26 votes

Alex Jones Challenges Piers Morgan To Moderated Debate

Gun control showdown – round two

Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com | January 9, 2013

Fresh off an explosive CNN confrontation between the two that has generated viral media attention, Alex Jones has challenged Piers Morgan to a another debate on gun control that would be overseen by an independent moderator.

The debate would take place either on Jones’ nationally syndicated radio show, on Morgan’s CNN slot, or at a neutral venue and would follow classic debate-style rules with an equal amount of time for each speaker.

Read more: http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-challenges-piers-morgan-t...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Would Alex consider debating

and not yelling over his opponent?

That I may watch.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Great

give Alex another chance to deter would be liberty minded people.

Effin Hilarious.

Thank you.

Alex should

challenge Pierce to a dual. Alex can use a semi auto AR-15 with two 30 round clips with hollow points. Pierce can use a single load musket.

Shouldn't Piers have a rock

Shouldn't Piers have a rock since he is for a total gun ban?

yea.....a rock is even better

and Pierce can find plenty of rocks in his own head....it's full of them.

I think it's a good idea!!

I think he should. This time hopefully he won't YELL. The zombies can't take it. Only Alex's listeners know how he is and is used to him but the average zombie on the streets can't be yelled at or they will twist it and call him crazy AGAIN. So in order to throw it back in their face, Alex needs to remain calm and throw truth in their faces without screaming. That will be interesting to watch.What can they say???? This will be GREAT!!

AJ should be careful

This is precisely the type of situation that Piers joked about taking a gun into to shoot him with.

There is no debate.

My right to my life and the means to defend it isn't up for debate.

We can't keep playing games with these people. It only gives validity to their ignorance.

No.7's picture

HERE HERE!!!

Awesome comment, I agree 100%

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Where? Where?

Where? Where?

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

No.7's picture

Right above my comment lol

The guy who said the 2nd amendment isn't up for debate.

There! There!

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

This is a political move by

This is a political move by Alex Jones.

You can't go into a man's house, act like a deranged person, and then request a second meeting where you promise to act good.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Sure you can

If Piers is any thing but a POS.

SteveMT's picture

... and the moderator should be Jesse Ventura.

He would be the best person to do this.

A great reply

from the comment section there:

ALEX YOU DID AWESOME!!!! Here’s why…

1. If it was just a normal, everyday program like every other day with every other host, it would have been largely ignored and by now we’d be talking about something else. Since he went crazy on him, which BTW if you listen to Alex you know he loves to get worked up – so it wasn’t just a stunt, now it’s all over the news. People who have never heard of Alex and Infowars are now coming to check it out. You couldn’t have paid for advertisement like that.

2. Have you ever tried to debate a dumbass liberal? There’s no winning. They don’t work on logic – that’s what makes them liberals – they work on feelings. So any argument that a more professional debate would have accomplished more is totally false.

3. WHY AREN”T YOU PISSED OFF? Bravo Alex. Way to have some balls on TV. I agree you came off as a madman at points, but you know what, you should be! ALL OF US SHOULD BE. What has TALKING accomplished this far? Hell 1/2 the country thought Ron Paul was a fool and crazy just because he wanted to follow the Constitution, see point #2.

4. The time for debating is over. The power is in the people, and to not use that power is to bow and pucker up to that stinky NWO ass aimed right at your face. Grow a pair. The future generations are depending on you.

More fruit

Thank you, Alex.

I volunteer

Who else would volunteer to moderate the debate?

The polarization of powers aligned in opposition to Liberty or Death (by government) is narrowing down folks.

Where can you find a neutral moderator?

On what corner of the earth is there a person who is neither for Death by Government or for Liberty?

How about two moderators to moderate the two opposing sides between the battle between honest productive voluntary associations in Liberty and those who invent, produce, and maintain Death by Government incrementally or all at once?

Please

Joe

And a good job you would do my Friend!

:)

I don't know

bear, we would not be on the Piers Morgan side so both of us (I trust) would be against the lies so often told by the Legal Criminals and their employees.

My guess is that a pacifist and/or atheist could be semi-neutral. How about someone like Ron Paul, Noam Chomsky, Howard Bloom, or...

I got it.

John Pilger

http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy

He is Australian, a Journalist, not an insider (so named) and definitely not a Right leaning Republican Conservative type who would side with any capitalist stuff that might be leaning toward the Free Market Liberty types.

Joe

Do you think

John Pilger is neutral?

No

My point is that no one is neutral.

Do you think that John Pilger is employing deception, threats of violence, and violence to injure innocent people, or the same question is to ask if you think that John Pilger is on the side of the Legal Criminals, or the same question is to ask if you think that John Pilger is on the side of the honest, productive, people who could be friends of liberty if they recognize the fact: since they are not working for, and since they are working against the Legal Criminals?

Example of John Pilger's Journalism products:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI

Key words to look for:

Free Market

Equity

When those on the left focus attention on the Counterfeit "Free Market" they fail to see the accurate Free Market (the difference is that the counterfeit one is deceptive, threatening, and violent upon innocent people or, in a word: involuntary, AND, the genuine Free Market is STRICTLY voluntary: meaning no crime used to enforce a "Free Market").

When those on the right focus attention on the Counterfeit "Equity" they can't even use the right word, they focus on their own version of the word, which is "Equality", and it is completely false, misunderstood on purpose, and deceptively attached to the targets that the right (might makes right) people have in their sights. This is a clue. Anyway: the right leaning people do not see, on purpose, the accurate condition of equity, which is STRICTLY a condition of life that is as far from iniquity as humans can get.

So you have seen RED before, and I guess you are seeing RED again, and you don't even realize that the Legal Criminals have changed RED to BLUE and BLUE to RED right before your eyes AGAIN - or do I misunderstand your question to me?

"John Pilger is neutral?"

John Pilger said, in the words offered competitively by John Pilger, that it is important to know which class a person serves.

To me John Pilger is not at all neutral, as John Pilger serves equity which is as far from willful deceit, and as far from willful threats of violence, and as far from willful violence upon the innocent as can be, because it is as far from iniquity as can be, which happens to be an equitable place just like the place called The Free Market.

You had trouble with the following too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=colcD8UVr90

When roughly half of the population of the world is working without limit to destroy the other half, it seems to me, the causes aught to be understood instead of willfully being ignored.

Joe

I am seeing red. And I don't

I am seeing red. And I don't care. Red is Red and I don't like Red. I think this is Red propaganda. The same kind that takes people's guns and tries to make everyone equal thru force. Equity is not forcibly possible. Equity is not possible voluntarily. Equity is NOT possible. You can send all the criminals to New York, you can have Trial by Jury (the real kind) and you can have voluntary government and people are still going to take advantage of other people. It cannot be controlled. I see it here on the DP. People who want "liberty" resort to name calling and belittling their so-called Friends of Liberty. Maybe there are “trolls.” Well there will be trolls in equity as well. The way I see it, people get real dissatisfied with the government, revolt, and then there is a bloodbath.

I don’t like it. I don’t understand, and I suppose. Are you a member of socialistworker.org? Or are you a member of any of those “pink” groups? I see pink as an enemy as well. However, I did read this this morning:

Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Danger Will Robinson, Danger…the communists are coming…I see RED and I am not doing my bookwork because I am talking about RED…I am seeing PINK that will become BLOOD RED. And they applaud because Israeli ships are turned away and a French/Israeli railroad has been halted…What kind of freedom is that? What kind of voluntary associate is that? The Israelis are people too. Social Justice? Can that be Just? Progressive attitudes? Progressive = Communist = Red. More taxes to help those who cannot help themselves? That is forced and we see how that works. No, individuals should help others individually. NOT THRU SOCIALIZED CENTRAL PLANNING. That is what is wrong with this country. There is no New Left. It is all Left. Josf, if this is what you advocate, please be as honest with me as John Pilger is with his likeminded crowd.

Yes, I had trouble with that other link too. It is communist subversion. I am not stupid.

"Do you think that John Pilger is employing deception, threats of violence, and violence to injure innocent people, or the same question is to ask if you think that John Pilger is on the side of the Legal Criminals..."

Yes, that is exactly what I think. He is telling the Left side of the story just as bad as the people on the right tell the right side of the story. IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left. It is called domination of the masses. I don't want to be dominated by anyone, not the right, nor the left. I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American. It seems to me there are enemies within and enemies without. I feel like I am in overload. One side, but the south Vietnamese needed our help. The Reds were coming. The other side…We are not the policemen of the world. What is the truth? http://truth-out.org/video/item/8255-john-pilger-real-journa... Is that the truth? I do not know. The truth? His house, my house, your house, too? Are much nicer than those of the 3rd world victims I just saw. Why should we have what we have? Are we any better than the super wealthy when people are suffering and starving and we live in our “ivory towers?” and talk about it? Equity? Social Justice? How? Pink, Purple, Red, Blue? Fidel Castro and Mao and Stalin...men that killed their own? And I don't know about Hugo Chavez...

...

Never can trust me.

I think it may be a good idea to never trust someone, no matter how many times the same lack of trust is shown to be baseless.

So you ask me again if I am guilty of all the bad things you think I am guilty of because I may, somehow, be closely associated with people you don't like?

You don't like people because they are closely associated with other people who do things that you don't like.

Here is your question:

"Are you a member of socialistworker.org? Or are you a member of any of those “pink” groups?"

You can check.

I was a member of the John Birch Society, United We Stand (Ross Perot's version), the Libertarian Party (was on the ballot in 1996 for National Office), The Mises (Austrian Economics) forum (and I was fraudulently removed from their forum), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (joined in the sense that I won Honorable Mention in a writing contest), The Real News Network (was on their forum before it their forum was removed from the web), Free State Project Forum (was removed from their forum without notice), Anarchism Dot Net Forum (their forum was taken over by spam bots), The Republican Party (at your request, as we made a deal, and I'm still registered Republican right now as far as I know), The American Rifle Association (I stopped paying dues when they would not even recognize that I was a candidate for National office in 1996), The Prison Planet Forum (was removed without any fair treatment or defense on my part and all my work was summarily erased as in Down the Memory Hole), and now I offer my viewpoints on this forum, and now I joined in a book writing effort.

You have the list, you can check it, I may have left something on the left out, the only left leaning thing on the list is the effort to speak to the left on the Real News Network Forum.

Your question again:

"Are you a member of socialistworker.org? Or are you a member of any of those “pink” groups?"

No.

I have read a lot of the word done by a mother whose son was killed in the Iraq massacre that is still going on today.

I can name that name too, but you may see RED and then my integrity is questioned again.

I have listened to a lot of people who speak accurate words from what can be called the left, but again that is the part of the spectrum that your perspective is trained to censor, so good luck with that and I can help, perhaps, but the point at which the laws of diminishing returns takes affect appears once again.

You wrote this:

"Equity is not possible voluntarily."

That is a confusion of words in English on your part. Equity is voluntary. Voluntary is equity. If it isn't equity it isn't voluntary. If it isn't voluntary it isn't equity. If it isn't voluntary or equity, then what is it?

I may be the one confused.

Which meaning of which word is the meaning of the word you want to use in any given case whatsoever?

"The same kind that takes people's guns and tries to make everyone equal thru force."

I think the word, in English, that is an accurate word for people who gain power by making their targeted victims weaker is Criminal.

I think the accurate word is Criminal.

If a Criminal can get away with crime by wearing a RED coat, then they will wear a RED coat.

If a Criminal can get away with a crime by waring a Sheep mask, then they will wear a Sheep mask.

I think the accurate word in English for people who invent deception and then employ deception on their victims is Crime.

"And they applaud because Israeli ships are turned away and a French/Israeli railroad has been halted…What kind of freedom is that?"

That is a case of you at the store and you find a deal that looks too good to be true and you find out that there are hidden costs because the things being sold are "subsidized" by the very same people that make you see RED when someone tries to inform you that the very same people who "subsidize" are the very same people who make you see RED when anyone tries desperately to inform you about those people, those specific people, such as a guy named Edward Bernays.

I think the correct English words are: receiving stolen property.

I think there are other accurate words in English for receiving stolen property such as: aiding and abetting the enemy.

The "Right" (Might makes Right) love Edward Bernays.

An example of someone on the "Right" who loves Edward Bernays is a guy name Joseph Goebbels.

"The Israelis are people too."

John Pilger is person too, an individual.

The Nazi's are not a people, it is a name used to describe a set of people who can be listed as the only people who aid and abet Nazi's in one way or another.

Neo-conservatives are not a people, it is a name.

Zionists are not a people, it is a label.

Responsibility is individual, or there is no such thing.

Here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&sta...

"If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all."

"More taxes to help those who cannot help themselves?"

What do you mean by the word "taxes"?

Do you mean the payment of legal purchasing power paid by those who produce productive power to those who steal that power through deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon the innocent?

I think the word you are looking for is: Crime.

You may want to play the word games. I do not.

"That is forced and we see how that works."

What is force? What kind of force do you have in mind?

If a mother is working the coat hanger to pierce the brain of the unborn insider her, and you are there, do you force your will upon the mother?

You speak of force as if it is all bad - apparently.

" No, individuals should help others individually. NOT THRU SOCIALIZED CENTRAL PLANNING."

All capital letters, I like that, it adds a measure of expedience, or importance to the words you choose.

What is the working definition of "Socialized"?

Do you actually mean to capitalize the words that convey the accurate meaning that holds the specific people responsible for perpetrating crimes upon the innocent or do you actually prefer to help those same people who are perpetuating crimes upon the innocent?

I can't tell, so I ask.

"That is what is wrong with this country."

What, in your mind, is "this country"?

Crime is wrong with "this country"?

So, having something assumed on my part, I can ask who, and what army is going to stop crime, ever, and who will that specific individual manage that miracle, and until that specific individual preforms that miracle, is there anything anyone else can do while so many innocent people are currently being tortured and murdered, and lesser crimes perpetrated upon them?

I suppose that we are all guilty, sure, but my guess is that the ones profiting the most for each torture victim's demise are somewhat more a concern for those who are currently suffering the most just before their deaths at the hands of those specific people.

A.
Person collecting the funds for legal torture and murder.
B.
Those paying the cost, or, in other words: the victims of torture and murder, and their families who somehow survive the torture of having their loved one's tortured and murdered for fun and profit.

A is, to me, a concern.

B is, to me, a concern.

A can be, if possible, avoided, and if not, at least held to account for what they actually do in reality.

B can be abandoned, sure, but it may be possible to not abandon them and just let them be tortured more and murdered more while we wait for the one individual who makes everything right all of a sudden.

"There is no New Left. It is all Left. Josf, if this is what you advocate, please be as honest with me as John Pilger is with his likeminded crowd."

What do you consider to be "likeminded" and if you can be accurate I can answer the question. I actually listened to what the person said, so I can quote from those words that were said, and then I can agree with almost all of it, each word, and if you have a contention concerning any word, then I can tell you, honestly, if I advocate telling the truth or not, in any case.

If you want me to say, yes, bear, go ahead and punish me publicly for all the crime committed by all the criminals hiding behind all the falsehood, since I advocate all those crimes hidden by all that falsehood, then you wont' get that from me, because I do no such thing.

You can punish me in this public hanging, go ahead and pull the lever to the trap door, and let me drop to my death, that is fine with me.

Push the button, pull the trigger, whatever works for you.

"Yes, I had trouble with that other link too. It is communist subversion. I am not stupid."

Stupid is relative, just like happy life is relative to miserable death - in my opinion.

If there is a desire to communicate accurately, then it can happen. If there is no desire to communicate accurately, then that can happen too.

If there is a desire to communicate falsely, that can happen, as well as can happen a goal reached to not communicate falsely.

The other link, and I am going to quote, because I actually listened to the words spoken by the brave, or not so brave, person:

"...destruction of Iraq's electrical grids incapacitated the medical system..."

That can be understood as both a confession of ignorance and a statement of fact - in my opinion.

The ignorance concerns the concept of ownership, and I can go in great detail concerning how ignorant it is to suggest that a "country" can own something.

The statement of fact is obvious, as it is essential for criminals to inflict the most injury to their targets in ways that remove all the power that is in the control of the targets.

So I speak in words that make no sense to many people, because I use accurate words?

I don't fall into the traps of employing deception, or I am not victim to deception?

You tell me, after you get over your current hit piece on me, as you again assassinate my character with this close association you are moving me towards criminals that you call "socialists" or whatever false front works to hide their crimes better.

____________________________________
"Do you think that John Pilger is employing deception, threats of violence, and violence to injure innocent people, or the same question is to ask if you think that John Pilger is on the side of the Legal Criminals..."

Yes, that is exactly what I think. He is telling the Left side of the story just as bad as the people on the right tell the right side of the story. IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left.
_____________________________________

Here I am left completely in the dark, and for what reason? You are leaving me completely in the dark, so you must know the reason, even if the reason is "you don't know" why you willfully leave me completely in the dark as to what exactly John Pilger said where John Pilger is guilty of what you say he is guilty of doing.

Advocating civil liberties is a guess I have as to what you think is this:

"IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left."

Why should I presume to know anything (from my position of darkness) concerning what you mean when you make your viewpoint known to me in an ambiguous way as you have just done.

What, exactly, is John Pilger guilty of doing according to you, and consider using quotes, so as to shed some light into the dark room that I see on my end concerning what you actually mean when you use the words you choose in the way you use those words.

This:

"IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left."

My guess:

1.
Civil Liberties = "evil of the left"
2.
Women are no longer the property of men according to "the law" currently being enforced by the enforcers of "the law".

So much for my guesses, from the dark you place me in on this specific concern (which I share).

"It is called domination of the masses. I don't want to be dominated by anyone, not the right, nor the left."

John Pilger, the guy I thought would make a good moderator (if there has to be only one, and not two, and then a need for another moderator, which was my point of pointing out the absurdity of the concept of debate) is guilty of "domination of the masses", and if so, then how, exactly, is that done by John Pilger, and consider using quotes, so as not to leave me completely in the dark.

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

Peirs Morgan and John Pilger on the same side? Now there would be a good interview. Which person is more qualified to interview the other, and what would the questions be, and what would the answers be, in any case whatsoever?

Gun laws in America?

You think John Pilger would be on the same side as Peirs Morgan on any issue?

I think that John Pilger makes it plainly clear that "governments" abuse the "right to own guns" and he does so very well: in an accurate, on the scene, personal witness, sense.

How close to actual gun violence has Peirs Morgan reported as personal experience and qualification to speak about it - at all?

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

Forgive my next flair of emotion that I feel like saying - please.

You say this:

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

I say: "Are you on crack?"

Piers Morgan wants to take more power away from the targets of Legal Crime and that is the same goal as making sure that Legal Crime is handed more, and more, and more power.

Do you really think that someone dedicating his life to reporting the actual, accurate, abuse of gun violence, BY GOVERNMENTS, is the same, or equal to, what Piers Morgan does?

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

Do you mean Anti-Legal Crime American Style, Neo-Nazi, Neo-CON, Neo-Liberal, or whatever word covers it up, and if that is what you mean then Piers Morgan is not Anti-American, since he is paid handsomely, or kept alive, for covering up the crimes done by those Legal Criminals American Style.

My guess, at this point, is that you can't, you refuse, you won't, it is not possible for you, to even consider anything said by anyone who you are told is your enemy, as you are told those lies by your enemies.

That is my guess. I'm in the dark, since I have no clue as to what John Pilger actually said that places John Pilger on the same "side" as that Obamination Piers Morgan.

"Is that the truth? I do not know."

Neither do I. I can say that after listening to Piers Morgan I suppose I'm supposed to pay more taxes and let his kind take care of everything. After listening to John Pilger I prefer not to allow another watt of my power, that I earn, to be stolen from me and allowed to finance more of the same mass torture and mass murder already piling up on my account.

"His house, my house, your house, too? Are much nicer than those of the 3rd world victims I just saw. Why should we have what we have?"

Because we earn it.

That is going to change, you know the whole "change" thing, a big play on words, so much fun, play, play, play, with words.

We are on the hook, supposedly, for some TWO HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF DEBT, for our part in "Spreading Democracy" and who do you think is going to be collecting that sum?

We here in American are being sold out by the Piers Morgans, and all our power is going to our enemies, through deceit, threats of violence, and in one generation, if we don't wise up sooner, and stop this infighting, our numbers will be the starving ones, and our enemies will be the ones letting us die, because our electric grids will be shut off, and our medical systems will be no more, and our power will be less than required for survival, and we will pass the THIRD WORLD on into the FOURTH WORLD because those on the schedule to raise the BAR of Criminal Dominance will set a new BAR of abject belief in falsehood without question, which is hell on earth, soon enough.

"Are we any better than the super wealthy when people are suffering and starving and we live in our “ivory towers?” and talk about it?"

Do you resort to deceit, willfully, to gain at the expense of your targeted victims?

No?

Not as much?

Not at all?

What did you ask?

"Are we any better than the super wealthy when people are suffering and starving and we live in our “ivory towers?” and talk about it?"

Which super wealthy?

Those who earn their earnings in a big way by way of honest work traded within a narrow band of moral sense, or the other way, which is the criminal way, by way of deceit, threats of violence, and violence perpetrated willfully upon innocent victims?

Why is this at all difficult to understand? I don't know.

I can't give that which I don't have, but I can give that which I do have, and if I give up too much, then I die, and then I don't have anything to give anyone.

Giving is an investment, it is good for me.

I can't give that which I don't have, and I can't be a martyr for the same reason, I have nothing to give. I don't have the need, or want, or reason to make myself powerless so as to remove the need for someone else to figure out what they need to do to make themselves powerful.

"Why should we have what we have?"

I think every living life form must, by necessity, produce more power than the power they consume, failure means death. If a life form consumes itself, its own power, as in cannibalism, then that life form is soon extinct - gone forever - with or without God's help.

We ought to figure out that helping each other, by asking first, and settling only for the accurate answer, is better for us, individually, and as a sum of all the individuals put together, since the opposite is, in a word: cannibalism.

English is tricky business.

"men that killed their own?"

"And I don't know about Hugo Chavez..."

I actually listen to what the man has to say. I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say. I keep asking one question: Does Hugo Chavez enforce a Legal Money Monopoly or not?

You tell me.

I know that an answer of yes is a confession, and so is a non-answer.

Joe

Did not think of if that way

“I think it may be a good idea to never trust someone, no matter how many times the same lack of trust is shown to be baseless.”

Then you of all people should understand why I ask about Pink when you give me Pink. You accused me of seeing Red. That is because you handed me Pink. So I ask. Are you Pink. Do you belong to Pink. Do you think Pink is good?

“So you ask me again if I am guilty of all the bad things you think I am guilty of because I may, somehow, be closely associated with people you don't like?”

I don’t think you are guilty of bad things any more than any of us are guilty of doing something wrong. What I wanted to know is if you are Pink because you associated with John Pilger and he associates with Pink by speaking to a Pink group.

“You don't like people because they are closely associated with other people who do things that you don't like.”

Who ever said I didn’t like someone? I never said I didn’t like someone. I said I don’t like Pink and I don’t like Red. That does not mean I don’t like someone. I don’t like a “thing,” not a person.

Here is your question:
"Are you a member of socialistworker.org? Or are you a member of any of those “pink” groups?"

A simple answer would have been “no.” But instead you accuse me of publicly hanging you and then wanting to pull a switch or a trigger. Do you not know me better than that? I did not understand your intentions with handing me Pink. And you are right, I do not like Pink. It is ingrained not to like Pink and my mind is like scrambled eggs. Everything is upside down. I cannot tell a friend or an enemy. What I thought has been right all my life is wrong…regarding government. And it is difficult for my mind to accept. I feel afraid. And now you can hand me the sniveling coward shoe because I admit I am afraid.

“You have the list, you can check it, I may have left something on the left out, the only left leaning thing on the list is the effort to speak to the left on the Real News Network Forum.”

I am not checking any lists. I simply asked a question. A person I think of as a Friend in Liberty hands me pink so I ask. I have never even heard of socialistworker.org and John Pilger is speaking to them and you hand me the link and tell me he would be a good moderator.

“I can name that name too, but you may see RED and then my integrity is questioned again.”

I don’t know you. I don’t know anyone on this forum and I will ask questions when I do not understand. Why is that questioning integrity? I am being honest. If I don’t understand I ask.

“I have listened to a lot of people who speak accurate words from what can be called the left, but again that is the part of the spectrum that your perspective is trained to censor, so good luck with that and I can help, perhaps, but the point at which the laws of diminishing returns takes affect appears once again.”

If I was censoring the information, I would not have listened to several hours of John Pilger yesterday. I am questioning, and yes, it does go far from what I am “trained” to accept. I see John Pilger interview someone who has lots of “treasures” in their home and I see that person talking about his family buying up property in Miami, then I see Pilger show the masses in “cardboard” boxes in dumps and then I see Hugo Chavez supposedly making everything good for those masses. So I ask the person, Josf, if he thinks John Pilger is neutral.

Josf tells me John Pilger sides with equity. I know Josf believes in equity, so I ask Josf if Josf belongs to Pink. Yes, I connect dots. If I start handing you occult information and saying it is good and I think their speakers should do this or that, you might ask me if I belong to that organization.
----------------
You wrote this:
"Equity is not possible voluntarily."
That is a confusion of words in English on your part. Equity is voluntary. Voluntary is equity. If it isn't equity it isn't voluntary. If it isn't voluntary it isn't equity. If it isn't voluntary or equity, then what is it?
----------------
When I think of equity, I think of fairness. Life isn’t fair. There will never be equity because there will always be people who take advantage of others. There will always be people who will not or who cannot “earn” their way in life.

I may be the one confused.

“That is a case of you at the store and you find a deal that looks too good to be true and you find out that there are hidden costs because the things being sold are "subsidized" by the very same people that make you see RED when someone tries to inform you that the very same people who "subsidize" are the very same people who make you see RED when anyone tries desperately to inform you about those people, those specific people, such as a guy named Edward Bernays.”

So can you please explain to me how ships and railroads are subsidized by people who are making me see Red. I do not understand. I mean the facts of the matter. Who, what , where, when.
--------------
"More taxes to help those who cannot help themselves?"
What do you mean by the word "taxes"?
------------
I mean the same thing John Pilger is saying when 64% of the people want more taxes to guarantee healthcare for everyone. 2/3 of Americans say government should care for those who cannot care for themselves…starting at about 27.40… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXL998q7skI

I don’t think GOVERNMENT should do anything. I think people should care for each other. Families should care for each other. Voluntary associations should care for each other.

“You may want to play the word games. I do not.”

I know. You used the word “trained” when referring to my perspective. One time along time ago in the vast abyss I used the word “conditioned.” You did not want me to use the word conditioned. I think the word conditioned is better than the word trained. To me “training” is like training a dog. A session wherein training takes place. Conditioning is something that is more covert. Something that takes place outside of a “session.”
-------------------
"That is forced and we see how that works."
What is force? What kind of force do you have in mind?
If a mother is working the coat hanger to pierce the brain of the unborn insider her, and you are there, do you force your will upon the mother?
You speak of force as if it is all bad - apparently.
----------------------
What I am talking about is being forced to pay taxes so people can be guaranteed health care and people can be guaranteed that they will be taken care of. You see how that works. You paid in to the “insurance” called social security. Now you are unable to perform hard labor and you are not provided any of the insurance you paid in to. Why? Rules? Yes when funds are collected rules are made. Who makes the rules? No you, not me, but someone did and they decided that all your hard earned money that was paid as insurance is not yours at all because someone else needs it more than you do…maybe the person paid to tell you “no,” or the person above them who is paid, or the person above them who is paid, or the person above them who is paid….or the congress who will have life long pensions for “serving.” Maybe they all need that money more than you do even though it was your money…or maybe just the girl down the street from me who has cerebral palsy who lives in government housing. Maybe she is the one getting your money instead of her family caring for her. He father and she both live in separate apartments there in that housing. Maybe they both need your money more than you do. I see things on a very small scale. Or maybe the porch sitter who is still living with the nice lady in Clinton. That nice lady, her husband kicked her out of the house. She works at a meat packing plant…a small family owned one. She has an apartment, a car, and has worked to have what she has. The porch sitter? She lives with that nice lady and does not have a job. She asked me for money so she could buy a Christmas present for her daughter. I gave her money. She gets no government assistance because her daughter is now 18 and so no more health care, no more wic. She got it for 18 years, and now she has been cut off the government nipple and she doesn’t know how to get a job and buy her daughter a Christmas present. But 2/3 of Americans say she should be guaranteed health care according to John Pilger.
-----------------
" No, individuals should help others individually. NOT THRU SOCIALIZED CENTRAL PLANNING."
All capital letters, I like that, it adds a measure of expedience, or importance to the words you choose.
What is the working definition of "Socialized"?
-----------------
I think I have explained that already. Socialized…when pools of money are centrally collected, controlled, and dispensed according to rules of theory as opposed to individuals dispensing their own money according to their personal choice.

“Do you actually mean to capitalize the words that convey the accurate meaning that holds the specific people responsible for perpetrating crimes upon the innocent or do you actually prefer to help those same people who are perpetuating crimes upon the innocent?”

I mean to capitalize the words to accurately state what is the system that we are currently living under and the system that John Pilger uses statistics to promote.

"That is what is wrong with this country."
What, in your mind, is "this country"?
Crime is wrong with "this country"?
-------------------
This Country…the land called the United States of America from sea to shining sea including Hawaii….the 50 states that are represented by stars on a flag.

“So, having something assumed on my part, I can ask who, and what army is going to stop crime, ever, and who will that specific individual manage that miracle, and until that specific individual preforms that miracle, is there anything anyone else can do while so many innocent people are currently being tortured and murdered, and lesser crimes perpetrated upon them? “

It will only stop when Jesus returns and sets up His Eternal Kingdom. Where righteousness is the rule.

"There is no New Left. It is all Left. Josf, if this is what you advocate, please be as honest with me as John Pilger is with his likeminded crowd."

I used the word “likeminded” because the crowd applauded him. I see John Pilger as instigating class warfare. Division between the haves, haves a little, and have nots as if the haves a little and have nots should be opposed to those who are the haves who have a lot. Maybe they earned having a lot. Is that wrong? How much is too much? It is all relative. We have carpet and vinyl flooring. People in 3rd world countries have dirt. Why don’t we tear out our carpet and have cement and give them cement too? Because we have earned our carpet?

“You can punish me in this public hanging, go ahead and pull the lever to the trap door, and let me drop to my death, that is fine with me.
Push the button, pull the trigger, whatever works for you. ”

I have no ill will or ill feeling toward you. I am only trying to understand what you believe to be right about John Pilger because my training is sending me RED ALERTS. How am I supposed to figure out what is correct if I do not ask you? Show me Red that is not crime. Show me Pink that is not crime. Where is John Pilger’s perfect society? Who does he applaud? He applauds 1968. I don’t even know what 1968 is. He seems to think there is a spark here in America. What is that spark exactly. What is he talking about? Is he talking about the Abraham Lincoln Brigade who went to help the Spanish Republic REDS who ended up losing to the Fascists? What Spark?

“If there is a desire to communicate accurately, then it can happen. If there is no desire to communicate accurately, then that can happen too.
If there is a desire to communicate falsely, that can happen, as well as can happen a goal reached to not communicate falsely.”
-------------------
I think you should know by now that I desire to communicate openly and honestly without deceit.

“The ignorance concerns the concept of ownership, and I can go in great detail concerning how ignorant it is to suggest that a "country" can own something.”

A country owning something is what socialism promotes as far as I can understand as opposed to private ownership.

“You tell me, after you get over your current hit piece on me, as you again assassinate my character with this close association you are moving me towards criminals that you call "socialists" or whatever false front works to hide their crimes better.”

What criminals am I associating you with? I asked you if you were a part of socialistworker.org. Are they criminals?
“My guess, at this point, is that you can't, you refuse, you won't, it is not possible for you, to even consider anything said by anyone who you are told is your enemy, as you are told those lies by your enemies.”

I am questioning.

“I actually listen to what the man has to say. I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say. I keep asking one question: Does Hugo Chavez enforce a Legal Money Monopoly or not?”

Liars are liars. They say whatever sounds good to get you on board, and then do what their agenda is. I saw a piece yesterday where Pilger was down on Chavez for “liberating” the people and then not doing what he promised and Chavez was getting some reward from some inhuman middle east president. I can’t remember now, nor can I find it. Maybe I am not even remembering right. It was only yesterday.
------------------
It is never my goal to publicly hang or disgrace you or ever to assassinate your character, and I wasn’t trying to do that by asking questions. I am trying to understand what I do not understand.

I am trying to understand:
“He is Australian, a Journalist, not an insider (so named) and definitely not a Right leaning Republican Conservative type who would side with any capitalist stuff that might be leaning toward the Free Market Liberty types.”

How that is good? Is Free Market Liberty types bad? I do not know the answer.

And by the way. You say the word equality is bad and it is a right wing word:

“When those on the right focus attention on the Counterfeit "Equity" they can't even use the right word, they focus on their own version of the word, which is "Equality", and it is completely false, misunderstood on purpose, and deceptively attached to the targets that the right”

Pilger says it here: http://dprogram.net/2013/01/08/john-pilger-the-new-rulers-of... at about 1 minute. I this film trade unions are spoken of as necessary, but it seems like unions in the US are powerful criminal organizations. So you see, how am I supposed to know. I have not watched all of the video yet, but I am going to. I am not censoring. I am trying to understand. I can understand that bad things can be highlighted so worse things can be done instead of holding the individuals responsible for those bad things, criminals can use the worse things to take the control from those who do the bad things so they can now be in control and do worse things. There are prizes at stake.

...

Easy job done, returning

"So can you please explain to me how ships and railroads are subsidized by people who are making me see Red. I do not understand. I mean the facts of the matter. Who, what , where, when."

Here is where the shoe is not fitting well, in my opinion.

If you demonize John Pilger by closely associating him with PINK, then you fail to live up to your own demands. A person like John Pilger goes out and finds out who is doing what, where they are doing those things, and when those things are being done.

If PINK, or John Pilger, has done something, then what did John Pilger do, exactly, go have you convict him of wrong doing?

If that is fair for you to ask, then it seems to be fair for you to answer accurately yourself.

So you looked into John Pilger, and what did you find him guilty of doing?

You found him guilty of reporting on what people are doing, where they are doing it, and when they are doing it, when those people refuse to trade with the enemy. If you question the right or wrong of refusing to trade with the enemy then that is one thing. If you question the fact that the Zionist regime (people running the criminal government), then that is another thing.

If you question the wrong of refusing to trade with the enemy, on the grounds that it is wrong to refuse to help someone in need, then it may be a good idea to understand why someone does not consider the trade to be helping anyone.

Trading with the enemy is s simple concept. I know, because I can see, and I can accurately document, how my earnings are being used by my enemies to destroy innocent people, and therefore I, having discovered these facts, refuse to aid and abet those enemies. I refuse to allow my power to be used for evil purposes.

How is that not a good thing to do, from a competitive perspective?

If you are not claiming that trading with the enemy is the wrong done by those who refuse to trade with the enemy and if instead you are claiming that there is an error in judgment concerning who exactly is the enemy then go to Palestine, get on the streets, and find out, as John Pilger has done, what is happening, when it is happening, and who is making it happen, and who it is happening to, in fact.

Or not.

I can't afford a trip to Palestine, since all my earnings are stolen from me even before I earn it. When I get earnings I give it away right away.

I'm just a fool, but I know the concept of refusing to trade with the enemy, and I like it, and when I can figure out how to effectively avoid trading with the enemy, I'll take the next step required to reach that goal.

If I am wrong about the Zionists being Legal Criminals, then I'd rather err on the side of less power flowing to them rather than more power flowing to them - if humanly possible.

I think the fabricated opposition to Zionism, this Hamas, or that whatever, has power flowing to them from the same source (Legal Crime), so the same concept of not trading with the enemy works for those Legal Criminals in the same way: less power flowing to them the better.

Trade with the enemy, it seems to me, and you get what you pay for - in spades.

"There will never be equity because there will always be people who take advantage of others."

There is equity all around and it is uncontroversial in every case where there is equity, people trade equitably often enough, just ask someone, anywhere, anytime, if the trade was satisfactory, voluntary, and was not a case of a crime in progress according to their full measure of the trade. Here it is, in my opinion, instructive, since any trade made with Federal Reserve Notes is a crime in progress even if the traders are unaware of their full measure of injury.

How many times have you traded words with someone on this forum and you and whoever you are trading words with agree that neither one involved has injured the other in any way?

Your words:

"There will never be equity because there will always be people who take advantage of others."

Do you mean to say that there will never be absolute equity or do you man there is no such thing as equity? There is equity, it happens here, and it happens there, so how can your words be true unless your words are not understood by me as I read your words?

"There will never be equity..."

Equity happens, it does happen, so how can your words be true?

What do you mean to say, can you say what you mean with words I can understand, since the words you choose are not true if I use the meaning of the word equity to mean a voluntary trade among human beings. I don't think that the word equity means absolute removal of any crime anywhere on the planet earth.

I'm skipping around in my reply, so I may be the one confused too.

"I think the word conditioned is better than the word trained."

I do too, and if I didn't agree with the improved word choice in the past, I do now. Conditioned response is a term used in the scientific study of human behavior, and it is a term used in advertizement, and it is a term used in politics, if I am not mistaken.

Response conditioning

Behavioral modification

Brainwashing

Training

I think training does not fit. Had I thought otherwise in the past: merely confirms my improvement since then: gaining ground it seems to me.

"The porch sitter?"

Ben Bernanke?

If the idea is to point out the bad guys, why work at the bottom going up?

"But 2/3 of Americans say she should be guaranteed health care according to John Pilger."

Can you elaborate on exactly what John Pilger actually said or is it good enough for government work to equate John Pilger with the people you don't like sitting on porches? It seems to me that your words are written to connect the porch sitters that you don't like with John Pilger taking your earnings from you and then John Pilger goes over to the porch sitter and hands that money to the porch sitter.

Is it possible that John Pilger is as aware of the wrong of conditioning people with lies as you are and that John Pilger works against such things in ways that only John Pilger can do while he walks the earth, and you can't, because you have your unique power to use or abuse as you see fit?

Gone from our discussion on the topic is the concept of competitive viewpoints on criminals disarming the victims between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones where someone supposedly thinks that there is a neutral person capable of moderating such a debate?

Now we return to the same old false connection between actual people and a nebulous thing that you now call PINK?

What, exactly did John Pilger do, whereby that action by John Pilger disqualifies John Pilger from the list of people who could offer a competitive version of a moderator in a debate between Piers Morgan and Alex Jones on the subject of criminals who disarm their victims?

You made this claim:

"IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left."

Let me try to rap my head around this claim. John Pilger spends his life going to this place and that place, interviewing victims of criminals in government, because John Pilger wants to be one of the criminals in government, and until he can reach his goal he has to be satisfied with merely reporting on the torture and mass murder by criminals in government, he doesn't get to be one of those who do the torture and the mass murder himself?

Instead of John Pilger interviewing the criminals in government, according to your claim, if I get your claim understood as you mean it, then John Pilger is working to reach the goal of being a torturing mass murderer instead of just interviewing them, and their victims.

"IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left."

OK, how about this try at it:

John Pilger doesn't like the color of the hats on the criminals in government that he interviews, so he wants the hats changed, and that is why he goes around interviewing criminals in governments and their victims, at the scenes of the crimes in progress, risking his own life, because the color of the hat is undesirable to John Pilger.

"IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left."

So it isn't the hats, I get that, I went off on a rant. It is the personalities of the specific criminals doing the torturing and the murdering that John Pilger doesn't like, not the color of the hats, so John Pilger is interviewing the personalities he doesn't like, holding them to account for all the torture and mass murder he witnesses first hand, and instead of those personalities, John Pilger wants different personalities to be doing the torturing and murdering and then John Pilger will be happy, and he can retire having reach his goal of holding the wrong torturing mass murderers to account and then when the right torturing mass murderers torture and mass murder it will be OK as far a John Pilger is concerned.

"I think I have explained that already. Socialized…when pools of money are centrally collected, controlled, and dispensed according to rules of theory as opposed to individuals dispensing their own money according to their personal choice."

I think I explained that already too: the word for that is Crime.

The cover up is to call crime by any other word that covers up the fact that it is crime.

"I mean to capitalize the words to accurately state what is the system that we are currently living under and the system that John Pilger uses statistics to promote."

Which system does John Pilger promote? If you say that John Pilger promotes PINK (when you mean crime) then why do you cover up the facts that you mean crime? Why call crime by any other name.

If you convict John Pilger, publicly, of crime, then say so, please.

If your public hit piece on John Pilger is anything more than a specious claim of nebulous guilt, then consider, please, explaining what John Pilger promotes according to you, and even better, use quotes to convict John Pilger of promoting something that you think is PINK, or Socialism, or criminal.

If it is not criminal, and if it is merely PINK, then you have a problem with PINK, which is a color.

If it is not criminal, and it is merely socialism, then you have a problem with socialism, which is either something real or it is not something real, and if it is nothing, and if it isn't crime, then you have a problem with nothing, and you have a problem with nothing that isn't even a crime.

If John Pilger is promoting something real, and not a crime, then what is it that John Pilger is promoting that isn't a crime, and that is something that you don't like?

If John Pilger is promoting something real, and it is crime, then which crime, where is the crime, when is this crime, and if you are claiming that the crime is, again, John Pilger showing up at your door, taking your earnings, and walking on over to the porch sitter, handing your earnings to the porch sitter down the street, then I think you are the one who is confused.

The use of Federal Reserve Notes, which is a Nation Wide Counterfeiting Fraud (crime) in progress, and combining that with the Nation wide crime spree of Extortion known as The Internal Revenue Service is the thing causing you grief as your earnings are flowing from you, through that thing, which is CRIME, to those Legal Criminals, and then those Legal Criminals hire the porch sitter to sit on the porch and make you mad at the porch sitter, and you are conditions by those Legal Criminals to blame all that on John Pilger whose accurate reporting exposes their crimes well enough if you care to listen to the information reported by John Pilger.

I suppose that you could be right, and I am wrong, and I suppose that your earnings flow from you to the Legal Criminals, with their Fraud and Extortion Crimes in progress, Nation Wide, even World Wide, and then those Legal Criminals hire John Pilger to inform you of their crimes, to scare you into paying the extortion fee, and to scare you into using the fraudulent money.

How is that for a competitive bridge building effort on my part?

I can agree with that assessment if I completely ignore the facts that John Pilger has to actually get his hands dirty, wallowing in the torture and murder, risking his own hide, to generously offer the information offered competitively in the Free Market of information. I mean, seriously, if he is paid so well to lie so good, then why isn't he sharing a stool with Piers Morgan instead of soiling himself among the commoners?

"This Country…the land called the United States of America from sea to shining sea including Hawaii….the 50 states that are represented by stars on a flag."

Your definition of this country is an accurate measure of specific real estate?

"I used the word “likeminded” because the crowd applauded him. I see John Pilger as instigating class warfare. Division between the haves, haves a little, and have nots as if the haves a little and have nots should be opposed to those who are the haves who have a lot. Maybe they earned having a lot. Is that wrong?"

So, John Pilger is making a buck off torture and mass murder, and he too may be just passing time until Jesus shows up?

"Why don’t we tear out our carpet and have cement and give them cement too? Because we have earned our carpet?"

Who are you directing those words at, certainly not me, as I have my own answer to your question, and my answer is competitive, not unreasonable. If you stop using Federal Reserve Notes, and you stop paying the Extortion fee in Federal Reserve Notes, then less of your power will be sent to "3rd world countries" (real estate?) and used to torture and mass murder the people there, steal their goodies, and then those former victims may have time and energy to make your carpet look shabby as they make even better carpet since they are no longer dodging the bullets you pay for, dogging drones at the funerals where they are spending their time planting the people who don't dodge so well.

"I have no ill will or ill feeling toward you. I am only trying to understand what you believe to be right about John Pilger because my training is sending me RED ALERTS."

Training or conditioning?

"How am I supposed to figure out what is correct if I do not ask you? Show me Red that is not crime."

I'm not a magician. The misguided people on the left are fooled into thinking that involuntary associations can solve their problems as they are conditioned to think that the good people on the right are all bad, all guilty of the crimes committed by the bad people on the right, and at the same time, the misguided people on the right are fooled into thinking that involuntary associations can solve their problems as they are conditioned to think that the good people on the left are all bad, all guilty of the crimes committed by the bad people on the left, and the bad people laugh their guts out (figuratively) as they gut (literally) their victims for fun and profit.

If that is not understood, reasonably, I can try different words in English. It isn't news, and I'm not the first one to point this out to someone.

You are not the first one to misunderstand the facts as they exist.

"Where is John Pilger’s perfect society?"

Who said that John Pilger has a perfect society to see? As far as I know you are inventing that vision and you are now claiming that your vision belongs to John Pilger, and unless you can actually quote the man, then I can't answer your question.

"Where is John Pilger’s perfect society?"

No such thing exists, as far as I know. I've seen examples of John Pilger's viewpoint, and it is far from perfect.

"I don’t even know what 1968 is. He seems to think there is a spark here in America. What is that spark exactly. What is he talking about? Is he talking about the Abraham Lincoln Brigade who went to help the Spanish Republic REDS who ended up losing to the Fascists? What Spark?"

You bait and switch?

I can guess too. My guess is that John Pilger is referring to a general awakening of previously closed minds, where abject belief in falsehood was the norm, and now people are actually questioning the lies that say such things as "war is good for the economy".

I could be wrong, you could be right, what does John Pilger actually say, in his own words, not your words attributed to him, and not my words attributed to him.

"I think you should know by now that I desire to communicate openly and honestly without deceit."

Did John Pilger ever claim that he has a perfect society in view?

You wrote this:

Where is John Pilger’s perfect society?

That looks like deception to me.

I've been wrong, sure. I do not claim to be perfect. If you can point out to me where I have (reasonably) resorted to deceit, please don't hesitate doing so.

"What criminals am I associating you with? I asked you if you were a part of socialistworker.org. Are they criminals?"

I am inspired by your words to defend John Pilger. What do you think that does to my credit rating on this forum?

I welcome the opportunity, because the truth is very valuable, but what do you think my defense of John Pilger does to my credibility on this forum?

"I saw a piece yesterday where Pilger was down on Chavez for “liberating” the people and then not doing what he promised and Chavez was getting some reward from some inhuman middle east president."

Distrust of vast stores of power employed by few people is necessary for survival of the species - in my opinion - so why allow all that power to be so readily available to those few people in any case where the power flows by way of deceit, threats of violence, and violence (crime)?

"It is never my goal to publicly hang or disgrace you or ever to assassinate your character, and I wasn’t trying to do that by asking questions. I am trying to understand what I do not understand."

I welcome the opportunity to defend the power that is productive such as the information offered by anyone, including John Pilger, no matter how wrong the person is in choosing sides as far as my own choices are made in the same context.

If John Pilger, or anyone, chooses to lend moral and material support to criminals, with or without badges, that is wrong, accurately wrong, according to well established measures of wrong, but the information offered by John Pilger is measurably accurate, and therefore true in that sense: accurate information.

The truth will set us free: which truth?

Stop lending moral and material support to criminals, and especially the criminals with counterfeit badges, and will there be a measure of greater freedom or not?

How about testing the "theory"?

1. Voluntary association (better)
2. Involuntary association (not so good - at least for the victims it isn't so good)

Somehow, by some mysterious, incalculable force, the volunteers in the involuntary association pay their taxes with arms, legs, heads, children, blood, screams, agony, terror, horror, and the bodies of volunteers in the involuntary associations pile up.

It's a mystery.

"How that is good? Is Free Market Liberty types bad? I do not know the answer."

Which one's: the real ones (voluntary associations) or the counterfeit ones (involuntary associations)?

Confusing the two is not an accident, and I think you prefer the word conditioning over training. I prefer the word conditioning, but I have changed my mind in the past, and I can do so again.

"And by the way. You say the word equality is bad and it is a right wing word:"

By the way, what I meant was that the counterfeit right and the counterfeit left use bait and switch, taking out equity and placing in equality, no matter how much someone on the right or left, who is not counterfeit, objects to the word change. Equality, the meaning of the word, strictly, means 1 equals 1. Equality in context of left leaning, genuine left leaning, means all the people are equal in the eyes of the law, as in the statue of the lady with the scale.

Counterfeit right refuses to allow their targets to protest the meaning of words as the targets intend the words to mean.

If that does not make sense, by the way, I can try to use competitive symbols in English designed to transfer the meaning intended without error, since so far my arrangement of symbols do not measure up, if that does not make sense.

"I this film trade unions are spoken of as necessary, but it seems like unions in the US are powerful criminal organizations."

I'm glad you pointed that out because I left out two organizations that I was involuntarily joined into, under duress, which was the Teamsters Union and The Dollar Hegemony. One leans left and the other leans right, and since my fight to un-join is relatively powerless, my defense is to fall back on trial and error. I tried to make a living, earning my way, without being joined into the Union, but failed, then the employers busted the Union, which was fine with me, then I lost my heath and the employers didn't want me on the Job at all, so they worked diligently to get rid of me. Now I avoid making income, trials and errors, so as to un-join The Dollar Hegemony, but so far that has been a struggle too. Many failures, some successes.

I really like the concept of Redeeming in Lawful Money - if only I could turn back time. It is a hard sell to the significant others within my miniscule sphere of influence.

"So you see, how am I supposed to know. I have not watched all of the video yet, but I am going to. I am not censoring. I am trying to understand."

Your input is welcome for many reasons, including any excursions into shooting the messenger. Actions speak louder than words - typically?

"There are prizes at stake."

Follow the money.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to follow immoral orders)

Joe

I have a question

and am putting it here:

"In all the years I’ve been a journalist, I’ve never know public consciousness to have risen as fast as it’s rising today. Yes, its direction and shape is unclear, partly because people are now deeply suspicious of political alternatives, and because the Democratic Party has succeeded in seducing and dividing the electoral left. And yet this growing critical public awareness is all the more remarkable when you consider the sheer scale of indoctrination, the mythology of a superior way of life, and the current manufactured state of fear." from http://www.democracynow.org/2007/8/7/freedom_next_time_filmm...

specifically these words: ..."and because the Democratic Party has succeeded in seducing and dividing the electoral left."

I do not know what he is talking about specifically. Do you understand?

I already replied earlier titled "Motives" but am doing some reading and found this and want to understand those words. I think this article that I am reading is helping me. But I am still asking myself, how do I know this to be the truth. How do I know that this is not the same lies but a different tune. So, please, bear with me. My mind is not closed. But I have no way of knowing the truth. Who says Pilger is telling the truth? Maybe he works for the Soviets and is exploiting Western weaknesses. We, the West, have many enemies, or so it seems, and it seems we have probably made many enemies in the last 50 years.

I realize I am sidetracked from bookwork. I hope you can bear with me in that respect as well.

...

Understanding math?

"I do not know what he is talking about specifically. Do you understand?"

You cannot see all these things like a math problem, or like an electric circuit diagram, so I understand your point of view from my point of view. If I can help you then some day you will see these things as an electric circuit diagram and math providing the accurate, specific, answers.

You pick this quote:

"In all the years I’ve been a journalist, I’ve never know public consciousness to have risen as fast as it’s rising today. Yes, its direction and shape is unclear, partly because people are now deeply suspicious of political alternatives, and because the Democratic Party has succeeded in seducing and dividing the electoral left. And yet this growing critical public awareness is all the more remarkable when you consider the sheer scale of indoctrination, the mythology of a superior way of life, and the current manufactured state of fear."

That is the same thing as the words spoken between Alex Jones and Gerald Celente here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMgbWKTeyfY

Time 41:55 "Great awakening...a lot of Thomas Paine's work is written in the context of the Great Awakening."

"I believe...we are going to have another Great Awakening." Gerald Celente

"I’ve never know public consciousness to have risen as fast as it’s rising today." John Pilger

Way back in my experience, in the 80s, when I first started speaking out about Legal Crime, even before Waco, before I joined an armed march on Washington with Linda Thomson to try criminal congresspeople, before I ran for Congress as a Libertarian, before I found the one other conspiracy theorist speaking out who is named Ron Paul, a surprise to me at the time, since Ron Paul was not only a congressman at the time, he was in office at the time, before 911, before ever hearing a word from Alex Jones, I witnessed exactly what is being discussed here as a growing awareness of accurate perception concerning the future of mankind heading into light, not rushing like a man with his hair on fire into a burning inferno, or off a cliff. This growing awareness of accurate perception is what I call the path of least resistance whereby the internet can be seen in context of an electric circuit, and previous to the internet there was television, and television was controlled by these Legal Criminals, and information was bottled up in those television shows. No information holding Legal Crime to account for Legal Crime was allowed into the circuit. Everyone was force fed the same lies: constantly. There was very much resistance, almost insurmountable resistance, insulation, and definite, defined, narrow, paths, corridors, wires, wavelengths, tightly controlled, monitored, shaped, selected, judged, handled, meticulously engineered, and scientifically perfected to ensure that no good deed ever reaches the targets, only falsehood, only lies, only response conditioning, only behavioral modification, only the single, myopic, brainwashed, viewpoint. You can see that viewpoint now.

Neutrality

A new word, clearly in view, now, and clearly false.

Why is it clearly false?

There is now competition. The television is still in the circuit, with all the narrow paths that information travels in that circuit, but now the internet is placed in parallel like a block of gold covering every person and thereby connecting every person to every other person. The path of least resistance now goes around, bypassing the narrow bands and circuits of "established order", and anyone can reach anyone else, and single person can reach every other person, and all that one person has to do is do a better job in direct competition with every other person including all the Legal Criminals.

How hard can it be to outdo Legal Criminals?

What is the goal?

What do the people want?

Do they want more lies to cover up their own desires to make parking lots out of the countries where brown people live, so as to then be able to reduce their cost at the gas station each time they fill up their gasoline powered cars and trucks?

Even if that is the goal, those who want better lies can now find the best liar, for the least cost, the best bang for the buck, by shopping at Price Watch, or whatever best competitor finds its way to the top of the Search Engine.

People equate me to Socialism, and therefore I must be anti-capitalist, right?

Wrong.

If it is true, then it can be accurately measured as true.

Right?

What is left out of the equation?

A demand for an effective way to avoid abandoning all the victims?

A demand for an effective way to avoid punishing innocent people for fun and profit?

A demand for a way to reach toward those goals without having to disconnect everyone from everyone else, where every man, women, and child, is for himself, every man for himself, and no one will ever be allowed to help another - ever?

What do you think socialism is if you look past the fake versions?

But you can't, because the resistance is still in your mind, not on the television. The resistance to understanding has been imported, injected, planted, into your brain. You are told to obey the order to hate PINK without question. The color, the label, the THING is to blame, so focus your own attention on what - exactly?

I can't help you past a certain point.

"This may very well be the most powerful and dangerous ideology we have ever known because it is open-ended. This is liberalism. I’m not denying the virtues of liberalism — far from it. We are all beneficiaries of them. But if we deny its dangers, its open-ended project, and the all-consuming power of its propaganda, then we deny our right to true democracy, because liberalism and true democracy are not the same. Liberalism began as a preserve of the elite in the 19th century, and true democracy is never handed down by elites. It is always fought for and struggled for." John Pilger

That is what I call a closed loop. The victims are indoctrinated into a false belief that no other viewpoint is valid - ever - and that can be seen as Monopoly.

Monopoly no longer exists as soon as there is competition.

Competition is the force that forces a move from lower quality to higher quality and the same force forces a move from higher cost to lower cost.

Keep the television monopoly going, in your mind, for as long as it lasts, but a few generations from now, or sooner, competition may prevail, as in a second great awakening, as in public consciousness rising rapidly, as in a growing awareness of a more accurate perspective finding its way from one person to the next, where then there are two, and then those two find two, an then four, and then sixteen, and then two hundred and fifty six, on and on.

How many places have I tried to join the group, to speak the truth, to warn other people, to offer solutions, and have my behind removed by someone, by way of deceit, by way of willfully inventing lies. You see that here too. How many people are infected with the monopoly viewpoint? What is the trend?

1. Rapidly contain all competitive viewpoints into one dictatorial viewpoint that resorts to any means by which all other viewpoints are rendered powerless.

2. Rapidly expanding allowance for any viewpoint to gain currency according to the many individual choices seeking better and leaving worse behind.

I have to finish the John Pilger link, and then get back to your response. It is growing late in the morning.

I stopped listening to impart the concept of "open ended" as reported by John Pilger (who himself may be suffering a closed loop) and this concept has to be understood in the context of POWER and specifically in the context of Legal Crime. The targeted victims are inside the closed loop of self-deception. The Legal Criminals are not. The Legal Criminals do whatever they want when they want and by the time the Legal Criminals let their victims know that they are going to do something, that something has already been done a decade earlier.

Back to John Pilger: I had to get that out (in my viewpoint).

__________________________________________________
specifically these words: ..."and because the Democratic Party has succeeded in seducing and dividing the electoral left."

I do not know what he is talking about specifically. Do you understand?
___________________________________________________

John Pilger acknowledges the counterfeit left as being separate and distinctly counterfeit, in my opinion. I would like to discuss my opinion with John Pilger, to iron out a few concerns about his view on voluntary and involuntary associations. Obviously the counterfeit left is involuntary, as the counterfeit people on the left define the meaning of involuntary associations: resort to deceit, resort to threats of violence, and resort to violence upon the innocent.

"How do I know that this is not the same lies but a different tune."

Consider separating the information offered by the person from the person offering the information.

"So, please, bear with me. My mind is not closed. But I have no way of knowing the truth. Who says Pilger is telling the truth?"

Try, if you will, to stop asking if John Pilger is telling the truth, and instead ask, if you will, if the information is true.

That may help.

"Maybe he works for the Soviets and is exploiting Western weaknesses. We, the West, have many enemies, or so it seems, and it seems we have probably made many enemies in the last 50 years."

Which soviets? Do you mean the soviets paid to be soviets by the people running The Dollar Hegemony as that Gang is currently changing the color of their stationary and the money you will be forced to pay for, as debt, currently being spent to prosecute World War III?

You are on a side that is against another side?

True or false?

If true, then which side are you on?

Why are you on that side?

If false, then why do you choose the words you choose as if you are on a side?

If you are on a side and you can't even describe the side you are on in a way that is measurably accurate, then that is a clue. Dig deeper.

If you are on a side and you can't even describe why you are on a side in a measurably accurate way, then that is a clue. Dig deeper.

"We, the West, have many enemies, or so it seems, and it seems we have probably made many enemies in the last 50 years."

You parrot the word "west" as if to acknowledge something real. Do you even understand the meaning of that one word?

West is a direction, there is no such place as west.

"I realize I am sidetracked from bookwork. I hope you can bear with me in that respect as well."

Dragons are lurking in your mind, and mine, I think, and it helps to compare notes with someone willing to slay dragons.

Joe

Thank you Josf

I just wanted to stop in and say thank you for the time you have given on my behalf. I waited expectantly for this reply because I am trying to understand things. I appreciate the way you continually answer my questions. I am having a hard time keeping fact and fiction; truth and lies segregated. Sometimes I just want to quit and go back to not knowing anything. It was much easier and less frightening.

I am going to reply to this topic later. I am going to work on the verses you requested. I realized how crazy it would have made me if it took you as long to answer my requests as I have taken...even though you said take your time. I try hard not to start too many conversations with you and here I have done it again.

For me war has been sterile, and if not, we (word used knowing what it means) were the good guys helping the good guys. Surely there are good guys, aren't there? Or since the criminals funded the east and the west, what is the point? World domination? I am sickened at the heartless cruelty.

Why were there communist in our state department after WWII? Why did we go to war with Vietnam and Korea against communism when they were our allies in WWII? Why were we allies with them? Why did wallstreet fund the Nazi and the Bolsheviks? Why do they want to take our guns away? I am not asking you these questions for you to answer. I am just talking outloud because as much as I think I have awakened, I realize how much I am still asleep. Which also leads me to ask, if there is no neutrality, why then are 2 opposing sides funded by the same operation? In a strange way I can see the criminals as the ones who are neutral, since they are in the middle of it all and the 2 sides are made to fight like cocks or pitbulls who really have no say, just instinct. But then you say the criminals fight amongst each other for dominance. Do they use nations against nations to get to the top of the heap?

I suppose you could answer the last question...if you find it equitable...I went on much more than I intended by my mere Thank you, which AS ALWAYS (remember those words in the vast abyss) I ALWAYS appreciate your equity in trade, but I think I get the better end of the deal. :)

...

...

Deals

I figured out another way to see the concept of time preferences as that concept was explained by the well known Austrian Economists, including Hans Hermann Hoppe.

My angle of view on time preferences can be seen in your last statement:

"I suppose you could answer the last question...if you find it equitable...I went on much more than I intended by my mere Thank you, which AS ALWAYS (remember those words in the vast abyss) I ALWAYS appreciate your equity in trade, but I think I get the better end of the deal. :)"

I think that time will tell. The concept of time preferences from a POWER perspective is such that expense of power in the work of creating more power out of less power may be a rapid rate of consuming power while the rate at which power is gained back and then power reaches the point at which the rapid expense was before it was rapidly consumed, and then the power supply increases after that point is reached at a slow rate.

That is time preferences from a POWER perspective.

Time A = you and I are as powerful as we are at that time.

I spend all morning writing, consuming my power, so the rate of consuming my power is about 3 hours.

10 years from now I recall one of the lessons you transfer to me from scripture and instead of jumping off a cliff I turn, or I turn the other cheek, or some other instant decision that is either/or life or death. I cash in the power stored in that fraction of a second.

So my 3 hours is spent now.

10 years from now I get my life in a fraction of a second.

That is time preferences at work from a POWER perspective. I think my money (time and energy) was well spent this morning, and for all I really know I may be paying back something you offered months ago, just so that I can even things up for something that may happen in 10 years.

How much is anyone willing to spend to save a life especially if it your own or someone you love?

I don't know.

As to all the other questions concerning why Legal Criminals do what they do, simply, and in my opinion uncontroversially, they consume the power they steal so as to make sure that the targeted victims are not allowed to produce an abundance of power, because in a human condition where power is abundant no one will be stupid enough to "provide the means by which we suffer" since abundant power means, in real terms, the power of understanding how power works.

Legal Criminals are as much more powerful than their victims as each victim is "providing the means by which we suffer" and right now that rate of power transfer is denominated in Federal Reserve Notes.

Think some on Henry Fords words:

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

As soon as the POWER stops flowing from those many honest people who produce that productive power is as soon as the Legal Criminals begin consuming each other, since they are now like a bunch of parasites, or wild dogs, or an island of serial killers, pedophiles, sociopaths, rats, psychopaths, left on their own island. Not one of them can reproduce without someone to steal from, and each one is stealing from each other, and before one generation is done there are none of them left, or one of them goes out and gets an honest job.

Ben Bernanke is now working at McDonald's, or Wall-mart.

Why?

Because that "class", and those "elite" only know how to perpetrate crime, once there aren't anymore victims to feed them, they starve.

From a POWER perspective this is as uncontroversial as Henry Ford's claim suggests. Legal Criminals know this, and that is why so much of the stolen loot is spent on what Noam Chomsky calls Manufactured Consent (he may have borrowed the term).

Wars have to be conducted and the name itself is a false front. War is three letters that can mean anything one minute and the opposite the next minute. What actually happens is called Investments in Destruction. The Legal Criminals are very busy now, all over the Globe, buying War materials, for World War III. That is why all those "countries" (Legal Criminals) are "Inflating" each "countries" money supply. They are not boosting their export business as Gerald Celente says, and so many other "political economists", they are building up for World War III, they are buying things that are, in fact, investments in destruction. They are consuming all the power that all the honest people have produced, can produce, and will produce, so as to start out with everyone begging for food, shelter, clothing, and "security" and like magic the Legal Criminals crawl out from under their rocks to save the day with the same ROUTINE that they used to Invest in Destruction (a.k.a. WAR), which is their Money Monopoly Fraud.

They write themselves the checks they need to buy all the gear, buy all the employees, buy all the brainwashing, very costly stuff, and then when it is all over, everyone is tortured and suffering, without basic necessities, they show up with the same magic checkbook, and they buy people to rebuild the mess they made on purpose for their fun and profit.

It is not nice.

It is hard to stomach.

But it is uncontroversially true.

It is easy to see who aids and abets the ROUTINE, ask one, see if he or she resorts to lies, personal attacks, diversions, dictatorial ROUTINES.

Sure John Pilger may know more than me, he has been around, but maybe not, and I think an interview between us, like you and me talking, could expose which one of us is full of which hot air.

If the idea is to know better, that is why we talk, anyone with anyone, then that goal can be reached. If the idea is to dominate the viewpoint in any way, by any means, including deceit, including treats of violence, then that is, in fact, the MONOPOLY viewpoint, the ONE viewpoint, which has one word for it.

EVIL

Joe