Comment: Rough Seas Ahead?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Negative Waves (see in situ)

Rough Seas Ahead?

DISCLAIMER: Questions are asked because I am trying to understand, not because I am trying to prove a point.

My rewrite: Perhaps Liberty minded people can out maneuver the anti-liberty minded or deceived individuals who currently have the dominate power in the organization known as the Grand Old Party, and after those Friends of Liberty have finished cleaning house there in that Grand Old Party, perhaps liberty minded individuals will also gain currency such that the organization known as the Democratic Party will have a power shift in the same manner because an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped since it only take an irate minority (of individuals) to facilitate change; however, such change will take, time, wisdom, patience, and diligence to achieve, but above all, we must have Godspeed, Divine Favor, or very little can hoped to be accomplished.

But it was so much easier and faster and shorter to just say “"Perhaps Liberty can hijack the GOP to fix that AB problem?" LOL
___________________________________
QUOTE: “End the FED by July 4th 2012; End the National Income Tax by July 4th 2012; Have all the Troops home by July 4th 2012 (every last one of them, and leave none behind); How many days are left on that schedule? Who claims that it is not possible? Why do "they" make such baseless claims, what is their interest in making sure that no such thing ever does happen?”

Do they make these baseless claims because “they” do not want to give up power? I do not know how to amass enough Liberty Minded people by next month to accomplish this goal. Perhaps Celente’s new forum would be a good start? You stated in a post earlier “Powerful Ideas: 3.Many ships with leaders at the helm, finding Liberty in their own special way” Could this be the reason that we do not all divorce ourselves on a single time schedule from the Legal Criminal System? There are Leaders because they have followers. Some people want to follow a leader while other people want to lead. It is another one of those natural laws like the conscience.
_____________________________
"It's a REPUBLIC, ma'am - IF you can keep it."— Benjamin Franklin (after signing the U.S. Constitution)

ME: "My understanding of political entropy: A Republic goes to A Democracy turns to Socialism then to Communism…"

YOU: That is an argument happening right in that sentence, it is a self-evident contradiction…”

I am sorry I was so lazy in the writing of my last post. I guess that is the kind of stuff you will get from me when I do not put forth a concerted effort to do better. I was writing off the cuff and I should have used better words and checked them accordingly, but was hurried so I didn’t.
What I understand as political entropy is that: a Republic government can degrade to a Democracy which can then degrade to a Socialist economy, which can degrade into Communism…" I believe I learned this during my Christian School Education somewhere between 10-12th Grade. It was just a paragraph I read. I believe one could perhaps look at the Political/Economic Entropy of the United States and find that we started as a Republic and somewhere along the way the word Democracy started to be used and somewhere along the New Deal Socialism came into play…and now here we are today much further down the road of socialism with many of the communist planks already in place.

It seems now though now that we have fascism to deal with and I do not remember learning anything about fascism entering into the degenerative cycle. And really, I don’t know what I am talking about so should probably shut up. But perhaps if I continue I will learn something. This site http://americanbuilt.us/economics/ says

-isms : The only 1% of difference between Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communism. is how many CORPORATIONS are either *OWNED* or *CONTROLLED* (directly or indirectly) by government. In a truly *FREE* MARKET the answer is e) none of the above. People are *FREE* to enjoy the occupation of their OWN choice in a FREE-ENTERPRISE economic system.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men FREE to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall NOT take from the mouth of labor and bread it has EARNED. This is the sum of good government." — Thomas Jefferson

To the best of my knowledge, when I used the terms you questioned I was using them as such:

REPUB'LIC: A state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

DEMOCRACY: Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens.

SOCIALISM: a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—the tragic failure of the twentieth century.

COMMUNISM: a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

http://americanbuilt.us/economics/#communism :
The Communist Manifesto
Manifesto |ˌmanəˈfestō| noun ( pl. -tos): a public declaration of policy and aims,
esp. one issued before an election by a political party or candidate.

1. Abolition of private property
2. Heavy progressive income tax
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels
5. Central Bank (Federal Reserve Act, World Bank)
6. Government control of Communications & Transportation
7. Government ownership of factories & agriculture
8. Government control of labor
9. Corporate farms, regional planning
10. Government control of education

Or what about this site that I found when verifying the above? http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/10planks.htm . I haven’t check the accuracy, but I appears that we were verbally threatened at the UN.

Would you use different definitions than those above? Do you know how P Henry, Marx & Solzhenitsyn defined some of those terms? I have several quotes below from those 3 and the interpretation would depend upon the meanings as they meant them.

QUOTE: “Do you actually mean a specific thing from a specific time such as the Communism enforced by the Bolsheviks? If that is what you actually mean then you may want to know that The Communist Manifesto specifically rejects socialism, so you really can't mean socialism if you mean communism because communists, the official officials themselves divorce themselves from socialism in their own recipe book.”

It is my understanding that according to Marxist theory, Socialism is a TRANSITIONAL social state between the overthrow of capitalism - and the realization of communism, and that according to Marx, “democracy is the road to socialism.” So though the Manifesto may reject socialism is it then used as a tool to achieve communism: “The ends justifies the means?” Has Marx’s Theory ever been manifested in a Free Society?

QUOTE: “Socialism has one very illustrative example if you care to know and that is a corporation. A corporation is an illustrative example of socialism, as is The Military. The Military and a Corporation are very good illustrations of what happens when many people combine or collect their individual powers into one collective of power that is collected specifically for the greater good of each individual involved in the collective unification of all that collected power.”

I have never considered those entities as socialist examples, but should that be the case, then those large organizations, like a government, can become entrenched in red tape; thus, a bleeding of power, or on the other hand that collective power of the individuals can be usurped by a certain individual(s) for ill use. When those collections of power fail many individuals are left in the wake. As can be seen per your quote below. (I don’t know US history, much less Soviet History, but principles are at work.).

QUOTE: “Then you say that something turns to something and then that something turns to communism and here is where I can point out that the Stalin Regime, if that is what you think is an example of communism, is, in fact, if English conveys accurate meaning: Crime made Legal or Legal Crime.”

Was there a time prior to the Stalin regime when true communism was the economic system? As the communist theory ever been truly realized in a positive outcome without the sacrifice and torture of human life?

Perhaps under the Articles of Confederation we were a Republic, then with the Constitution we became a Democratic Republic which has continued the entropic cycle from a Free Market to Economic Entropy into Socialism and Fascism and it also seems that quite a few tenants of the Manifesto have been accomplished right here in the US of A.

Regarding your earlier post “Civil War: Note the use of the term democracy. A modern day supporter of Ron Paul is brainwashed into the belief that "democracy" is a thing done by people who are on the "left" and those "democrats" want "mob rule" which is "democracy" so: if anyone says "democracy" they mean "mob rule" and they are "socialists" and therefore they are our enemies, as we must gain our power of numbers, we "republicans", and with out power of numbers we must overpower those "socialists" who have the audacity to claim to support "mob rule" and "democracy".

Patrick Henry may have been somewhat concerned about “MOB minority rule”:
4.4 Let us suppose—for the case is supposable, possible, and probable—that you happen to deal those powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments? Two thirds of the Congress, or of the state legislatures, are necessary even to propose amendments. If one third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments; but what is destructive and mischievous, is, that three fourths of the state legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed!( This thought is continued in 4.6 at http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html )

P Henry seems to advocate “democracy here:
4.11 A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism?
5.1 What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause:—that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. "Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

6.1 This, sir, is the language of democracy—that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority!

So, can you explain to me why Patrick Henry advocated democracy when the other things I have quoted indicate it is a vehicle for socialism? Has the word been redefined?

Solzhenitsyn calls Socialism “a false and dangerous current” (perhaps like a rip tide or undertow?)/Harvard 1978 on Socialism:
“It is almost universally recognized that the West shows all the world a way to successful economic development, even though in the past years it has been strongly disturbed by chaotic inflation. However, many people living in the West are dissatisfied with their own society. They despise it or accuse it of not being up to the level of maturity attained by mankind. A number of such critics turn to socialism, which is a false and dangerous current

I hope that no one present will suspect me of offering my personal criticism of the Western system to present socialism as an alternative. Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich's book was published in France almost two years ago and so far no one has been found to refute it. It will shortly be published in English in the United States.” (complete speech: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harva... )

Perhaps what I learned back in high school has something to do with Solzhenitsyn/Harvard 1978:
“The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism.”

I am not asking you to figure out what I think I learned in high school... It is just something that stuck, but I may not be applying it correctly. Perhaps I should gracefully bow out of that thought pattern if it is incorrect?

What do you think about this site? http://americanbuilt.us/governments/democracy.shtml ? Do you think it to be a valid political/economic reference?
_______________________________________
I am having a difficult time figuring out your political/economic ideology. Do you care to state it in specific terms? It seems sometimes I hear you speak of no involuntary relationships, but at the same time as being collective, but at the same time as being independent with electricity and those vertical modular farms. I completely understand that you want to break with the Legal Criminals, but to what?
____________________________________-
QUOTE: “A Republic or Confederation, such as the process of law prescribed and limited by The Articles of Confederation were what they were until they were no more, and when the Regime Change occurred the former Confederation (or Republic) became a Nation State or Consolidated Government as told by Patrick Henry in great detail for anyone who cared to listen then or now.”

"Patrick Henry
Against the Federal Constitution"
QUOTE: “Who employed that Label? I'm curious. Who said "I am against the Federal Constitution?" Was it Patrick Henry who went along with the charade of calling a Consolidated Government a Republic or was that someone else who placed that False Front on that Speech?”

The link you gave me: http://www.wfu.edu/~zulick/340/henry.html used it, so that is what I believed to be true. The contact email is zulick@wfu.edu . Perhaps you would like to straighten them out on their terminology because they are leading dupes astray. I do not feel that I should straighten their language out because I really know nothing as you can plainly see,

When reading Henry’s speech, I understand Federal to be synonymous as a nation state/consolidated government. What I am understanding is that the “Federal” Constitution removed the people FROM the representative protection of each respective state wherein the individual resided over TO the jurisdiction of the federal/consolidated government, or at the very least placed individuals under a shared state/federal jurisdiction where the federal jurisdiction has the primary jurisdiction.

I have questions followed by their applicable quotes below if you can help me understand.

A) I am wondering, did P Henry say that the people do not have the right to enter into a league because that would usurp the authority of the states and give it to the consolidated government. The consolidated government bypassed the states and made a contract with the people themselves?

10.3 Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confederacy? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people?

10.5 The assent of the people, in their collective capacity, is not necessary to the formation of a federal government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations; they are not the proper agents for this purpose. States and foreign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government.

B) It seems the term federal is used for both good and bad forces of centralized government?

14.3“… —even that they should strike us out of the Union, and take away from us all federal privileges, till we comply with federal requisitions: but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people.”

C. Federal (consolidated) as opposed to State?:
15.1 In this scheme of energetic government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers—the state and the federal sheriffs.

D. Federal vs. confederate: I want see them as somewhat opposites because of the prefix “con” (contra) (pro = for; con = against). Or in other words, Confederate = against federal. But I do not think that to be the correct interpretation of the prefix “con” in this case. I believe perhaps it to mean: “union.” Does federal = consolidated states while confederate meant an agreement between a union of states?

1.3 “…Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.”

E. Could the title be true “Patrick Henry Against the Federal Constitution” because Patrick Henry seemed to be an Advocate for the Articles of Confederation between the states which individually represented the people within the state and vs. a Contract between the People and a Federal Nation State.?

http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,federate (1828 meanings)

NATIONALIST: Not found in the 1824 or 1913 dictionary.

FEDERALIST:. an appellation in America, given to the friends of the constitution of the United States, at its formation and adoption, and to the political party which favored the administration of President Washington.

FEDERAL: . Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.

FEDERATE: Leagued; united by compact, as sovereignties, states or nations; joined in confederacy; as federate nations or powers.

CONFEDERATE, United in a league; allied by treaty; engaged in a confederacy.

CONFEDERATION: 2. The United States of America are sometimes called the confederation.

The main difference that I can see is that Federal is a contract between parties/nations/states…Federate is a compact between sovereignties, states or nations. It is all Greek to me…
.
QUOTE: “At the time the Nationalists (Hamilton in particular) hid behind a False Front of Federalism; saying one thing and doing the opposite. At the time there were many diverse groups who spoke out against those Nationalists hiding behind the False Front of Federalism, and the most powerful among those who were against the Nation State were labelled "Anti-Federalists" and among them there were those who did not miss the significance of that attempt to miss-label their numbers as they knew that they were for a Federation or Confederation not against a Federation or Confederation (or Republic), so the miss-label or false label of Anti-Federalist was known to be a false label and a dirty trick employed by those same Nationalists hiding behind the False Front of Federalism.”

Nationalist wasn’t even in the 1824 or 1913 dictionaries so I am not sure you can call Hamilton a Nationalist unless you are using todays terminology. I wonder what he was called back then? Perhaps a Federalist?

QUOTE: “New day, same crap. A Liberal now means a Legal Criminal. A socialist now means a Legal Criminal. A capitalist now means a fascist which is a Legal Criminal. No matter what name is used by any power that competes with Legal Criminals the employment of False Fronts and False Labels is used to Turn Coat or Spin or Divide and Conquer with Deception.”

http://americanbuilt.us/economics/#capitalism : economic scales involve CAPITAL (the means of production) - so the term "Capitalism" is again very deliberately confusing. It is WHO CONTROLS the capital that defines the difference between each different economic system.

QUOTE: “Friends of Liberty were once called insurgents, rebels, rabble, democrats, liberals, etc. Someone for a Republic might be, reasonably, called a Republican, but someone seeking absolute power of a Legal Money Monopoly may want to hide their motives behind the false label of a Republican, and over time what do people associate with that Label?”

When where Friends of Liberty called those names? And that is why Friends of Liberty must “hijack the GOP & DP [organizations] to fix that AB problem?" (or you may refer to my first paragraph rewrite at the top of this post for a more full description of what I mean.

QUOTE: “Why did the Red Democrats become the Blue Democrats at the same time that the Blue Republicans became the Red Republicans - musical chairs for entertainment?”

Eyes Wide Open? Perhaps it was to say…we have now conquered the Republican Party and it is now a democratic socialist fascist communist party. Truly, the C word is what I associate with the color red when used in the political spectrum. I can still hear Reagan telling Gorbachev (at least I think that was who he was talking to) to “Tear down this wall” and wonder what that exactly meant with Eyes Wide Open? http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/10planks.htm ? I think it was code. But then again I am the too logical paranoid type and probably misconstrue facts to mean more than they are.

QUOTE: "Can Rand join the Club and remain a Friend of Liberty?"

Thank you for spelling this out for me. I failed to see the supporter betrayal aspect of the endorsement. I was more focused on the fact that he had endorsed a man that stands against Liberty. I do not know what to do now. I suppose I will wait for Tampa and see what happens.

I don’t know whether to write Ron’s name in or abstain in November or vote Constitution Party. I am not sure that I can go Libertarian with Gary Johnson, I will have to study him more. I will have to educate myself. I told myself earlier this year I would no longer compromise my vote by voting Republican if the nominee does not stand for what I believe. It is harder now though, it seems the current president is rouge, but out in the open. Perhaps the last republicans have been rouge behind closed doors, while moral minded folks thought everything to be OK because after all, the republican leaders do not endorse abortion. Really? Then why didn’t they pass a bill in congress like Ron Paul wanted them to when they had the majority? Why didn’t I know then what I am coming to know now?

Liberty resurfacing? DP Post http://www.dailypaul.com/240415/breaking-lawyers-for-ron-pau...

Direct Link to Radio Show
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=...

There seems to be controversy on the DP regarding those lawyers and their actual intent. I don’t know what to think.

QUOTE: I don't think so [Rand remain a friend of liberty], seriously, because too much power that could have been used in the necessary work required to sever the connection between Victims and Legal Criminals is used to accomplish the exact opposite: to make certain that Legal Crime accelerates at a faster rate of acceleration.

What about what he continues to do to fight for Liberty in the Senate: TSA, Audit Fed; NDAA…? But, I dare say, I do not think that Ron Paul would have gained so much currency with Friends of Liberty had he been a compromiser. But what is the difference between Ron Paul endorsing Republican incumbents that perhaps are not Friends of Liberty? I am asking you these questions because I am trying to understand, not because I am trying to prove a point.

QUOTE: “I don't have the "inside" information so I'm just guessing.”

I know, but I appreciate your perspective. It is nice to have a competitive viewpoint to consider. Thank you for taking time to share your guess with me. I realize this is becoming very time consuming and if it is a noncompetitive use of your time, please just say so and we will leave it be.

QUOTE: “Double secret agent provocateurs claiming to be on one side [LIBERTY] while actually being on the other side [CRIMINAL] working for the first side [LIBERTY] but double crossing the first side [LIBERTY] to help the second side [CRIMINAL] by torturing and mass murdering a few million so as to save a few billion is the stuff called FALSEHOOD.”.

I had to add the titles in because my brain can barely think about 2 things at one time since I had chemo. I used to be able to process several things at a time. Now I forget the last thing as soon as I move on to the next thing. It is very frustrating that I could not carry the thought pattern in your quote in my mind alone.

QUOTE: “An involuntary state is Legal Crime by definition, but there are problems associated in the process of defining meaning into words and actions so a process by which to find agreement is needed.”

So, the constitution caused involuntary associations. But did not the Articles of Confederation do the same? Was everyone happy to be part of the state (as opposed to the consolidated) system?

QUOTE: A. Do you agree that a process is needed to find agreement?

Probably

QUOTE: 1. Voluntary association (State) which is an agreeable process to find a way to defend against knowable powers that will destroy the volunteers if nothing is done to defend against such destruction.
2. Involuntary association (State) which is a False Front of a Voluntary Association used to hide organized crime or Legal Crime which is the destructive power that will cause our species to race toward early extinction.
Why confuse one with the other? Who benefits from such confusion?”

According to P Henry, There was already tension at the state level trying to protect the rights of the people

15.5 Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people

Is there any way to get everyone to agree? It seems there will always be involuntary associations? I don’t like to go 25 miles an hour. But I volunteer to do so because I do not want to get a ticket. How about when the speed limit was 55. Who volunteered for that? But we did it kind of for the most part. How can anyone make rules for anyone else without it being an involuntary association for someone somewhere to comply? So is that what Anarchism is? No rules because someone somewhere won’t agree?

Is there not a fine line spoken about by Solzhenitsyn/Harvard 1978: “I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.

And P Henry:
3.19 I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny

You mentioned that Ben Franklin also wrote a constitution to replace the articles of confederation. I also read some, not most of the 3/5ths document link you gave me (I think that is why I didn’t like history. I found that link to be very boring and could not endure to the end.). Was there any legitimate reason that the articles of confederation needed to be added to or replaced other than a power grab? I noticed in Patrick Henry’s writings that there were already problems with lasciviousness as well as protecting the rights of the people.
_____________________________________
QUOTE: “We are not perfect, but why would our imperfections be confused to such an extent that everyone is supposedly as evil as the average torturing mass murderer running a Nation State such as U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) or Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?

I think perhaps we (you and I) need to differentiate between temporal and eternal; between human thinking and God’s Perspective. What I have offered on being judicially guilty is from an eternal/Biblical perspective. What you are comparing it to is from a human/temporal perspective perhaps from a political economic ideology? You already know what I think so I am going to give some quotes where I understand Solzhenitsyn to speak on the subject. (I am not saying that I agree with Solzhenitsyn as I do not know his complete theological ideology.)

Solzhenitsyn Part II of The Gulag Archipelago:
"It has granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience: how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of my youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first strivings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and then all human hearts… And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains… an unuprooted small corner of evil."

Solzhenitsyn Harvard/1978: “http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (There is a huge number of prisoners in our camps which are termed criminals, but most of them never committed any crime; they merely tried to defend themselves against a lawless state resorting to means outside of a legal framework)...To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. In the East, it is destroyed by the dealings and machinations of the ruling party. In the West, commercial interests tend to suffocate it. This is the real crisis. The split in the world is less terrible than the similarity of the disease plaguing its main sections.”… Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.”

QUOTE: “Is it true that "all men are bad" and that the only way to check that evil nature of the human species is for one or a few exceptional human beings gaining absolute power over the evil horde to force them to behave?
We went over this earlier.The answer is no, that is a trick, and the fact that human beings breed is proof enough that we are not all bad since many of us are charitable enough to actually raise children.”

“As far as “managing to raise children” as being a moral endeavor, even crocodiles, lions, and other species manage to raise children, as well as eat them. The black widow feasts on her “husband.” I believe raising children to be somewhat like the conscience: a function of natural order. Some do so more humanely and with better outcomes, but raising children is part of the instinctive drive of being alive and procreating in order to continue the species

QUOTE: “Who benefits most from such confusions?”

I suppose the Thief, the Great Deceiver, the Author of Lies, the Murderer from the Beginning stands to benefit because it would cause someone to think they are OK when it comes to standing before a Holy God in hope that their good will outweigh their bad. The problem is the bad contaminates the good thus rendering the good spoiled. The good does not purify the bad. Adding more water to dirty water only dilutes the dirty water. Adding dirty water to pure water ruins the pure water. The concept is the same with man’s good and evil works. Some water is dirtier than other water, but it is all dirty. God cannot let any dirty water, no matter how diluted it is, into eternal heaven. That is why we must be washed clean thru the shedding of the blood where sin is remitted. That is why we must be regenerated, born again, given a new nature. It is that new nature that will live eternally free of corruption.

I ran across this passage Sunday and it made me think of our conversations on the subject of good and evil man and their access to heaven. It seems the topic was going on approximately 2700 years ago!

Ezekiel 18: 25 Yet ye say , The way of the Lord is not equal . Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal ? are not your ways unequal ? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die . 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed , and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive . 28 Because he considereth , and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed , he shall surely live , he shall not die . 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal . O house of Israel, are not my ways equal ? are not your ways unequal ? 30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent , and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed ; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die , O house of Israel?32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth , saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.
_____________________________________
Yes, I think it terrible that Elon Musk was unable to access that doubling of the $ so that he could actually invent something competitive on American soil and create American Jobs. Perhaps removing competition and American Jobs is somewhat like blowing up bridges? Too much power in the sovereign individual’s hands?

You also compared what happened to Musk/America with QUOTE: “a family in China, if they get access to a computer hooked up to the Internet, working harder to die faster, as their Government continues to loan more money to the Legal Criminals”

I didn’t understand. Can you clarify the above so I can understand?

QUOTE: “So your tax money is used to subsidize the pollution of China, and the slave labor in China, and the powering up of the Chinese Communist Regime while, at the same time, The Chinese Communist Regime uses the tax dollars they manage to squeeze out of their enslaved masses in financing Aggressive Wars for Profit committed by U.S.A. Inc. (LLC). You pay taxes to make China more powerful, so you will have to buy Electric cars from China, while Communists in China funnel money to U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) to conduct wars on Iraq, Afghanistan (to keep the drug profits flowing), Syria, Libya, and possibly Iran where China, Russian, Europe, and U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) have drawn the World War III line in the sand.”

What a tangled web… Solzhenitsyn Harvard/1978: “At present, some Western voices already have spoken of obtaining protection from a third power against aggression in the next world conflict, if there is one; in this case the shield would be China. But I would not wish such an outcome to any country in the world. First of all, it is again a doomed alliance with Evil; also, it would grant the United States a respite, but when at a later date China with its billion people would turn around armed with American weapons, America itself would fall prey to a genocide similar to the one perpetrated in Cambodia in our days.”

It seems Solzhenitsyn has China attacking us. Is that the End Game after we do China’s bidding with our tax and export $’s go to “launder money in China” (is that a correct terminology?), which is then loaned back to us so we can conduct wars?: I fear we may be in much graver danger than realized if this is true. Are our liberties being absconded in preparation for an invasion? Does China call the shots in congress because they are our money masters? Is our congress trying to appease China to prevent an invasion on our soil? See how my mind works? I am probably drawing false conclusions.

http://www.dailypaul.com/240824/no-more-gm-for-me-if-this-is... I’m scared almost like after watching the Economic Hit Man link. Do you think this video to be accurate?

_____________________________
Also written 2700 years ago with a complete copy found in the dead sea scrolls dating 100BC: Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born , unto us a son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor , The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
________________________________
How many passengers can I fit into my electric car? I took 6 to town Friday in my Mini Van.

I love digging in the dirt. Perhaps I could use both the vertical farming units as well as have a small horizontal garden plot? Even though my garden was planted a month late we are already enjoying fresh squash and the green beans are budding! The Amish have given me cucumbers and freshly dug potatoes because I won’t take money, but then again, I guess potatoes, like corn, are money!