an exception which includes:

A. Extroverts = Capitalists (Capital movers, self-starters who play by the rules without the desire to exploit or hurt others to achieve their goal which is happiness.) They are movers & shakers who are highly motivated toward production and employ workers to meet their goals.

B. Neither [A nor C] = Workers (The majority of the population who live and let live, who are at the dispose of Extroverts and Sociopaths; highly motivated toward acceptance.)```

II. The pursuit of happiness can be accomplished by people who want other people to suffer because that makes some people happy as a rule not an exception:

C. Sociopaths = Socialists (Get what they want by abusing and exploiting workers. They are movers & shakers who are highly motivated toward destruction. One has to make people suffer to join their club.)

Did I make a correct summary? Do A, B, C move back and forth the between groups? Are all workers benign? i.e., recently a little 10 year old girl was kept in a closet and weighed about 40 lbs when she was finally discovered; her own family did this to her. As far as I know they were not movers and shakers. I know several women who were raped by their own fathers when they were but little girls. Would these types of people, the perpetrators not the victims, be sociopaths even though they are not movers or shakers, but treat people as cannon fodder? I think I may be misunderstanding by thinking that you are saying all extroverts and all sociopaths are in leadership/government/business owners. Or do you mean extroverts and sociopaths are users regardless of their station in life (even if they are the employees/workers)?
________________________
ME: According to Proverbs as quoted above, perhaps it is better to not desire to have more, but rather to desire to only have just enough, or only what is necessary, not more and not less, such that it does not hinder free spiritual development?

YOU: I do not think so because I think that life must adapt in such a way as to learn how to move from one planet to another planet…Settling for only what is necessary is the same thing as refusing to store extra tomatoes in jars… Is the thinking such that the only way to gain true spiritual development is to labor constantly? If that is the thinking then I can see how that thinking would produce a ready supply of workers who are willing to work for nothing - how convenient is that type of thinking for someone who wants to get something for nothing, or lower labor costs so as to increase personal profits?...

I can see how my statement would lead to your statements. I am often deficient by stating in such a way as seeing only black vs. white; good vs. bad; best vs. worst. Certainly there are degrees in between, and sometimes polar opposites are neither best nor worst case scenarios, but both opposite poles may be wrong whereas the middle would be correct or best.

I should have stated in such a way as to say, “God, let the focus of my life be neither riches nor poverty, but you. If either riches or poverty will make me spiritually deficient, I choose you. Lead my life Lord, in such a way that I do not turn away from you. If I have great riches, may I pursue you; if I have poverty: may I pursue you. If I am such that I can only pursue you by having neither riches nor poverty, then let that be the case. I choose you as the goal of my life. Add to my life what is best for my spiritual development.”

Certainly that does not mean that we are not to prepare for our future or strive to do well, but in doing those things not to put them ahead of God. God has endowed people with the ability to adapt thru invention, pursuing change, and working hard to achieve those goals. Certainly many who love Him have riches while some have poverty. Some seem to have a fairly easy life and some have a very hard life, some are in the middle. But may those who find themselves in any scenario pursue God as their sustainer and not focus only on the material. All of the scripture is to be taken as dependent upon and to be interpreted by other scripture. A single verse does not stand alone but in the whole counsel of scripture. There are many instances of wealthy, poor, and average people in the Bible who loved God.

It was not my intent to say that we are to work all day just to eat for today and not plan or prosper for tomorrow. My point should have been directed to the fact that perhaps we have stopped focusing on God and instead are focused primarily on the material which has led to a deficiency in spiritual development which results in the opposite: spiritual decline.

YOU: If I were a capitalist seeking to reduce labor costs I'd say that those ideas are great for the workers…

Do you believe the Bible was written to manipulate the masses?

Here is the Christian work ethic: Colossians 3:17, 23-24 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him…And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.

As a Christian, I am to work like I am doing my work for or as unto the Lord Jesus. That is a pretty good deal for my employer because I am highly motivated. I guess under the capitalist model it can be a good deal for me because the harder I work the more I can make or the faster I can move up. I have opportunity for reward. Perhaps under a socialist or even more so a communist system (I am speaking of current models (not correct definitions) to the best of my knowledge) the principle could save my sanity in the face of probable inequity

ME: "Perhaps the real problem is that we do not love our neighbors as ourselves and so what is mine is mine and it is not yours and I will not give you what is mine even if I see that you might need some of mine because I am too busy getting more of mine so that mine will be more than yours."
YOU: We do that? You do that? I do that? Where is this nebulous "we"?...

I am just saying I and those in my house have far more in our house than we need. We have more clothes than we can wear more food than we need, we don’t have a lot of luxury items, but we have more than we need of the everyday items. There are people sleeping under overpasses. I am not helping them, other than extorted money sent to the “no such thing government” to support them with food stamps, medical care, etc, if they are even in the system. Why am I not taking a drive every night to see what I can do to help? What about he faces of starving children on TV? Why am I not half starving so they could be half starving instead of actually starving? I see children on an almost daily basis who have parents who manufacture and sell drugs (or so it would appear) and who take drugs. Those kids run the streets. I am not bringing them into my house for milk and cookies and a kind loving word. I am too busy to be concerned and troubled enough to help them.

ME: "In other words, I see you have a need, but I am not going to help you, so “Good Luck,” hopefully God will help you, but God may not use me or my resources in the process."

I see pan handlers in the Walmart parking lot. They have a need, it may not be money, but may be someone to get involved in their lives and help them overcome whatever it is that causes them to beg as their work. Just like the drug dealer’s home that I can plainly see out my back window. Cars drive up all ours of the night and honk. The teacher next door to me sees her students go there. People leave the house in the wee hours of the morning. What am I doing to make a difference? Nothing, not me, don’t get me involved. I don’t have time…it may cost me more than I am willing to give. I may find myself between a rock and a hard place.
_________________

“Harkening back to my "run" for congress where an old woman responded to my speech concerning voluntary taxes as opposed to the involuntary taxes…”

Voluntary taxes are a difficult thing to understand after the deception (not conditioning) we, I mean I, or perhaps there are others that would make it a we, have lived our whole lives. I can completely see the need to make taxes voluntary and thus control the spenders. What would the voluntary taxes be used for?

YOU: “My neighbors, I know, will help me and at least one is a very good shot with his .308…None of my neighbors are kidnapping child sex slaves, running torture chambers…”

I honestly do not know what goes on in the privacy of my neighbors’ homes. For all I know they are watching snuff films, cooking meth, and abusing their children. They have guns. They scream and fight and cuss; they fired their guns in town for who knows what reason, and the police came…. They have a son my son’s age on my son’s baseball team. Last week the police were called out to the game because of a physical altercation between that family and the other coach’s father because the coach’s father asked them not to use the F bomb…What about that 10 year old boy and his 5 year old sister? What kind of lives do they have outside my back window? I am not sending my boys over to play, and I am not asking them over to play. What does that say about me. I have what I want, I am too busy to help you, I don’t want to get involved. How do I know there is not another 10 year old in a closet in my town which would actually make the population 701 instead of 700?

There is a vacant house across the street because when the 70 lady retired no one would buy her nicer home across the street from the meth house and she let it go back to the bank so she could retire and go to Arizona. The other lady across the street can barely stand because she is in so much pain. She lost her husband last summer. The lady next door is a retired school teacher widow and then there is also the school teacher and her husband. I have no idea what goes on in any of their homes. I don’t know if my neighbors have guns, there is probably at least that one gun at the meth house. My town is full of retired people on SS and “disabled” people on SSI.

Farmers around here are having their scrap metal stolen and cattle rustled. I know multiple homes which have been broken into while owners were at home or on vacation. Someone tried to break into our garage a couple of years ago. Was probably the same boy that is a member of our church, stole offering from the church safe (we had to install a camera to figure out what was going on), got caught breaking into my kid’s Christian School, stole from a fireworks distributor, just got out of jail, came to church for a month, has quit coming, and I have done nothing to help him. He is probably going back to prison because he had charges in 2 different counties and the prosecutor did not bundle the charges. (Our church did not call the law or press charges, but tried to work with him.) His mother teaches Sunday School at our church and manages the convenient store. We advised her not to go back to work, but they, she and her husband, thought their son being in middle school could be at home by himself without supervision. (He blew is fingers off one summer making a gun powder bomb.) It may not have made any difference but we will never know.

I suppose I am not looking at political economy, but at the actual social economy inside and outside my windows, right here in my town of 700, or perhaps 701. I am not making a difference other than in my own children’s lives. I suppose I do help in other ways but not in a “driving” and “consuming” way in the face of the needs that surround me. I like working in my garden, I like conversing on the DP.

“The affordability of stupidity is evaporating, so the flow of power will stop soon, but it may be too late to avoid shooting in defense of Liberty - unfortunately. “

Yes, power to the Legal Criminals as well as the Illegal Criminals and Human Weakness seems to surround me on all sides as well as my own too busy to care stupidity which adds to that outflow of power.

________________________
“That Shays's Rebellion precedent was cause for getting rid of a voluntary Democratic Federated Republic and instead of it the Legal Criminals had to construct their Nation State…”

Of course “they” wouldn’t want to let a good crisis go to waste. Thank you for taking the time to explain to me Shays Rebellion. You have mentioned it often and I really did not know anything about it.
I had a thought this week about being surety, which is what we have been made because of the United States Debt. I normally have thought of this on a personal level, but this week on a corporate (as in we, as in we the people) level.

Proverbs 11:15 He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.

Proverbs 17:18 A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.

Proverbs 6:1-5 My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself, when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go , humble thyself, and make sure thy friend. Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids. Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler.

It is my guess that early in American history we, the victims, were unable to deliver ourselves from our lenders and it has only gotten worse. It seems I remember debt financed the Revolutionary War?
_______________________
In regards to the multiple choice: Which one reaches closer to a connection that manages to reach the goal of everyone knowing better soon enough to avert becoming victim to crime made legal?
1. One way connecting mediums such as Television (or the press)
2. Chat Rooms and Forums
3. Money
4. A Spiritual Connection

YOU: My opinion is that a spiritual connection will be the power than people find when people finally realize the need to disconnect from the Legal Criminals. A legal criminal may even connect spiritually and decide, voluntarily, to stop being a Legal Criminal.

I have said before and I will say again, it is very important that individuals make sure that the spiritual connection is with the One True God. There is a God of this world who transforms himself as a worker of light and good. He will deceive the nations. He will perform miracles. It will be such a deception that the very elect would be deceived if it were possible: Matthew 24:24 “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”
The Apostle Paul gives a further description of this time as found in

II Thessalonians 2:4-12: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now ye know what with holdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work : only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed , whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish ; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I agree a spiritual connection is necessary and would achieve what no other option can. There have been great revivals in the past that have brought forth change, The connection must be with the one true Creator God otherwise it only leaves the other god of this world who is a deceiver and whose goal it is to deceive and who wreaks havoc and will wreak unimaginable havoc to come.

To what are you referring to when you say spiritual connection? It may be as different as my God in my terms and your God in your terms, so I am asking.

“Stephen Pearl Andrews was obviously (obvious to me) speaking out against abortion. The connection was made where women (property) were enslaved by "legal" marriage, being raped legally, bearing rape babies, and murdering the rape babies rather than bear them. So the "legal" marriage thing turns women into murderers all nice and legal.:

I still do not understand what was being said about capital punishment:
LMD-10.32 “Often the greatest crime a man can commit is to reproduce himself, though it be done legally.

LMD-10.33 “We must have a Maine Law and capital punishment for the children born of hate in indissoluble marriage. Hundreds of Women in such marriage murder their children rather than bear them.

Is the capital punishment for the man, the baby or the woman? My first reading made me think it was for the baby, but now since you say Andrews was speaking out against abortion, I am thinking that capital punishment must be for the man?

I took the occasion to speak with my mom about these things. I have found again that I am Polly Anna. Honestly, I didn’t know about marriage rape But now that I do, I am wondering, perhaps this whole issue gave rise to not letting a good crisis go to waste and instead of punishing the guilty (the man) and helping women get out of bad situations, a crisis was used to reweave the fabric of society? God’s plan was as it was in the garden, that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and that they, the two become one flesh:

Genesis 2:24-25: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

My grandmother was forced to cook breakfast for by my grandfather as she was in labor with their first born before he would get the doctor. She lost the child. My grandmother told me of a couple in the apartment below them. She was called on to care for the woman after her new husband bloodied her in sex. I didn’t ask my grandmother enough questions. I wish I would have. But now there are children in our town who do not know who are their fathers or their brothers and sisters, and women who do not know who are the fathers of their children. After all, how is it that a mutually equitable situation is to be found without trying out a few first or escaping when the going gets rough (and I am not talking about marriage rape, but those trials that married couples work through and grow through.)

Perhaps the wrong solution was proposed by Andrews. Perhaps marriage laws were such so that a wrong solution could be proposed? Perhaps free love was not the solution, prosecuting the evil doer husband. Perhaps the woman should have been able to take all his earthly belongings and leave him in jail after he took from her what she did not give. But then there would be abuses of that system too I suppose. How would true trial by jury have worked for these women?

I am just wondering how the problems of a minority spill out into problems for the majority causing even bigger problems for all. Women were having illegal abortions and dying in back alleys. Now we have legal “safe” abortion and the bodies of babies are piled heaven high.

I am also not so sure about the title of this publication per wiki: Free love advocates sometimes traced their roots back to Josiah Warren and to experimental communities, viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of an individual's self-ownership. Free love particularly stressed women's rights since most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures.[23] The most important American free love journal was Lucifer the Lightbearer (1883–1907) edited by Moses Harman and Lois Waisbrooker[24]

again from wiki: Lucifer the Lightbearer was an individualist-anarchist journal published by Moses Harman in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Originally produced by a local branch of the National Liberal League as the Valley Falls Liberal (1880–1883), Harman changed the title after he assumed sole editorship in 1883.
The mission of Lucifer was, according to Harman, "to help woman to break the chains that for ages have bound her to the rack of man-made law, spiritual, economic, industrial, social and especially sexual, believing that until woman is roused to a sense of her own responsibility on all lines of human endeavor, and especially on lines of her special field, that of reproduction of the race, there will be little if any real advancement toward a higher and truer civilization." The name was chosen because "Lucifer, the ancient name of the Morning Star, now called Venus, seems to us unsurpassed as a cognomen for a journal whose mission is to bring light to the dwellers in darkness."

Why would they pick that name? Why Lucifer. And that writer you mentioned to me that you are reading, why does he use the name Lucifer in his titles? From wiki: ." The name was chosen because "Lucifer, the ancient name of the Morning Star, now called Venus, seems to us unsurpassed as a cognomen for a journal whose mission is to bring light to the dwellers in darkness."

This reminds me of what the serpent said in the perfect sinless garden that God made and placed the man and women: Genesis 3:4-8: And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

From what source of help is liberty being sought? God did not make man a sinner. Satan brought that “light” to man. Adam and Eve were naked and did not even know it. They were innocent. They did not know good or evil. After being deceived by Satan, they sewed fig leaves together to hid their nakedness and proceeded to hid from their Creator because they were ashamed. The first Legal Criminal: Lucifer, the bringer of light.

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

How sad if liberty is being sought thru the help of the Deceiver. In that case, I choose death.

Trust in false associations?

"How sad if liberty is being sought thru the help of the Deceiver. In that case, I choose death."

Who is confusing words with deeds?

If liberty is being sought and someone helps then when exactly did the Deceiver fit in?

Who, exactly, and when, exactly, did someone ever resort to deceit against an innocent victim in reference to the Andrews, or, in other words: who is making these connections between Andrews and the Deceiver?

If the subject isn't Andrews and his work, which was the subject as far as I was concerned, then when did the subject find a way to connect Andrews, and his work, to the Deceiver?

If Andrews is guilty of resort to deceit then that ought to be found out, in my opinion.

Why blame anyone else?

Joe

On Deceit

Satan: Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made . And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said , Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?... 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die : 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened , and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Andrew:
LMD-Intro.48 Observe, I am not dogmatizing in any thing that I say here. I am not even affirming that any one of these suppositions is likely to come true. I am simply establishing the fact that the righteousness and permanency of Marriage and the Family Institution are fair subjects, like any other, for thought, for questioning, or investigation. I am entering my calmly stated but really indignant protest against the assumption that there is any possible subject, in this age and nation, with our antecedents and pretensions, too sacred to be discussed. I am adding my testimony to the truth of the position assumed by the Despotist and the Slaveholder, that the same evils which exist under the Institutions of Despotism and Slavery exist likewise under the Institution of Marriage and the Family; and that the same Principles of Right which men seek to apply in this day to the former, will not leave the latter unquestioned or unscathed. I am giving to the lazy Public some intimation that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than have yet been dreamed of in their Philosophy. I am breaking into ripples the glassy surface of that dead sea of Conservatism which reflects Socialism as a bugbear to frighten children with. I am giving to the world a sample of the ideas, and trains of reasoning, facts, and principles which the New York Tribune, professedly the Organ of New Thought, refuses to permit to be communicated to its readers, as matter too bad to be published. And finally, and specially, I am making an historical note of the fact, for future reference, that such ideas as these were too far in advance of public sentiment, at the middle of this century, at the metropolis of the most progressive country in the world, to find utterance any where through the Public Press, the Tribune being, after all, the most liberal journal we have yet established among us.

Jesus: Matthew 19: 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read , that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,5And said , For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together , let not man put asunder .7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away ? 8 He saith unto them , Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.9And I say unto you , Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery : and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery .10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry . 11But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given .12For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Refining the art of communication

You are an artist, please take my viewpoint to heart.

"Did I make a correct summary?"

Yes.

"Do A, B, C move back and forth the between groups?"

Please consider reading some work done in medical and social science concerning the effort to identify the causes of mental sickness.

I can offer:

Prescription for Rebellion

Anatomy of Human Destructiveness

The Sane Society

A person born without certain brain parts whereby those missing brain parts are active in normal brains when sympathy would be the normal reaction to specific perceptions is a condition of life that can be called any name such as narcissism. The name used does not change the fact of existence.

A clinical narcissist cannot merely go back and forth from being a clinical narcissist to being a normal person like turning on or of a switch. A clinical narcissist can imitate or counterfeit a normal person by following observable behavioral patterns, and I hope that you can see how this could help answer your question. I did my homework on this question, so my answer is not merely my opinion.

"Do A, B, C move back and forth the between groups?"

I don't think so. I think an extrovert is born as one, and in addition to being born that way an extrovert will either find external conditions to be favoring or reinforcing extroverted behavior or external conditions will not be favoring or reinforcing extroverted behavior, so there is a combination of internal physical make up and external conditions involved in producing each person's power to either get alone with everyone else or exploiting everyone else according to that process, and that does not account for the internal or external spiritual connection which can be a separate topic to make this more simple or it can be a topic combined with this topic which makes the viewpoint more complex.

Sheep, human sheep, or followers, exist, and that cannot be denied, as evidenced by extreme examples such as hundreds or even thousands of human beings marching to their deaths because they are told to do so by their leaders.

I won't do that, but I'm not so much an extrovert so much as someone who was born innocent, had some trouble growing up (not much), became seriously introverted, had some head injuries, and am now climbing my way back into reality, as it is, and what I find, so far, is a serious need to stop following orders without question.

What explains the mass following of lethal orders without question including massive torture and massive death at the hand of a few "personalities"?

Everyone is not guilty, not in my opinion, not based upon the information I have found so far in my study.

"Do A, B, C move back and forth the between groups?"

No, but there are well trained introverts who learn to compete in an structure controlled by extroverts or sociopaths and the difference is worth understanding.

A structure controlled by extroverts who are not sociopaths will reward behavior that is competitive without resort to deceit, threats of violence, and violence, because sociopaths are not controlling things, so those who compete by offering higher quality competitive examples, and lower cost competitive examples, are rewarded in such a structure, and the structure can be called Liberty, for lack of a better word, because such a structure managed to avoid resort to crime.

Enter into the structure a control by a sociopath and what happens?

Either the sociopath, who employes any means to gain power, not limited in the employment of deceit, not limited in the employment of threats of violence, and not limited in the employment of violence to gain power, or the sociopath encounters limits.

If the sociopath does not encounter limits then that is one situation, no reward, no positive reinforcement, and no punishment, no negative reinforcement, the sociopath is neither helped or impeded by that employment of those criminal means of engaging everyone else in that network or that structure.

On the other hand, as we have now, there can be a structure whereby a sociopath is rewarded, positively reinforced, and able to gain power, where the victims provide the means by which the victims suffer, and in such a structure as that, controlled by criminals, rewarding crime, by making the victims pay to be victimized, what happens?

Look around.

Read Solzhenitsyn.

What happens when criminals take over the power of government?

Right away, intuitively, instinctively, and reasonably, the sociopaths, the legal criminals, know that they must monopolize, or own, or control exclusively, all the means by which the victims gain power, and the most important realization that occurs right away is the power to know better.

The victims can't be allowed to gain the power to know better so immediately the sociopaths gain control over every form of accurate currency, which includes money and language.

Money is merely one type of language.

What is the definition of government?

What is the best money?

If you can't answer either question then you may want to find out why you can't answer the question because to me, you are a ready victim, you are a worker type, or introvert, or a person born with moral principle, and as such you have been targeted, brainwashed, and you are now cannon fodder, a slave, you are your own worst enemy, as your mind is conditioned to accept the condition of your mind, which is a counterfeit version of your actual mind. Your greatest strength, which is moral integrity, is now used as your greatest weakness by those who make this structure real. Sociopaths invent this structure, call it might makes right, call it Legal Crime, call it Despotism, call it Slavery, call it whatever word works for you, but realize that it is Man Made, or Sociopath Made, and then, if you can, try to clue other people in on it, and see what happens.

The Sociopaths took over language, and it didn't happen by accident.

The Sociopaths took over government, and it didn't happen by accident.

The Sociopaths took over money, and it didn't happen by accident.

You, and all those around you, are made to think that it is all an accident, therefore there are no solutions, this is our fate, march on into hell on earth when ordered to do so and do not question those orders.

Poor us.

"Are all workers benign? i.e., recently a little 10 year old girl was kept in a closet and weighed about 40 lbs when she was finally discovered; her own family did this to her."

Not all sociopaths make it to the top, that is not a reasonable perspective. The point here is to point out that the structure rewards a specific type of behavior by which the best liars, the best at threatening, and the best at being violent and not getting caught at it, are rewarded the most, and once in "The Club" there must be an "honor among thieves" to keep some kind of order among the most powerful who must have some method by which sociopaths manage to cooperate, to divide the victims among them, to divide the spoils of Legal Crime among their number, and to weed out, by some process, the weaker among them, because failing to have that "governing" process bloats their number to an unfordable number, as too many Legal Criminals and not enough Victims results in fewer, and fewer, things to be stolen, and therefore the rule of "diminishing returns" will force that requirement to cull the herd, so to speak.

Everyone can't join in on the something for nothing plan.

Who would be left to make anything of value, who would be left to make anything worth stealing if everyone acted like a sociopath?

What happens when rats are herded into an too small area that triggers the rat self preservation instinct?

The rats eat each other until there are few enough rats in the small area.

Non-sociopaths are not like rats, but sociopaths are like rats, so they have to have a means by which to deal with too many moral people working to well at joining the crime made legal business.

Try running for congress, see how far you get if you speak the truth.

What kind of "government" have "we the people" had since 1788?

Independence Day is approaching, what exactly will "we" be celebrating?

"Certainly many who love Him have riches while some have poverty."

I have heard it said that Jesus violently drove the Money Changers out of the temple. The Money Changers, or Sociopaths, are back in the Temple, and I don't think that moral people are to blame, other than, in your way of saying what I think is the same thing, other than the blame placed on moral people who refuse to seek a greater spiritual connection.

Your viewpoint points to a spiritual connection to God.

My viewpoint points to a spiritual connecting medium between one another.

The goal appears to be the same thing, as the goal is to gain a connection between moral people and in so doing the connection to the sociopaths is made less, and less, effective at making moral people weaker while less and less power flows to the sociopaths, as more and more people seek, and find, that elusive spiritual connection.

Friend from foe work.

Find friends.

Avoid foes.

Peace, not war.

What about the actual sociopaths who can now write themselves a check for as much Legal Purchasing Power as everyone else combined?

Each of us, who are moral people, who are current victims of Legal Crime, and potentially greater victims of Legal Crime, aught to know better than to give any credit, at all, to that specific Legal Purchasing Power, which isn't "conspiracy theory", and which is Dollar Denominated, actual green ink on actual paper, and actual digits in actual bank accounts.

The Sociopaths have that much power because the victims give that much power to those specific sociopaths who control that specific Legal Money Monopoly.

"My point should have been directed to the fact that perhaps we have stopped focusing on God and instead are focused primarily on the material which has led to a deficiency in spiritual development which results in the opposite: spiritual decline."

That to me is an example of the Literature, or the Art, spoken of by Solzhenitsyn. My competitive angle of view sees the same thing, but my view does not stress the God connection. Moral people have been fooled into thinking that the one legal money is power. So long as that Fraud continues to work so long with that one legal money be so powerful. As soon as people realize that they are victims to that fraud, the house of cards collapses, and that specific money is no longer powerful. The sociopaths know this, they are not stupid, they merely have no spiritual connection, and no way to get one, and no desire for one, they gain power at the expense of other people, that is their way of life, and their products are designed to accomplish that end. Their governments are designed to accomplish that end. Their money is designed to accomplish that end. And, in fact, their governments and their money destroy their governments and their money that way, so we the victims either find our replacements for that "Business as Usual" before it Collapses on the schedule dictated by the Sociopaths, or we follow that course, staying that course, to that end, or we don't.

We are the source of power, not them, they merely find ways to make us "provide the means by which we suffer" or they don't.

Now they have that racket going, and now that "empire" business is on the way down and out here in America, so why are we following it down and out, why not opt out, why not choose a higher quality and lower cost (to us) alternative?

We are all too stupid?

Count me out of that "we", please.

"Do you believe the Bible was written to manipulate the masses?"

I am going to borrow from two people I trust, because these two people have so far not proven otherwise, and I'm going to say that Bear and Jeff have done their homework and that The Bible was not written to manipulate the masses, rather, the Bible was written to offer any individual the opportunity to make a spiritual connection to the Life Force, or to God, or to The Truth, and so it is up to the individual to make that connection through that offer in The Bible as intended by the writers, but I'm going to add that much depends upon those who interpret The Bible as exemplified by such things that have become known as The Inquisition, The Crusades, and Colonization (dealing with "Natives" in "The New World"s).

True things can be counterfeited effectively for nefarious, devilish, goals, that are not Godly in any sense of the true word, but in every sense of the counterfeit word.

"the principle could save my sanity in the face of probable inequity"

What is the opposite (or counterfeit) version of inequity?

We are not all equal, but we sure can strive for equity, it seems to me.

The counterfeit versions of socialism or communism are unreachable goals (unreachable by design so as to throttle down the power of the targeted victims) such as enforced equality.

"Why am I not taking a drive every night to see what I can do to help?" Trusting in required, it seems to me. How can you trust that you are helping someone if you don't commit to the connections you make to the people you intend to help? You can't marry everyone. You can't be mother to everyone, so how can you trust that your offer of help does help? Think this through, please, and tell me how your calculations pan out. Take any example. You find a bum under a bridge and throw them some clothes, and they you drive off.

What if that bum was on the edge of rock bottom, just before they finally start to make use of their life instead of allowing it to go to waste, but your clothes offering allows them one more years worth of bumming?

What is the right thing to do? Stop, pick up the bum, get them in the shower, feed them at home, adopt him, and work to set him on a better path?

How do you know that the bum isn't a sociopath that just last year was climbing his way up the fascist ladder into Legal Crime, only to cross the wrong person, or take the wrong drug at a "social gathering of elites" finding himself back at the bottom, recuperating, before preparing to start climbing again, on the backs of a steady flow of ready victims, and there you are, ready to "help"?

I don't have the answers, but it isn't out of apathy, or ignorance, for my part the idea is Liberty, which can allow for much less power being wasted killing and torturing people, and much more power used productively in producing more productive power, making true charity much more likely because it takes power to be charitable. You can't give away that which you don't have, and if you give away too much, whose going to be there, charitably, when you need charity, because you gave away too much of your power?

How do you know that next year you are forced to wear those extra cloths in your closet, or next year you have someone asking you for those cloths, pleading for that hand out, where they know that your gift will help them greatly, so who then is left to argue the point?

You have extra, and someone is asking you for that extra because a connection to you by them is made at that time for that purpose.

Here you go, imagine that, I have the stuff you need, at this time, in this place, here you go, and good luck.

Not - I have something extra and how can I use what I have to get what I want from someone else, gaining a sense of feeling better myself, because I made someone else better by giving them my extra stuff.

What is true charity? I think it may be something that is out of our hands until such time as we actually have to suffer so that someone else benefits. How is that done without planning for it in advance? If it is planned in advance then are we not gaining some goal, some profit, some reward, like Oprah giving away cars?

How uncharitable is it to do anything other than making sure that your children are the best that they can be because you did all the right things to reach that goal?

I don't know. I'm not tuned in very well. I have my axes grinding too much, but I do keep a reserve for my children if they need me.

Bums ask me for money, I give them change, "here go buy a bottle of whiskey", and my wife glares at me.

My power is spent doing the right thing as I see it, and charity is a can of worms to me. Equity makes sense, a lot of sense to me.

How about this:

My mother is near death and she wants to give part of her life's earnings to her grand daughter, a house say, and we as parents say, no, not now, our daughter is just out of High School ("learning" economics among other lies), and looking for work, or looking for a way to earn a good life (not steal one), and so we are reluctant to transfer that much power to our daughter in that way, we all agree, my mother, my wife, and myself, that our daughter has to learn to be independent, and we can be there if she needs us, when she needs us, so long as we can be there to help her when she truly needs us.

I don't know about this charity stuff.

"I am too busy to be concerned and troubled enough to help them."

I just don't know if charity is the right thing to do, in any case, until I see it right in front of me, no fake charity, no sending "money" to some organization, and there is no way that I have enough power to adopt anyone, that is ridiculous to me. I am not even close to the best father of 2 of my own children, it is out of the realm of reality to consider being a better father to more children.

"I may find myself between a rock and a hard place."

This makes me think of a realization that reinforces over time, and so far I do not see counter arguments that are valid, when played out in my mind.

Many people claim that all politics are local and if people take care of local politics then the States and the Federal government will take care of itself. I don't think so.

In the first place I don't think that politics can be separated from economics. Politics is merely psychological economics. It is all a power struggle, in mind, in physical reality, and in spirit.

I think the right thing to do is to divorce ourselves from the Legal Criminals at the National level, before the World Reserve Currency Power moves to China. Now is the time to do this, before we are under the thumb of an imported POWER. Now is the time to turn this around.

Regain control over the National government, remake it into a Federation, and then concentrate on State level Monopolies or Legal Crime Organizations, then County, then City.

I think people have that backwards.

All politics in Liberty is local, in our minds, sure, then the family, then the street, then the block, then the city, then the county, on and on, but when dealing with Legal Crime, we the victims, if we want to be former victims, we have to chop off the head, figuratively, because all we have to do is disconnect from the Legal Crime Business, but to do so we have to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we need to maintain our equitable connections, or if we have none, we need to make them.

That applies, I think, to charity in this way:

The bum can be employed by Walmart or asked to leave, as there are plenty of cigarette butts to pick up in exchange for some clothes and a meal. No deal, then print up a sign that says to anyone, complete with a picture of the bum, that this bum was given this deal, and this bum declined the offer of equity.

Where is the army of bums hired to clean up all the litter?

No such thing in Legal Crime because that would be equitable, powerful, and good.

I have to get things done before returning to this welcome competitive challenge of viewpoints.

Joe

Snippet

You were in the middle of this comment when I deterred you to talk about SSNs. I have only replied below to one of your paragraphs as I just finished commenting on the other post but thought of this idea and wanted to give it to you before you finished the rest of this post, or if you are already finished tell me, and I will finish full reply later.

“My mother is near death and she wants to give part of her life's earnings to her grand daughter, a house say, and we as parents say, no, not now, our daughter is just out of High School ("learning" economics among other lies), and looking for work, or looking for a way to earn a good life (not steal one), and so we are reluctant to transfer that much power to our daughter in that way, we all agree, my mother, my wife, and myself, that our daughter has to learn to be independent, and we can be there if she needs us, when she needs us, so long as we can be there to help her when she truly needs us.”

Your mother sounds like a very generous lady. It is kind of her to think fondly of your daughter. I also took note in our other post that she was concerned about the young girl that used to work for her. In the Biblical sense, and I do not know if your mother knows Christ, so it may not apply, but some are given the gift of giving:
Romans 12:8 Or he that exhorteth , on exhortation: he that giveth , let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth , with diligence; he that sheweth mercy , with cheerfulness.

It may come natural for your mother to want to give as it comes natural for me to show mercy. That being said, I can understand your concern for too much power given to your daughter at a young age. This is the thought that came to mind. Perhaps it would be equitable and in accordance with your Product 1 scenario if your daughter was able to buy the house from herself interest free. That way she would be making payments and would be putting money into savings or another investment at the same time…could even be a Product 2 option? She would not be getting something for which she did not “sacrifice” to get in a sense and yet she would be blessed by your mother’s gift and would not have to pay 3x the amount for a house should she choose to buy one with a conventional loan. I don’t know if something like that could be set up. I know Asians that buy houses for their children and those families are responsible and productive, and the family money is not bleed into the hands of the money changers. Just my thoughts, and not to interfere with your personal family business, as you certainly know better than I for your family.

Here are some Proverbs about inheritance. I think they are well rounded with concerns addressed: http://www.biblestudytools.com/search/?q=inheritance&c=pr&t=...

Equitable Idea

That is a great idea to propose that to the daughter for that house and we are working on a similar deal with the son who is beginning to collect enough income to be targeted as a "tax payer" (sounds so nice) and we the parents have a plan to suggest simulating the paying of mortgage to an simulated mortgagor who will be himself for that day when he can no longer tolerate his parents suggestions or when he finds alternative living arrangements typical of the species.

The problems with that plan include having "inflation" consume the earnings at an unfordable rate.

When power is made scarce on purpose then families by necessity have to combine power collectively as opposed to independently for reasons that may become obvious.

I can finish reading the unread portions of these various open discussions and find a place to respond if possible or reconsider the idea of limiting the word count down to a more manageable number.

Joe

Set Aside Time

I will take careful time to read your kind reply. Sanning it before I have to leave the house all day caused me to know I will want to come back for your well placed thoughts. Thank you!