Comment: Miscommunication can be a goal

(See in situ)

Miscommunication can be a goal

"God is I am; you (and I) are not."

When miscommunication appears to become a goal, from my viewpoint, the words I type begin to have nothing to do with the responses to the words I type, so here I see an opportunity to ask why your quoted words above were offered by you as a response to the words of mine you quoted above your words as if your words have anything to do with my words.

I wrote:
“Since I am, as far as that goes, I know God.”

You responded (apparently responding to my words):
"God is I am; you (and I) are not."

How is it that I can be on the subject of how God can be known by the existence of life and then the subject changes to your words that appear to suggest that you are in a position of authority to school me on the notion that "I" think that "I" am God?

You find cause to tell me that I am not God?

Is that something you do with other people whenever you think that other people think that they are God?

I don't know what inspired you to school me on the fact that I am not God, was it something you read?

Since I do not think that I am God, since I have never said that I think that I am God, where would you ever get such a notion as to think that you may need to school me on that fact?

Miscommunication is not my goal, and if it were my goal then I could write words that suggest that I think I am God, but I did no such thing, so where is this miscommunication originating?

Is it accident?

"I do not know if you finished reading the rest of my comments regarding marriage and slavery which also discussed God and man."

I've read up to date, as far as I can tell, all your responses. The end of the capacity to share viewpoints appears to be approaching. If the words I write are no longer welcome to the point that my words are set aside and you place words in my mouth, or meanings between the lines that are not intended, then to me you are done with me, so what would be the point of continuing to miss-communicate on purpose?

"I don’t know what that above quote means. What do you mean by static?"

Again, a question, and I can write an honest answer, but you may read more confessions of me thinking I am god or who knows what into the actual words I write, so what would be the point?

"You want me to get certain things out of the links and readings you give me and it seems I come up with understandings that you do not intend."

Here, to me, we are back to where I stopped responding earlier. There is a basic lie that consumes you, from my viewpoint, and I can be wrong, but I can try to explain - desperately.

You fear and therefore you respond to those fears and two responses to your fears are cataloged in this thread of words woven on this forum. You now school me on me being God, I am not God, you tell me, as if you fear that someone, somewhere, does think that they are God.

So from my view your fears are misplaced and your fears are targeting me, and my cost of discussing these things with you is now my public damnation whereby I am now knowable as a nut case who thinks that he is God, and saved from that malignancy only by your good grace.


And you fear communists, but you are somewhat behind the times, you will fear "terrorists", and so now you fear me the communist, and you let me know about it too, publicly, again public damnation upon me, my cross to bear for offering a competitive viewpoint, and now you have ammunition to claim that I think I am Jesus, which is false, I don't, I merely have a "way with words" that is unique, as unique as your "way with words", and soon, I suppose, I will type symbols in English, and you will arrive at the conclusion that I am a terrorist, so I'll get that too.

The point I wish to make, before going much further, is that there is a method to this madness, since each individual is at each other individual's throat for some reason.

A case of mistaken identity or two.

Instead of focusing attention at someone like Ben Bernanke, if the idea is to exert precious defensive power efficiently, "we the people" are inspired to kill rag heads, and torture them before throwing them on the pile.

Is that a case of mistaken identity?

Identity thieves may have stolen our money, our constitution, our religion, our military, our language, and how well defended are our souls, given the accurate identification of the laundry list preceding?

"Your perception is based upon your intelligence and knowledge base; my perception is based upon mine."

You discredit experience, perhaps, the words indicate as much. I've been where you are, I still fight the power that appears to want me to move back to where I was, where you may be now, and the power struggle is never easy, not for God's creation, and I suggest that God's children don't have a free ride either.

Why does someone like me, or only me, keep repeating the advice of a need to be accurate in communication?

Experience shows, to me, that accurate communication is the exception, not the rule.

If I intend to point out that the victims are made to believe in very serious lies, and the actual most serious lie is intended to be exemplified, what are the chances, take a wild guess, that the intended recipient of the intended message will mistake the message as a lie told by a communist who thinks he is God and Jesus?

My view, from my experience, is that conversations between myself and anyone else, are brief, as my viewpoint is shared by almost no one, and demarcation lines between viewpoints are staked out early, and there is little left to say after that reaching of polarized opposites.

You are an exception in over 20 years of my experience, the outcome takes longer, perhaps.

I can stand the public damnation, it goes with the territory, as a matter of public record, but I persevere, not because I am generous, not because I enjoy public damnation, but because I see a need to test my own perspective competitively against any competitor who has the honesty to lay it out competitively, which you do, as far as I can tell so far.

So the question becomes, why am I seen as the bad guy?

If there are any helpful good guys out there, anywhere, what are they doing that I am not doing?

Where are these Friends of Liberty, living and letting live, practicing the Golden Rule, and using moral conscience as a guide, or Christianity as a guide, and should we mistake them for our enemies, so as to avoid them at all cost, or might it be better to be a little more precise in the art of accurate discernment?

If there was a tool, a hand held device, something the size of a cell phone, to be picked up by anyone, and then used to accurately identify anyone else who is planning on using deceit upon the innocent, planning on using threats of violence upon the innocent, and planning on using violence upon the innocent, and the device beeps a little bit if the criminal in view is a little bit criminal and the device beeps louder if the criminal is a Legal Criminal with millions of tortured and murdered souls on his hands, then such a device had better be OUTLAWED because all hell would then brake loose.

All things being relative you have much to fear from me, I won't sugar coat much, but the beeper pointed at me can't be beeping very loudly compared to the most destructive among us.

Hide from me, or at least hide from the words I type, if that is the warning you get from your internal beeper, sure, I get it, I've been there, and that is fine to me, and I can take the costs you dish out, because your image does not make my beeper beep at all. The beeper is silent when aimed at you where the intention is to find the bad guys so as to avoid them at all cost.

All costs assumed and paid for by the individual, and no costs passed onto the collateral or the word you used which was Biblical, but meaning the same thing, debt paid by an innocent bystander, or some other words defining the actual process.

I may remember the word soon.

"Can you trust me now when I am honest? My ability to perceive is faulty."

How can anyone have absolute trust? Is that reserved for all God's Children? I'm not one, my trust is in what is proven to me, over, and over, and over, again, and again, and again, as if I have a very thick skull, and no common sense. How I have managed to survive until today is, to me, evidence of an external power.


I was thinking yesterday about the concept of calculating insurance premiums based upon risks and I remembered one summer at work where I ran a D-9 Bulldozer made by Caterpillar in U.S.A. (moving to China), 12 hour shifts, no breaks, I didn't take any, I am my own boss, I do things my way, so there I am sleeping on the job, literally sleeping. I roll very fast downhill on a very smooth road I just made, then I drop the blade to pick up another 50 tons of dirt and rocks, and start up the hill again, to get to the top, dump in the dirt and rocks, before the hopper empties, and I go to sleep.

So there is an insurance premium or cost calculated and then paid by the beneficiary of the insurance policy for doing something as dangerous as operating Heavy Equipment.

What is the insurance premium or cost calculated and then paid by the beneficiary of the insurance policy for sleeping while the Heavy Equipment is pushing 50 tons up the hill, making a smooth road, and somehow waking back up before reaching the top of the hill, stopping, so as not to drive off the hill on down the cliff on the other side of the hill, somehow waking back up to avoid dumping the Heavy Equipment into the emptying hopper?

All summer, 12 hour days.

For what, to buy the torture and mass murder of babies in Waco Texas?

You fear me?

I understand, look what I have done, wasting the life given to me, and worse.

How much worse?

"I brought those concerns up because I want to know better."

Reserving claims of absolute knowledge is probably a good thing.

"Does being suspicious go hand in hand with Scientific Reasoning?"

And religious interpretation?

"Should I have kept my thoughts private?"

Get out all the ropes and tie all the nooses and hang away, please.

"Am I not trustworthy now because I have been open and honest?"

My trust in not absolute. I expect these things based upon my experience. My experience is such that you should have ended your part in this conversation a few thousand words ago, so much for my experience.

If I end a conversation, such as my leaving the group gathered by Howard Bloom, it is due to diametric opposites identified by me, as in that case Howard Bloom had a viewpoint about Muslim religion taking over the human species and therefore Christians had to fight a war to stop it, or some such ideas that defy accurate reporting in a few sentences here and now.

Typically, with few exceptions, the discussion is ended by someone other than me, you are one of the exceptions, so far, and Howard Bloom was the other one, as far as I can remember right now.

I've been at this for over 2 decades. Many times the forum "moderators" pull the plug on me.

I was pulled off of The Free State Forum too, I just remembered that one, from the list.

I trust in what is proven over time; I am merely human. God's creation in your terms - I suppose.

"I suppose in my washed brain it is someone who embraces the constitution and the Father of our Country “Georgie Boy” the way I have been taught since childhood."

Here is a point at which I happen to have earned my way into the .01% of human beings who know better. In fact The Constitution is anti-American if by American it is Liberated America, as in The Declaration of Independence.

If there is a Ron Paul saying we need a limited government then The Constitution is only good at limiting government if we can turn back time to The Articles of Confederation, then each State has their own Constitution, some better than others, and that is called competition, and then the people can vote with their feet, runaway slaves voting with their feet from a worse to a better state of affairs, and do so without having to leave the country.

Ron Paul is half right, but I think he knows it. Many people don't.

Many people equate The Declaration of Independence with The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

That is as false equation.

The Declaration of Independence made it a legal duty to oppose a criminal government; which is Liberty, a statement of Liberty.

The Constitution made insurrection against the law, and George provided the precedent in 1794 at least, proof of and the defining of the meaning of despotism.

The Bill or Rights were the last ditch attempt by the so called "Anti" Federalists (anti-American?) to chain the future despots down with limitations.

Why be false about things that are easy to know?

"You just say Marxism is what Marxism is or something like that and do not speak of it negatively."

Pavlov is a scientist who figured out how to modify the behavior of dogs. Ring the bell while the dog is eating, over, and over, and over, and over, again, and again, and soon the Dog will Salivate when a Bell is rung.

Edward Bernays (nephew to Sigmund Freud) used the science of behavioral modification on people in very big ways; one way was to help sell cigarettes, limited liability, to women by equating The Civil Rights Movement (Women Suffrage etc.) with cigarettes smoked by women on movie films, and in advertizements in major media: freedom equals cigarettes.

Ring the Bell = salivate

Independent women = I gotta have a cigarette

Say the name Marx = torture and murder the terrorists

Foam at the mouth.

Why play when the costs will be paid exclusively by you?

I don't see the point. Marx was corrupted from a point at which his message was reasonable to a point at which other people tended to speak for him, and do things in his name, and yet many people on this planet, not US, but many people on this planet see Marxism as a way out from under the thumb of such things as all the things that hide behind names like Colonialism.

I can understand that, and I can do so without becoming a "marxist" according to whichever old or new meaning of that term carries the day today.

"You speak positively of China and Russia, arch enemies since my childhood, and negatively of the USA."

Quote my actual words and I can mend my error filled ways.

I speak positively of honest, humorous, hard working, people in Russia, China, and America (U.S.A. Inc. LLC if you prefer).

I speak negatively of criminals with or without badges as they define the meaning of crimes that are lawful for them to do and unlawful for anyone else to do, according to their own, exclusive, and very mobile set of definitions.

The Legal Criminals taking control over any number of people can only get away with what the people allow in that place, call it a country if you wish.

Take the Dog, or the human victim, and show them Liberty, show them honest productive people, and then ring a bell, or wave a flag, do that how many times before the Dog, or the human victim, will falsely equate the good, or the food, with the bell, or the flag?

Now wave the flag at every involuntary tax subsidized school, and at every involuntary tax subsidized "government" building, and you get exactly what Patrick Henry and the other anti American "founders" warned against.

Foaming at the mouth on cue.

I prefer not to do so.

"I suppose it might be someone who is supportive of the American form of cannibalism; not a socialist or a communist."

If you have not yet read 1984 by George Orwell then you may find much value in that investment of your precious limited power.

"In the link you gave me on Edmonds, Jones dissed people who do not like George Washington and the Constitution. Marxism was disparaged. Do you not hear those things in those links? Those are the things I hear and I think I hear you saying the opposite about your viewpoint."

People can only go as far into discovery of facts as they will, not according to my sense of right and wrong, but the facts speak for themselves, at some point people stop looking and start acting. I contend with the notion that Marx had more responsibility accountable to him concerning all that Alexandr I. Solzhenitsyn had to suffer, and 20 million other terrorized and murdered people, Marx more than Wall Street (the people not the thing), and Marx more than Stalin?


Marx wrote ideas down on paper, some of his ideas were good ideas, I can quote one, and much of his ideas were stolen, it seems to me.

Wall Street (the people not the thing) financed the rise of Hitler (fascist) and the rise of Roosevelt (fascist/communist) and the rise of Stalin (communist), almost exactly verbatim from the book 1984, not the labels, but the actions.

When was the book 1984 written, and how was Orwell so capable of such astute understanding?

Follow the money?

I wish that I could be discussing these things with you and Alex Jones, and Ron Paul, and Jesse Ventura, and Gerald Celente, so as to refine my own understanding, to do so with worthy, and even more worthy, competitors.

I'm just an average Joe, but if I can get this far, how far have the above average gotten?

Howard Bloom, for example, all that he is, he is not average.

Out for a moment.

"It doesn’t seem so to me when I must sacrifice my power for the collective good of the whole as in social security or nationalized healthcare."

Much can be confused in words and deeds, but a family constitutes all that is said about socialism so why is the meaning of the word not as good for the goose as it is for the gander?

Perhaps the word is miscommunicated on purpose for some profitable reason.

"It seems to me that when an individual sacrifices for the whole the individual no longer has a say in what is good for the whole."

When it is sacrifice then it is, and when it is counterfeit sacrifice it isn't, so which are you claiming it to be now?

Sacrifice is the choice by the person who sacrifices, having the choice to sacrifice or not sacrifice according to the individual making that accurate determination within the power that the individual commands voluntarily, without being "made to sacrifice" by hook or by crook from the power of some other individual commanding the power of deceit, threat of violence, or violence whereby the "counterfeit sacrifice" is merely a choice to obey the order or suffer the ONE non-alternative.

An offer that can't be refused.

I am going to make myself an offer I can't refuse?


A family, again being a rather good example, works as a family, or pretends to work as a family, whereby either it is one, or there is a counterfeit version of one, such that the actual family is constituted by productive people capable of producing and reproducing productive people and a counterfeit version of a family is counter productive people incapable of producing and reproducing productive people yet, like magic, somehow, the children, some of them, still manage to grow up and survive, and some of them, despite having been born into a world by counterfeit parents, are still able to become honest productive people, breaking the counterfeit mold, and managing, somehow, to invent a productive example of a family despite all the forces, and despite all the powers, that align against such things, including the force, and the power, of counterfeit parents who are no different than any other criminal with two legs, whereby the choices they make, making them criminals by their voluntary choices, is to resort to deceit, as a means of gaining power at the expense of their targeted children, and resort the threats of violence as a means of gaining power at the expense of their targeted children, and resort to terrifying horrible violence to gain power at the expense of their children.

When I say that socialism is exemplified in the family unit I don't mean that Stalin's version of communism, having tortured and murdered 20 million non-combatants, is exemplified in the family of incestuous psychopaths and sociopaths posing as a family.

I don't confuse the two.

What would be the point of confusing the two?

I can guess.

The bad looks less bad, and are thereby well hidden.

The good is soiled by the close association, and as well hidden.

How convenient can it get?

"Who is going to collect all my sacrifice and determine what is good for everyone else."

In the case of voluntary anything, call it socialism, or call it capitalism (using that specific pricing method), or call it Fried Chicken, there is no "collecting" according to the language and custom of a fashionable regime of Legal Crime.

1. Real version
2. Not 1

"How about if I choose what I sacrifice and use that chosen sacrifice as deemed best by my sovereign self and determine what good I want to see done with that sacrifice and for which certain sovereign individuals it is to be done and not with or for the nebulous whole even if that said sacrifice is less powerful if not collected?"

You mean socialism?

Oh, wait, the label you put on it is authorized by you, and no one else, unless other people agree with the label, which is the polar opposite of anyone being forced by anyone else to obey without question.

A rose by any other name is a figure of speech offered by Shakespeare.

I agree with it, since the rose still smells as sweat, even if you prefer to call it Fried Chicken.

"Why did the USSR use Socialist in its title if it is Communism is not Socialist?"

Good question. I'm not the authority on the revolving doors. Why did the Blue states suddenly change from Capitalist to Socialist at the same time that the Red states turned their colors, turned their coats, as suddenly from Socialist to Capitalist?

Were the victims growing too wise to the game, and they needed a little confusion as to which was which?

Friend or Foe?

If the supposedly independent Liberals are supposedly independent from the supposedly independent Conservatives then there might have been a fight over who gets to be RED, but there wasn't, as if on cue the supposedly independent Liberals took on the BLUE coat and abandoned the RED coat at the exact same time that the supposedly independent Conservatives abandoned the BLUE coat and donned the RED coats.

I caught it right away, other people did so too. For as long as I can remember the BLUE STATES were the conservative republican capitalist STATES, and I remember the skies were not checker-boarded with vapor trails too, and then suddenly, conservative republican capitalists are RED STATES?

Hold on a minute! Just how stupid do they think we are exactly?

Hold on, I need to go check the imagine reflecting back when I look in the mirror, while I pinch myself a few more times.

No lie, same idiot staring back, same pain each pinch. Welcome to reality.

Where is my escape hatch?

"I fear that with the vast amount of information covered so rapidly that I do not come to a valid scientific conclusion before moving to another topic or multiple topics at that same time. I am not an equal in ability to you. It took nearly a week for me to get to an understanding of why the SSN was not key. I still have a lot of questions about Korea and Who is Judge, and your thoughts on my thoughts as replied on marriage and your requested information on Bible slavery, but I am not writing another word about another subject until my perception is clarified if you think it worth the time. Perhaps my inability to completely come to correct conclusions causes a collective power of assumptions that are malformed."

I did the same thing. I looked in the mirror, again not figuratively, not a lie, not a cover story, actual reality, the solutions are individual, in time, in space, it is the actual condition of human life, such as God, or whatever power made it.

Welcome aboard, and thanks for being a part of it, your help is appreciated, and please know:

Give me Liberty or get the hell out of my way.

If you confuse liberty with the legion of counterfeit versions then get the hell out of my way and if that confusion of yours brings you to the brink of self-destruction then perhaps, just maybe, you aught to take your own advice, the advice you offer to me, from your knowledge of God.

When push comes to shove, each time, there will be a narrowing down of paths to take, the narrowing down resolves into the last two choices, and then the one choice you make is made by you, even if you choose to do nothing, even if you choose to step backwards, even if you choose to place the choice in the hands of God.

You have your fears, I told you mine.

You can fear me, I can wise you up on that misdirection of your power, or I can fail in that goal.

Blame me.

"The bigger the socialized unit the less the individual responsibility and thus the greater collected power is wasted before it meets its intended goal leaving a lessor collected power than if that power was used responsibly and individually."

A family (stop using socialism as the word in place of a family if that confuses you) is as big as needed in any case, as designed, so as to keep the family alive against all powers that will destroy it.

One person can't do everything, as you school me, that is God (not even God's work). Just God?

I am going to entertain myself now with a trip to the store to buy a birthday present, put all this aside long enough to present myself with an example of what is good about life, finding my own happiness, and sharing that as best I can with my family.

I have no problem claiming that this that I choose do to is both voluntary socialism and voluntary capitalism (capitalism when I use that specific pricing method) or Fried Chicken since I know the meaning, and the word is merely a tool used to reach the goal of accurate communication.