Comment: Accuracy as a goal

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: On the topic of Ron Paul and TSA: (see in situ)

Accuracy as a goal

I think that you can trust Lew Rockwell to be a very accurate source of information on Libertarian Capitalism.

I think that Lew Rockwell can be trusted to hide any information pertaining to Equitable Commerce and The Science of Society since those sources of accurate information are proven to be competitive alternatives to Libertarian Capitalism.

There is all the room in the world for voluntary government, voluntary capitalism, voluntary socialism, and voluntary anything in Equitable Commerce and The Science of Society, but Libertarian Capitalism leaves no room for Equitable Commerce as far as I know so far.

I can't offer any accurate information concerning lies told by Lew Rockwell or Ron Paul, since I know of no such thing, but they cannot be sat down in front of me to answer questions I may ask of them, and therefore the information required to answer your questions accurately is missing.


"A)Did you answer my question?"

I guessed at possible answers. I trust that Lew Rockwell will keep secrets so as to gain advantage over competitors.

"B) Is the question not worthy because it is along the line of doing the least taxing on the Road to Liberty?"

These types of questions (Friend or Foe?) are essential to Liberty and Life, but who would pay the costs if my answers are dictatorial answers that "TELL YOU THE TRUTH", but are wrong answers, so that you are then mislead, AND, you are disarmed: no longer reaching for more accuracy in answering these vital questions?

"C) The same person that advocates doing the least taxing along the lines of liberty is the one who wrote the article so the answer is my last question: Is Lew Rockwell trustworthy?"

I trust everything he has written or said so far to be the honest truth, but again he misses vital information as if that vital information does not exist, but it does exist, so what explains the vacuum?

The example for "missing information" concerns the statements made by The Austrian Economics Founding Father Karl Menger with two specific things said along the lines of "everyone" will always work to gain as much advantage over everyone else and if that was not enough the report from Austrian Economist Central is that scarcity is wealth where there is no wealth if there is abundance.

That is very narrow minded, as if charity does not exist, and it entirely misses the full and accurate measure of productive power which is impossible to be scarce so why not see that as a fact, why miss that vital information, why would anyone construct a whole Political and Economic System, or Plan, or Theory, based on half truths?

I have my guesses, and I stated my guesses in the other post.

Those people who have figured out how to play the Legal Crime game do not want their Golden Parachutes poked with holes, they don't want people rocking the boat. So they say things like Government did it, or Keynesian Economics did it, and that is the Big Lie used by all the criminals in all of human history.

Anything but accurate accounting of responsibility for what is or is not done is part and parcel to crime, especially crime made legal.

Note: On the road away from Legal Crime and moving back toward Liberty, the information provided by Lew Rockwell, Gerald Celente, Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Noam Chomsky, and many others on the left or right, is accurate and useful to a point. The information provided by Ron Paul, on the other hand, is actionable and leads toward true freedom from Legal Crime such as:

End The FED
End the IRS
End the Aggressive Wars for the profit of a few

Imagine uncovering, for example, an account that shows how someone has purchased large amounts of Aggressive Wars for profit stocks, bonds, treasury bills, and other instruments of death that pay so well while the boat is sailing into World War III, what would that information tell you if you found that out about someone?

When I went to the Austrian Economics Financial Markets Conference in Las Vegas, I think it was the same year I ran for office, 1996, but I may be wrong, and I can no longer find on the Internet the speech by Ron Paul where he appears to mention me, and some other person, in the audience.

I spoke to a few people at that conference. I paid to go there, and I paid to listen, and I wanted to ask questions. I found a sign at a table and a basket and the sign was a solicitation for written questions to ask the speakers who would be speaking in the 2 days that were scheduled.

I filled the basked up with questions having to do with The Power of the Internet, and the Power flowing to China, and questions that challenge the whole capitalist trade secret POWERS. I did not copy the questions to keep in case my questions were ignored or lost, and that was a mistake on my part.

Lew Rockwell was there too.

At the end of the first day, the speaker announced that the "hard" questions submitted by the audience would be answered the next day, and there was no other acknowledgement concerning my questions, and the next day came and went, and none of my questions were acknowledged or answered except by a speaker who said the following words:

If you can't beat em', join em'.

That, to me, was the answer that answered all my questions. They are in a Club of people who have "joined em'", and they know I am not in that club, and they don't want me in that club.

Ron Paul, in his speech, said that there were 2 anarchists in the audience, and I think that Ron Paul was informed about me, because of the questions I asked, and so those people in The Club were, and I'm guessing, insulating Ron Paul from unsavory characters?

Ron Paul said basically the same things he always says, including the Bring the Troops Home messages.

So The Club of people who Joined the Profits for War, since they can't beat em', probably don't want that Meat Grinder grinding all that meat, but so long as it is grinding, they can get their piece of the action?

That, again, is a theory, in the absence of information and you can't claim that I don't go looking for the answers. I have looked for the answers, and they (Lew Rockwell and The Club of Investors) keep the answers secret.


"D) You don't get the memos either, so who knows the truth? Doug Wead: at time 18:15 speaks on this topic."

Not only do I not get the memos, in fact, documented fact, I am shut out of networks, and I am censored regularly as I seek voluntary answers to voluntary questions.

If law is a process due everyone, not just a few, then law could be a tool that uncovers, documents, and makes "public" all the vital questions sought by anyone, without exception, in any case of any law broken by anyone anytime.

I paid to get answers, traveling to Las Vegas, and the answer I got was priceless?

"If you can't beat em': join me'."

" He says Washington and Hamilton were not criminals. What do you think about that? Maybe Mr. Wead does not yet know about Patrick Henry and Spooner on the Constitution?"

I may have to listen to Mr. Wead, but there is no absence of information that challenges Hamilton and Washington as good guys.

So I'm special, I just happen to know better?

How about a trial, us two, concerning Hamilton in particular, and the concept of creating a National Debt so as to, supposedly, create The Good Faith and Credit of the American People?

Did Mr. Wead buy some of that Brooklyn bridge stock?

Do you understand the concept of put options, futures, and selling short?

This may help:

I know, how much I know you may not know, but I know that this is very taxing, me throwing out all this information. I can condense that last link.

There is a method by which the many are controlled by the few and it is called investment, and if enough power is invested into rewarding people for bad things if, by chance, bad things happen, well...

If you can't fill in the blank, as to what does happen after well..., then I can spoon feed that realization into your sponge like brain, and you may suddenly have a light bulb moment.

I can also tell you that this practice of selling short, or this practice of put options, or this practice of investing in bad things, is not new.

If you go back to Lysander Spooners work on Trial by Jury you can find an interesting series of symbols in English to which I will find and quote from that work:

"Under the Saxon laws, fines, payable to the injured party, seem to have been the common punishments for all offences. Even murder was punishable by a fine payable to the relatives of the deceased. The murder of the king even was punishable by fine. When a criminal was unable to pay his One, his relatives often paid it for him. But if it were not paid, he was put out of the protection of the law, and the injured parties, (or, in the case of murder, the kindred of the deceased,)were allowed to inflict such punishment as they pleased. And if the relatives of the criminal protected him, it was lawful to take vengeance on them also. Afterwards the custom grew up of exacting fines also to the king as a punishment for offences"

If you do not connect these dots then I can connect them for you.

President Kennedy, for example, was murdered, and as King he knew the stakes, and the "lone gunman theory" is just another False Front hiding the facts. There are lone murderers, and then there are groups of people who have collected their combined power into funds, banks of power, where that power is then invested in accomplishing certain tasks, and that is how that works no matter what English symbols are used to label those things happening that way.

English words:

"The murder of the king even was punishable by fine."

Do you know what a put option is, or a futures investment?

Do you know what selling short means?

If there is ONLY a fine to be paid for The Murder of The King, then an investor can promise to pay the fine, and hire a killer to do the deed, and if the deed can be done that way, what, in English, do you call that murder, where that murder is punished in that way?

If a King was rich enough to pay the fines on murdering all those people in Iraq, and soon Iran, then why not do all that murder, if it was possible to seize control of the oil, and then protect the value of the Legal Money Monopoly Power?

Why does that work that way?

Because The People have to pay the fines when The People have been fooled into thinking that National Debt is required so as to GIVE The People Good Faith and Credit.

The Big Lie, obviously, is the fact that The People Earn their Good Faith and Credit themselves, they already have that POWER, and they don't need a Notional Debt, run up by a well organized crime ring made legal, to get what they already have earned.

The Federal Reserve Criminals claim to be The Lender of Last Resort.

Do you believe that claim?

Do you even believe that they claim that claim?

Do you understand that that is the same claim made by Hamilton concerning the need for a National Debt so as to GIVE The People Credit?

The Criminals spend the money they borrow from The People and then The Criminals hand The People the bills, while the Criminals (legal) claim to be The LENDERS.

Don't you see?

If the Speaker says Hamilton is a good guy, then I have a few questions concerning such a claim, since there are few possibilities concerning such a claim.

Good is equal to Fraud.

If Fraud is Good, then Hamilton is one of the good guys.

"OK, here we go...again...I have a bunch of posts that I have left unanswered by me and continue to proceed down the path of asking Josf new questions in new posts. So I have OBSERVED."

Know better, because the alternative costs too much, and you may pay a portion of those costs, but the bear cubs are next in line.

To me, and you can certainly question my authority, but to me a parent who puts their head back in the sand (or join's them because they claim that they can't be beaten) is pushing their children ahead in the line that goes to the meat grinder.

Put a uniform on them, send them off to keep the profits flowing?