4 votes

How we form opinions, and who we are.

I was just wondering if anyone else here has a set of questions they ask themselves to determine if they agree or disagree with idea. In other words do you rely primarily on instinct? Your religion? Your philosophical grounding? A developed and intricate moral compass? What is it that helps you make a decision or render an opinion more clearly? Not necessarily just your first impressions, but your actual written or oral opinion.

I guess I can't really ask that question of others without disclosing what I do for myself.

I use what I call the three evil F's.
Does it entail fear?
Does it entail force?
Does it entail falsity?

If the topic at hand does, I ask myself why I would agree with an idea that is either using one of the three, or being supported by any of the three. It usually helps me come to a more clear conclusion on my position.

So what's your process?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Vital question

Accurate answers.

I use a condensed version of Political Economy to filter the information that I perceive in time and space. I've read a list of books on Political Economy (that I can list) in my work that ended up condensing Political Economy into one sentence. When I use this sentence as a filter my evaluation of the information is therefore polarized into an easy to understand context.

I call this sentence Joe's Law (because no one else claims it):

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

Take any information at all, from any source, and test it, if you may, and I can offer a few examples.

Deceit.

Threats.

Aggressive Violence upon the Innocent.

In any case the outcome is less power, and therefore money is less powerful, because it takes power (not powerless money) to make more power (not powerless money).

A few examples of deceit may help.

1.
It takes money to make money.

2.
War is good for the economy.

3.
Might makes right.

Does any of those sayings end up with higher standards of living (overall) and lower costs of living (overall) for The People, as one group, or is it more likely that the above examples of information, processed through the filter of a reasoned out Political Economy filter, merely transfers power from those who make it to those who steal it through those devices of deception, threats, and violence upon the innocent?

It does not take money to make more money, unless the money in question is a monopoly of ONE, and only ONE, Legal Money, and then the deception is true for those people who have gained that power to create Legal Money out of nothing but their imaginations. The Legal Money Monopolists can double their money supply, at a whim, as they did in 2008, and as they have done again since 2008, which means that those few people in that Private/Public company can write themselves a check for as much money as they have already sold to everyone else, and they can sell this new check legally to everyone else.

It takes Fraud money to make frauds more powerful than their victims.

Not: It takes money to make money.

The Money Monopolists buy fellow frauds, who pay a small fee, in interest, to then charge a larger fee, in interest, and everyone (except the victims) use money to make money.

That is the opposite of Political Economy, and that is knowable as Legal Crime.

False power produced into oversupply increases the price of power (money value is reduced, or purchasing power of one unit of money is depreciated, or inflation occurs, or quantitative easing occurs, bla, bla, bla) because lack of power increases the cost of production, no one but the Frauds have power, and they buy wars.

2.
War is good for the economy.

Does the filter work?

Productive power produced into an abundance of productive power reduces the price of productive power (cost-less electricity, motor fuel, heating fuel, communication, transportation, etc.) while purchasing power increases (a competitively stable dollar buys more) because power reduces the cost of production.

How about 4?

Technology steals jobs?

Lies and threats go hand in hand but there must be violence to back up the threats, and the lies.

3.
Might makes right.

Might is false when might merely hides the fact that very evil people enforce very evil deeds behind the thin veil of false laws, so the deception if read as an accurate message would be:

Not Might makes right but Criminals perpetrate crime.

Right is then understood in the proper context.

Destructive power if produced into oversupply increases the price of power while the one fraud money is made worthless because the only power left is destructive power because the criminals own everything including their victims who keep paying the criminals to stop crime.

From that filter of Political Economy in one sentence the following information makes perfect sense:

1.
Positive Productive Law:
The Declaration of Independence:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transc...
_____________________________________
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
______________________________________

That is power used to secure the power to make more power out of less power without power being stolen and used to steal more power.

Then this happened:

The Constitution of the United States Section 8:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_trans...
________________________________
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
________________________________

Amendment 14 Section 4
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...
____________________________________
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
_____________________________________

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

That was the design feature of The Constitution as a way to produce and maintain National Debt, as confessed by Alexander Hamilton in his own words.

That is, in fact, crime made legal, and the subjects had better obey, and the subjects had better obey without question.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1410203638?tag=bullnotbull-20

Leave me out of it, use your own filters, ask the vital questions, compare notes, and let me know which filters are the most competitively productive ones.

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (look in the mirror)
4.
Start now, have the job done by July 4th this year, or sooner, not too late.

They, meaning the Criminals who took over government, are buying World War III and they are obviously banking on China winning.

Have a nice day.

Joe

Empathy, History, and

Empathy, History, and Contrarian thinking to whatever is in my Hearst Corp owned viewspaper.

Southern Agrarian

Interesting so do you make

Interesting so do you make considerations primarily on those basis? Is there anything that does fall outside of your process?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record