18 votes

The Devil Speech: For My Own Safety's Sake (Extremely Relevant Video)


http://youtu.be/PDBiLT3LASk

-Arrest him!

-For what?

-He's dangerous!

-For libel. He's a spy!

-Father, that man's bad!

-There's no law against that.

-There is! God's law!

-Then God can arrest him.

-While you talk, he's gone!

-And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law.

-So, now you give the Devil benefit of law!

-Yes, what would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

-Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

-And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

___

Comment viewing options

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

"For my OWN safety's sake" ...

... and THAT is what so many people do not understand.

ecorob's picture

Excellent...

thank you!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

bump for a Great speech!

bump for a Great speech!

-----
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

relevant

As a catholic I came to understand that government's come and go, man's laws change and reflect the world.. the world is like the devil.. there is God and the devil, some find refuge in the world, and other's in god, who understand the world for what it is.

One sin the devil never commits is being lazy.

Hey Granger...

I'm agnostic, as I feel it's impossible to know that which is unknowable...like where we came from. But I lean towards evolution, as all other things on this planet seem to evolve. I simply do not trust men. And it's inarguable that the Bible was written by men, edited and compiled by men. Men are full of flaws. I'm not saying there is not a God, as that is also unknowable, but I am saying men are corrupt, and I truely feel in my heart of hearts, that men have perverted and co-opted religion for the sake of controlling other men. Religion as most know it today has been entirely hijacked by men who say they're doing God's work. I wish the day comes when I can understand the true meaning of spirituality and the unseen divinity that does indeed seem to permeate our existance, but I can promise my awakening won't be because of another flaw-filled human!

To those that that say, "Well, sometimes you just have to have faith Rob," I liken myself to Thomas the Doubter trying to become Thomas the Believer in John 20:24-29, for he didn't have to have faith. He got to witness, feel, touch, and see the innards of the Lord...allegedly.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Yet, we all meet, "the unknowable"

Faith comes to a person by the grace of God. Ron Paul opened my mind to Church, and when my Mother passed away 01/10), I decided it was time to check out what my baptism was all about. Neither of my parents were Catholic, my Father was an objectivist.. I have always enjoyed religions and cultures, but the Catholic Church became home for me three years ago. I have found my peace, and I hope that for you (((((((RobHino))))))).. whatever that may be, may it be as real and wonderful for you, as mine is for me.

ecorob's picture

When you speak of...

the known, the unknown, and the unknowable you remind me of Carlos Castaneda.

Hae you read him?

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

I've never heard of him...

...but now I'll have to look him up!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

I read all the books back in the day

Years later I met a couple of Native Americans and they were talking about him. I don't remember what I asked them, but one of the guys looked at me and said to stay away from him because he practiced sorcery and nothing good ever comes from that.
The way he said it kinda spooked me.
Later I met another Native American and he was talking about the difference between shamanism and sorcery. He said sorcerers grabbed energy from people to use for their own and stored that energy low, and motioned around his lower torso. He said the shaman used heart energy for the betterment of the people. He said Jesus was a shaman.
Later I met a swami and he suggested I read the Bhagavad Gita, that it was like the Indian's Bible, except that it wasn't the 'inspired word of God' like the Bible was, but God's direct word as it was spoken by Krisna. Of course, you would have to believe that Krisna is God, but when looking at Hinduism, there are so many gods it's easy to see how they accept that. I did read the Gita and prefer it to the Old Testament. I actually have a strange aversion to the OT and it took me awhile to formulate the words to express my feelings: there's no need to rummage through the OT because Jesus arrived and Jesus is the New Law. Later I found out that St Paul drew the same conclusion. In the very early church, they made newcomers to Christianity become Jewish first and St Paul got in trouble for converting Gentiles without converting them to Judaism - circumcising men and introducing dietary laws (Mosaic Law). St Paul said there was no need to do that. Actually, his first convert was a woman, and, like St Patrick, found it easier to convert the women. It was kinda cool knowing that I had drawn the same conclusion as St Paul did but around 2,000 years later.
Have you ever read the Gnostics? There's some enlightening thought found there.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Don Juan

Actually there are laws against Libel.

Joe

I think that was in response to...

...his daughter's comment, "Father, that man's bad."

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

I think not.

It appears to me, to be, a contradiction.

Let God arrest who?

The Devil?

Joe

He could be directing the comment towards the man...

...as you suggest.

Let God arrest the man who walked out the door which the other man accused of violating God's Law.

I'm not sure if you're just looking for an argument, but this current discussion totally misses the point of the video!

Plus, perhaps libeling something wasn't a crime during the time the movie is set in! :P

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

No argument

I think that there is a fundamental message contained in the speech, which I thought was the Topic, and I think the message is false.

Liberty is not secured by thoughtless inaction, or thoughtful inaction, rather, it seems to me, there has to be action designed to avoid those people who define the meaning of crime.

In those actions, it also seems to me, those of us who identify the criminals aught not abandon their next targeted victims, as if leaving that duty up to some nebulous, and probably deceptive, characterization of God.

So the speech, to me, sends the wrong message, or as sure as I am capable of misunderstanding the intended message, I misunderstand it.

What is the message in other words?

I hear: abandon the innocent victims.

Did I misunderstand the message?

Joe

The messages taken directly from the video are....

1. "Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."
2. "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Stated in my own words, there are two points:

1. No matter how bad the crime, no matter how evil the criminal (Dorner, Boston Bombers), every person should be entitled to defend himself against his accusers...generally in a court of law, although I'm open to other arbitration and judicial methods.

2. If we side step the laws to which we all agreed to (this is not the current case, as most people don't or didn't agree to the laws that govern us) follow, then how are we to protect ourselves if we ever become the accused.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Do I get your message?

In my own words: An agreement to behave agreeably is a Man made Law that works for everyone in agreement.

Is that your message; in other words?

The concept of someone "getting away" with doing things that are demonstrably disagreeable, and leaving it up to God to sort it out, is the message I got, and it is the same old twist, or deception, spun on the concept of anarchism.

If there are two agreeable things to be done by those who volunteer to agree, up for consideration by anyone, then which are of the utmost importance on that short list?

I see these two:

1.
Do not punish innocent people.

2.
Do not abandon innocent people who are being punished.

I heard the first message in the Speech, and I heard the second message being shot down as the concept of detaining the person getting away, challenging the person getting away, to find if that person getting away was a person who had punished innocent people, is punishing innocent people, or will punish innocent people, and if the person getting away was in no way agreeing to help avoid any punishing of innocent people, ever, then that to me is cause for concern.

I suppose the context of the speech is vital for the message to be delivered without misunderstanding concerning which made-made-laws are either flattened or supported concerning a person who is suspected of failing to abide by agreements concerning the injuries of innocent people, a suspect that is presumed to be as innocent of the crimes in question, such as Libel, as presumed to be innocent as much as there is a presumption that there has been a crime committed whereby an injured person is claiming to be injured.

How does one face a trial if one refuses to agree to such nonsense?

If someone is not present, and has fled the country, during the trial, and beyond anyone's doubt in the whole country, or at least beyond anyone's doubt in a representative sampling of the whole country, the formerly presumed to be innocent person, found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is doing whatever criminals do best, in other places.

I think the point missing, which I find to be curiously missing, is what can be done when devilish human beings are doing what they do best, which includes crafty avoidance of anything remotely resembling a fact finding effort conducted by a representative sampling of the victims, whereby those victims are doing something effective to avoid further victimization of their own hides, and avoiding damage to innocent victims that may not be directly associated with their own group.

Anarchism, from my fact finding missions, go as far back as Zeno of Citium, and it is not the type of behavior that equates precisely with flattening the POWER that faces the evil wind of human criminals. Anarchism, or agreeable behavior, as far as I am concerned, offers the opposite message.

Support agreements that intend to avoid harming any innocent people.

Joe

I don't think I can respond as indepth as you...

Context my friend, we have none.

We're missing what arrestable offense to which the accused allegedly committed, although this video offers more context:

http://youtu.be/cVsotWHtaks

Your summary of my position, while I do agree with it for the most part, though I don't like the phrase "works for everyone."

You also seem to have made an assumption and/or fabrication:

"if that person getting away was a person who had punished innocent people, is punishing innocent people, or will punish innocent people"

You brought in the guilt of the accused party and associated it with the act of punishing innocent people.

We don't have that information, only that three people in the room want him arrested for being "dangerous," for "libel," for being a "spy," and for being a "bad man."

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

I do not think so.

"You also seem to have made an assumption and/or fabrication:"

Accusers accused. Their accusations may turn out to be factual, in any case where there is an accuser.

I am accusing the messenger of possibly conveying a false message, for example.

If the message reaches someone and someone is then inspired to conclude that all government is evil, then I can rest my case in that case.

If the person being accused in the message by the accusers in the message moves on without any power to resist such movement, as no one does anything about it, and if in fact the accusers are reporting factual accusations, then doing nothing is relatively the same thing as aiding and abetting the criminal, and if there is instead of nothing being done, in fact, if instead of nothing there is an effort to cover up the crime, and misdirect those who would do something about the crime, then that is relatively even more damaging to the innocent who may have been injured, who may be at the moment being injured, or may be injured in the future, because someone willfully covers up the crimes in progress.

To be more direct:

______________________________________________
You also seem to have made an assumption and/or fabrication:

"if that person getting away was a person who had punished innocent people, is punishing innocent people, or will punish innocent people"
_______________________________________________

I assumed nothing, the quote you quote from my writing included the word "if" which was a word chosen on purpose, so as to avoid assuming anything.

"You brought in the guilt of the accused party and associated it with the act of punishing innocent people."

I don't think so.

If there are accusers and their accusations are factual, then that is what it is, even if I have nothing to do with it.

If there are accusers and their accusation are false, then any delay of the falsely accused is a measurable injury of the falsely accused by those who falsely accuse the person being falsely accused.

What is at stake?

____________________________________
We don't have that information, only that three people in the room want him arrested for being "dangerous," for "libel," for being a "spy," and for being a "bad man."
____________________________________

Having no measure of any of those accusations other than those words, in that context, is what it is, and my point has to do with the facts.

1.
Factual accusations are made concerning an injury to an innocent person.

2.
False accusations are made and therefore there is a potential injury to an innocent person.

3.
Someone willfully aids and abets the criminal, in fact, by diverting any possible power that could have been employed to avoid further injury to innocent people.

My point was to point out that the message appears to me to be a familiar tune that basically says that all government is bad.

I found a term today that perhaps you can help me understand, and I have another request afterward.

Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RhWFo...

In that the speaker William Black uses a term that sounds like Agressums Dynamics at time:

_____________________________________________
The U.S. financial system is sick and we still have this fundamental dynamic, and the fundamental dynamic is the regulatory race to the bottom, and so this is the biggest banks put us in competition, particularity with the City of London, to who will have the weakest regulation, and then they move their operations to wherever they will have the weakest regulation, and the place that won the competition in laxity was the City of London. No obviously you can't win a competition that is a race to the bottom so "win" should be in quotation marks.
______________________________________________

_______________________________________________
If you get rid of the cops on the beat, then cheaters prosper, and we call it aggressums dynamic, in economics and criminology, and in regulation, in which bad ethics drives good ethics out of the market place.
_______________________________________________

The term I am asking for help on is Aggressums Dynamics, which I cannot find in a Google Search.

Any ideas?

The other thing is your signature advertizement, I have a book being published and I wonder if you can help in adding a similar signature to my signature here on this forum; but the book is not ready yet so that is on hold at the moment.

Joe

Spot on

Spot on...

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Excellent post

.

Bumping for relevance...

I didn't see this clip posted on the DP, and it's extremely relevant considering current events.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

^UP^

^UP^

An alternative to the MSM Machine http://freedombroadcastingnetwork.com/
Ron Paul friendly news: http://www.newsetal.com/