Comment: Goal oriented

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Still Catching Up (see in situ)

Goal oriented

"Now you must tell me, was it a temptation?"

Not at all. The rarity of discussion on topics of political economy is a form of confession in my view. It says: I will obey as ordered and I will read from the official script, and none of those crimes made legal will be questioned by anyone, ever, if I have any power left in my soul to reach that goal.

I have the other goal in mind.

I say: Please help me figure out exactly what is wrong on political economy so as to then be more competitively prepared to go the opposite direction, and I report where I am at so far.

You appear to be on a similar goal oriented path away from evil and toward an opposing direction.

We can go any other direction, just not in the legal crime direction, so our paths are in that way that similar.

If someone offers competitive angles of view concerning the nature of the problem so as to be prepared to avoid it, then I want to know that viewpoint - seriously.

Why would I censor information that can work to reach the goal of disconnecting the criminals from the victims?

I have children, they have targets on their backs because they are productive people, so they will be enslaved by this or that enemy of their Liberty. Life is way too good, and way too short, to be wasted in the Business Psycho where we all are apt to "provide the means by which we suffer" for failing to know better.

How does anyone ever know better?

The answer is provided by Noam Chomsky in his On Language book, as he asked a helpful question:

Why is it that we human beings know so much given the fact that our individual lives are so short and so limited?

The answer is obvious - we have the power to help each other know better through our connections to each other, through mediums of exchange, using languages that are tools.

The problem is that some of us use tools as offensive weapons upon innocent members of our species.

We, I see that you agree, want to stand in between those criminals and those victims - especially when those targeted victims are our own children.

They are targeted. To deny that fact is to allow it by doing nothing about it.

Actual human beings, actual parents, actually raise their children to be sent to criminals as cannon fodder, as toys to play with in bloody murder, and in torture.

Is that not worth avoiding as a parent?

Is that not worth, at least, offering that observation of those facts to potential parents, including your own offspring?

What happens to a mind, a human mind, when the soul within finally realized that their children died for criminals?

Look into a person named Cindy Sheehan, if you care to know the answer to that last question.

Our paths can be seen as parallel paths, converging paths, or diverging paths, but in day to day work the facts make themselves known, and then there are better and there are worse ways to view those facts, so as to deal with those facts, on our ways to our goals.

Failing that: we are mere tools to be used by other people.

Welcome to the land of Oz where "conspiracy theorists" are lurking in the dark, ready to strike with a word that may express an accurate perception!

Heretic!

"It think the miscommunication was I had a question I was trying to get you to answer for me. Did you understand it that way?"

I understand my viewpoint, I may not understand yours, and here is a place where I think that my viewpoint is that you want a specific answer, and if you don't get the specific answer you want you will keep trying until you get the specific answer you want, but I can be wrong, so I offer a possible solution.

Ask the question you want answered, then try to answer the question in your own words, just try, and see what happens.

This is like playing chess alone. You have to be the opponent on both sides, and it does not make sense until you try it.

We are beginning to arrive at the door where there is a threshold. On one side of this threshold is the past where thinking was done according to routine, and on the other side of the threshold thinking is not as routine, and I can be specific as to time.

You can think routinely as if time is stopped, as if things are motionless, as if you have things controlled by you, stopped in front of you, and you are in possession of that thing, that thing is held by you, it is stuck in time, frozen in time, and that is how you think about that thing at that time.

You can step away from that type of thinking, willfully, and instead you choose to think in terms of dynamics, where things are always moving, always in motion, things are working, and you may borrow something moving in time, as if plucking it out of mid stream, and you can observe it, measure it, know it for what it does, not what it is, and that type of thinking can become routine.

Does that make any sense in context?

You can pretend to be the official answerer of any question, in fact that is what you do, if I understand you, so you don't need me, or anyone else, to authorize that work that you already do, and so, ask a question, and answer the question with 2 competitive answers, and then I can offer 2 additional competitive answers, and we can both see which answers fit into the stream better in time.

Take any question.

I can even demonstrate.

Question:
When is premeditated violence upon innocent people justifiable?

Authoritative answers (my view)
1.
Every time a criminal does so
2.
Every time anyone does so (justified by that person)
3.
4.

You can provide (if you care to) authoritative answers that can be compared and will then compete with those answers already published.

There then is a demonstration of how to proceed in the routine of asking and answering questions.

If none of the answers are competitive then erase them and start over, or it may be a good idea to rephrase the question?

Who cares if any one person is given credit for either the question or the answer?

I can care to be credited, or I can care less.

____________________
“Non-answer.
Question:
Non-answer.”

I don’t understand the above 3 lines.
_____________________

People resort to deception in many routine ways, but that is their goal, and the confession arrives in the form of non-answers. Some people are very well practiced at the art of deception, so the answers are almost answers unless the person asking is very well practiced at the art of accurate communication.

If a challenge is communicated as to the validity of the answer: it is not an answer, then the goal post is set in stone, or concrete, and the effort to move the goal post (diversion, deception, obfuscation, division, transference, etc.) is powerless until that very question is answered.

Dodging again merely reinforces the validity of judging the person to be deceptive as that person confesses with further deceptions.

There is no power to deceive if the intended target knows better. That is a simple fact, or self evident, or it is defined to be exactly that when that is how things proceed.

You can continue to challenge any other viewpoint, including your own inventions, and with practice you will learn more and more which competitive viewpoints are worth more and which ones are worth less.

As to the practice of thinking dynamically, I thought, it may help to point out that our human condition is this, exactly this, to think (use our brains) dynamically. It may be useful to also think in "frozen time" or static thinking, but that is not natural, that is a competitive way of seeing things in certain situations. I think that much of the willful brainwashing, and even the unintended brainwashing, that occurs, to make people less powerful, is along these lines, of causing people to employ static thinking, unnatural thinking, more often than would be done naturally, or what would happen without all the False Advertizements infecting most of our Mediums of Exchange.

We would be thinking naturally more of the time if we were free from the connections that connect us to people who are deceptive.

We would be thinking in dynamic time more so, and more powerful in that capacity, in solving problems, and less likely, thereby, to solve problems by resort to deception, or resort to threats of violence, or resort to violence upon the innocent.

Case in point:

How many times have you heard someone say "There aught to be a law." as a means of solving a problem.

In the first place the thing that happened, the dynamic event that occurred sometime and some place where the observer was then inspired to say "There aught to be a law." may have been caused, dynamically, by a previous "law".

In the second place the incident may have been produced and published so as to reach that goal, to make people say "There aught to be a law."

Just as Pavlov experimented on Dogs there is a goal as such:

Can a dog be made to salivate when a bell is rung?

The dynamic answer is yes.

The static answer is who cares. If the dog is salivating then there aught to be a law that stops those dam bells from ringing, since the dog is slobbering all over my new cloths.

Static thinking can be a tool used by an individual to reach a goal, or it can be a tool misused by a criminal to weaken the targeted victims.

There can't be a better solution to any problem in static thought. Static thought says that the solution to every problem is to send power to the authorities so that the authorities solve all the problems.

Static thought can be useful. What is the goal?

I want to know exactly how much a jar of tomatoes weighs so that I know how strong I need to make the shelf?

The jar of tomatoes is set on a scale and at that time in that place that jar of tomatoes is exactly 23.432 ounces.

Static thinking is used all the time.

Dynamic thinking is used all the time.

Why would anyone ever abandon dynamic thinking if dynamic thinking was the more competitive angle of view at any given moment such as any case in point.

Competitive Cases in point:

An individual injures many innocent people in a theater.

An individual injures many innocent people at a funeral.

The first event happened in Colorado and many people are reacting to that event on many different Mediums of Exchange. The first Competitive Case in point is highly profitable NEWS, as it will boost ratings, and increase revenue streams to Major Media Companies (which are part of a larger conglomerate or Monopoly).

The second even has happened many times, is probably happening right now, and will happen again, and again, as Remote Controlled weapons of mass destruction, Drones, are being flown by individuals into gatherings of many innocent people where "suspects" of "terrorism" may be attending those funerals, or weddings.

The second event could be as titillating, as fashionable, as marketable, as exciting, as powerful an item of NEWS to boost rating, and to increase revenue streams from advertisers, if those Competitive Cases in point were allowed to be published on those Monopoly Major News Mediums of Exchange.

There aught to be a law to stop the lone gunmen from shooting people in theaters.

But...

Aught there be a law to stop well trained computer gamers from murdering innocent people at funerals in countries where oil is plentiful?

"Why be mean at all? Not that I am not ever mean, but mostly so with family. Sad the way family gets the brunt of meanness."

I grew up with a power over people. I can tease people. I have that power. I am very good at it. If I want to be mean I know how to push buttons. I've learned, over time, to control that power, to not misuse it, but it exists. I learned how to push the envelope, just short of being attacked violently by my target, with some incidents of going too far, which are stories that I can tell, but that is off topic. I may have lost that power, how can I know?

"Who ever says, Hi, I am a Marxist?"

Read anything by Fidel Castro or now Hugo Chavez and reconsider the question. The point is that some people are honest about what they are and some people are not.

Deception is powerless on people who know better.

A Pavlov Dog story:

At work I sat at a desk and 4 other people are at desks in front of me, and someone dares to bring up the subject of Political Economy in reference to "The Back Yard" (which is South America) and I mention the name Hugo Chavez (who is in many ways the George Washington of Venezuela) and the person in desk two snaps her head left and declares, with all the authority of any tax payer anywhere:

Hugo Chavez is a Dictator!

Work was the point, at work, so I got back to work pushing paper and digits through the stream of political economy.

Falsehood runs deep and all things are relative so the claim of Dictator being one can be compared to any other competitive version of Dictator.

Here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) for example, where torture is legal, but it is called by kinder and gentler names, and here were mass murder is profitable, but called by kinder and gentler names, We The People have the authority to call whomever we are told, by the names we are told, and do so quickly, and without question, we follow those orders.

We is a group that does on occasion produce exceptions to the rules.

"with the full development of scientific socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs"

Here is where it may be a good idea to employ what may be good lessons to learn.

Is the subject matter the true thing or is the subject matter the counterfeit version of the true thing?

Socialism may be nothing more than all that which a natural family does, and then the scientist who studies how a family works applies that knowledge to other things, such as how one family may compete with another family.

Socialism can be crime made legal by criminals like Joseph Stalin, who may be the best or most competitive example of the ideal producer of socialism.

If there is a better producer of socialism (the true form) than Joseph Stalin, let him, or her, get to it, and we can all find out just how much better socialism can get, just how far the socialism bar can be raised above the example produced by Joseph Stalin.

Socialism, the true form, is what exactly?

According to who - exactly?

I don't know which is which, but I think it may be a good idea to know better, so I ask, which is which, and I'd rather not confuse the true version from the false version. I know that there are opposite versions because I've done some digging.

Andrews wrote about one version of socialism. I can't find his book titled The History of Socialism, but I've dug up some of his work so I have a version of socialism in words written and published on a specific date in time:

http://www.anarchism.net/scienceofsociety.htm

"What, then, if this be so, is this common element? In what great feature are Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism identical? I will answer this interrogatory first, and demonstrate the answer afterward. Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively. Not only is this supremacy or SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, a common element of all three of these great modern movements, but I will make the still more sweeping assertion that it is substantially the whole of those movements. It is not merely a feature, as I have just denominated it, but the living soul itself, the vital energy, the integral essence or being of them all."

To be more specific:

"Protestantism, Democracy, and Socialism are identical in the assertion of the Supremacy of the Individual,--a dogma essentially contumacious, revolutionary, and antagonistic to the basic principles of all the older institutions of society, which make the Individual subordinate and subject to the Church, to the State, and to Society respectively."

March, 1888. <---------- that is the date of publication according to the link

If English words convey accurate meaning then Socialism is where each individual is the boss of each individual and no other power is the boss of any individuals.

Stalin is not the boss of me in socialism.

The communists confirm this in their own Communist Manifesto.

The Communists confirm a division between forms of socialism in their own Communist Manifesto.

But this is merely history, you know, the stuff that when forgotten those trails of tears will be traveled again?

I'm not a promoter of names, labels, and advertizements but by any name the fact that individual people are capable of being their own authority, even if they choose to give it away, is what it is, even if I don't promote it, with any name under the sun.

I don't pretend to be anyone's authority over their own power, other people have that goal.

Then there is this:

"And anyways why take from someone’s ability to give to someone else’s need?"

Why confuse two things as if there were only one thing?

Transfers of power from those who have it to those who need it is, in English: charity.

Are we speaking about charity or are we speaking about the counterfeit versions of charity?

"Is that last sentence above the working of Joe’s law?"

Here I can take my own advice to you. I will play a game of chess by myself.

I ask:

What scripture verse advises God's Children to employ the power God gave them in ways that make life fruitful and multiples of the original examples - which were but two?

1.
Scripture verses are not my business, I am but one of God's creations, and I prefer to concentrate my power on political economy, music, family, and other things, leaving my study of the Bible up to other, more capable hands.
2.
A Goggle search offers:
And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth
http://biblos.com/genesis/1-28.htm
3. Competitive answer
4. "

Is the question vital?

Is the answer accurate?

"Is Marxism the same as socialism? Does socialism advocate equal redistribution?"

I have very little interest in Marx. I have not studied Marx. I have not studied socialism. My path went roughly this way:

1.
A high school project involving a book titled: The Lusitania
2.
Seeking similar books, reading them, and finding other paths from that book about that False Flag.
3.
Joining the John Birch Society, reading what they had to offer.
4.
Finding Equitable Commerce by Josiah Warren, then The Science of Society by Andrews.
5.
Ross Perot runs for President sending me on the path of knowing what constitutes National Debt
6.
Finding, along the way, more works by Lysander Spooner, Karl Hess, Erich Fromm, Howard Bloom, Albert Nock, and the Austrian Economists.
7.
Waco happens
8.
I run for congress
9.
I figure out Joe's Law after many futile efforts to get anyone else to explain why the Austrian Economists are divided into two series/parallel circuits.

You connect to me mid stream in my effort to know better by comparing competitive viewpoints through this Medium of Exchanged called The Internet.

Marx was quoted as saying something very interesting and the quote come from my copy of a very good book written by Eric Fromm. I will repeat that quote, because it is a very competitive example of English words and it is translated by someone I trust because the person doing the translation uses these words in context of a larger work.

I can link Eric Fromm's book. I can get my copy. I can report the title of the book, the chapter, and the page where the quote is employed by Eric Fromm, and that is about all I care about Marx.

Marx is, to me, just another person, a human being, not a God among men, not even note worthy to me. The words, however, convey accurate meaning in context.

Book:

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Human-Destructiveness-Erich-Fr...

That is not The Bible. It is just a book done by someone on a parallel path, to know the problem, and then be in a better position to solve the problem.

Chapter 12:
MALIGNANT AGGRESSION: NECROPHILIA

The quote in question is a footnote so I am going to quote Eric Fromm's sentence that has the footnote number at the end of the sentence and then I'll quote the footnote that has the quote from Marx.

Before doing that: Please don't confuse Eric Fromm with Karl Marx as if they are one and the same person among all those bad, bad, bad, Socialists/Communists. I can't say enough about the information in Eric Fromm's very valuable work. You would have to read it to know what I mean in any measurable way.

Eric Fromm (paragraph page 377):

___________________________________________
Still another dimension of necrophilous reactions is the attitude toward the past and property. For the necrophilous character only the past is experienced as quite real, not the present or the future. What has been, i.e., what is dead, rules his life: institutions, laws, property, traditions, and possessions. Briefly, things rule man; having rules being; the dead rule the living. In the necrophile's thinking-personal, philosophical, and political-the past is sacred, nothing new is valuable, drastic change is a crime against the "natural" order. 34
___________________________________________

Footnote 34
"For Marx, capital and labor were not merely two economic categories. Capital for him was the manifestation of the past, of labor transformed, and amassed into things; labor was the manifestation of life, of human energy applied to nature in the process of transforming it. The choice between capitalism and socialism (as he understood it) amounted to this:
Who (what) was to rule over what (whom)?
What is dead over what is alive, or what is alive over what is dead? (Df. E. Fromm, 1961,1968)

For all I know (but I don't know because I have not studied Marx) the guy may have been a good family guy and his work was counterfeited into a false version.

I am only guessing.

I have not studied Marx, but many people have, and some people associated with Marx say as much, out in the open, and some people hide their actual associations - which was reported by Griffin in the link you sent me.

Marxist/Leninist aught not be confused with mere Marxists?

"The idea is to be honey which attracts bees, not to repel the bees."

Real honey or counterfeit honey?

Please don't take offense to that last question, it was meant to be comic relief.

So...

and

Guess what?

"I always want to know. Why do you need my permission to tell? Should I be asking your permission when I tell you something?"

Economy is a competitive business, time and energy is scarce.

"A not so bad Washington."

I have been putting off the re-finding of a quote from the Lew Rockwell (Austrian Economist) web page on Washington, but I can do that now.

Before doing that I want to address the "moving on a Grand Scale" subject. Do you feel the need to control other people, to get them working on things you want them to work on, such as, for example, to get them to work on Liberty?

1.
Yes, I want other people to take matters into their own hands and work on Liberty
2.
No, I prefer to do what I can with what I have and other people can do as they please with what they have in their control, or their sphere of influence.
3.
Yes, I see other people as tools that I can manipulate into doing my bidding and in that way 10 people under my control can get much more of the things I want done then 10 people wandering around doing their own things, and if I can get 100,000,000 people, well then, now we are really talking business, what could I not accomplish with that much POWER!
4.
------------------------------------------------------

More on Washington (say that three times fast)

More on Washington More on Washington More on Washington

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard171.html

"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model." (Murray Rothbard)

Who can you trust?

Is it better to ask: Which information is accurate, no matter who delivers the message?

What is prejudice?

"It would be nice if I could stay on topic and focus on the business at hand instead of perceived miscommunication and thus not fill the pages with stuff that does not promote the Liberty Challenge."

Who knows exactly what does what in which way? Our employment of our power in this discussion may inspire, as in the butterfly effect, something good.

Thanks for the competitive challenge in this animated contest of freedom.

Joe