Comment: Friend from Foe again

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Good Words (see in situ)

Friend from Foe again

"See I can get into trouble too…when no one is lying to me."

Can I clarify my own story by saying that the lady at the voting table where I voted in the Primary was probably a lady that thought, in her own mind, that the votes would be counted "officially" by the correct "officials" and none of those "terrorists", or any one other than the "officials" would tamper with the votes because the box would be taped shut. So she was not lying to me when she answered my question concerning how can I know that my vote would be counted.

The problem with being lied to would occur as soon as my questions are geared toward figuring out if the person I am talking to is my friend, as a friend of Liberty, or my foe, as a friend of Legal Crime, and this is not "OH, that is just Joe, being Joe." as I've heard so often. When you wake up you realize that this stakes are potentially much higher on this road into absolute despotism, and the failures in our future will cost much more to our own behinds than our failures cause our own behinds now, as we may not be as close to the front of the line that enters the meat grinder right now.

I find people who begin to show their true color when they begin to contradict themselves with gestures, not just English sentences, so the obvious become obvious sooner in person than during discussions on forums.

When the obvious becomes obvious there is a complete change in view as the person who was helping me become the person who is no longer willing to help me.

Let me quote word from you, please? (I will anyway, this is a theatrical way of typing, along the lines of creating a more personal discussion, as I paint the picture of politeness with lyrical devices).

We just saw my daughter perform in her best play to date, and it was a very good show, something that would work very well as helpful entertainment in places where Television wasn't is such high demand, or in scarce supply (basically or principally the same physical condition).

Your words:

"The part that bothers me the most is that it seems to be done in packs like jackels or piranhas. It is too back we cannot figure out how to help each other."

I've seen this so often, not just in forums, this goes on in person, and I've already told you of the time before I ran for congress, at a public meeting among supposed Friends of Liberty, sometime between Waco and The Oklahoma City False Flags, during that time of higher profile NEWS concerning "The Militia Movement" and all heads in the room at once turned to me and yelled "NO!" and my words were merely factual, concerning a specific Falsehood that is believed to be true by all but 2 people in that group at that time. My friend was there and he actually had to tell me what had happened since my attention at the time was on communicating, or helping, to know better, and so I was speaking at the time, and everyone else was listening at that point, up until the wall of willful ignorance occurred in each mind.

So, bringing this back to the point in this discussion, the effort to find out if my vote is counted, and find out beyond a reasonable doubt, was not followed through by me, not to the point of finding who begins to actively, and willfully, resort to deceit to shut me up, to cattle prod me back into line, because I had more important things to do at that time, according to my own sense of BALANCE.

God only knows if I a wrong or right, as I think you are teaching me, and other people listening to our discussion, other people who refuse to participate, if such a person does exist, in the dark, my think many things on at least one scale as such:

You are helping me learn true spirituality.
Your are deceiving me with religious dogma.

Here is where the truth, as far as I know, works in what I think your words teach me. God only knows. I don't. Whomever else may be judging the accuracy of your viewpoint or my viewpoint does not know either. God only knows. We can help each other know better, or NOT.

We, by our individual employment of our POWER of will, aim to help each other, as we alone can, but ONLY if we listen to what each other has to say, because we know better than to assume that our limited POWER to know better (not even close to God POWER) is subject to great errors in judgment, and therefore we must, you and I, listen to other viewpoints if there is any hope for us to know better.

Often is the case that an infected (not woken up) person convicts another person of being guilty ON THE SPOT and at that point the judge in the case begins to execute punishment upon the convicted wrongdoer.



Lies are told because the infection is such that a "Conspiracy Theorist" is the enemy, and as such this "Conspiracy Theorist" (Terrorist now) can be rightfully lied to, to censor any further damage being done by the "Conspiracy Theorist" (Terrorist).

Do you willfully lie to me?

I'm not talking about any withholding of any personal (none of my business) information. I am talking about specific information that is powerful information whereby you withhold that information or distort that information to keep that information from reaching me?

What I am talking about is criminal censorship which is not to be confused, at all, or ever, with "telling stories" or merely maintaining a healthy boundary between public and personal information.

This goes along the lines of the concept of The First Amendment and the Fire in the Theater concept.

Someone who shouts fire in a crowded theater could cause, by that act, the injury of innocent people as innocent people may be trampled during the mad rush to exist the theater, and that can happen if there is no fire.

That "Fire in the Theater" can be willfully confused with an actor on stage yelling "Fire" in the Theater during the play, as such a PART of the play fits into the play. The audience does not, in unison, run for the exists when the actor plays out the part, but the audience will tend to get up, in unison, to run to the exit, if an official looking person is effectively communicating dire warnings.

So...your words again, in order:

"See I can get into trouble too…when no one is lying to me."

World War III is being paid for by the many potential victims as the few people who will potentially profit from World War III continue to work toward that goal.

The Fire is already burning in World War III, and so the warning can be very dire for those who are closest to it.

Lies that are willfully being communicated by actual people right now, or soon, so as to censor those warnings, are not (in my opinion) to be confused with any other distortions of the truth by anyone, for any reason.

The people who refuse to question the authority of the vote count are HELPING the people who are working to accelerate World War III.

How can that not be true?

The Chain of Command is the same chain as the chain of custody as is the same thing, in principle, as the chain of title.

Who knew what, when, and why was the chain broken at that point in that paper trail?

I broke that chain when I did not ask the next obvious question after the Lady answered my question with the words that intended to assure me of the accuracy of the vote count.

My next question could have been geared toward finding out if there was a Chain-of-Custody following my vote from me to the official vote count, such a Chain-of-Custody whereby I could trace back the entire path my vote takes from me to the final destination point, and I could count my votes along with every other vote, if there were any doubts I have, as to the legitimacy of this use of government as a tool to be used for Defense of Liberty instead of this use of this tool called government to be crimes made legal.

Which crimes?

Poisoning the water supply and then having the victims pay more for that "privilege"?

No, my part in the discussion with the lady at the table, the crimes made legal that concern everyone on this planet is the abomination that will become known as World War III if anyone is left to claim anything after it is over.

Is that true?

If we are all dead, then there is no Liberty.

Would a Friend of Liberty tell me lies to shut me up at that point?

Your words again:

"The part that bothers me the most is that it seems to be done in packs like jackels or piranhas. It is too back we cannot figure out how to help each other."

Your example teaches moderation? Know your own boundaries better? If one Friend of Liberty can help another it won't be by way of deceit, threats, or violent aggression, even in the face of criminal frauds, extortionists, and torturing mass murderers made legal?

Is there a fire in the theater?

Please allow me to return to Solzhenitsyn, the man who lived through the fire in the theater, and was then able to warn us about those things.

"And on top of this we are threatened by destruction in the fact that the physically compressed, strained world is not allowed to blend spiritually; the molecules of knowledge and sympathy are not allowed to jump over from one half to the other. This presents a rampant danger: THE SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION between the parts of the planet. Contemporary science knows that suppression of information leads to entropy and total destruction. Suppression of information renders international signatures and agreements illusory; within a muffled zone it costs nothing to reinterpret any agreement, even simpler - to forget it, as though it had never really existed. (Orwell understood this supremely.) A muffled zone is, as it were, populated not by inhabitants of the Earth, but by an expeditionary corps from Mars; the people know nothing intelligent about the rest of the Earth and are prepared to go and trample it down in the holy conviction that they come as "liberators"."

How easy is it, from the couch, or from the padded desk chair, to convict me of conspiracy theory in a modern form of a public hanging?

How easy is it to call in the National Guard when a few among us are failing to pay a tax on time (yes, that was the actual legal infraction claimed to be the reasoning behind the Waco Massacre)?

More from Solzhenitsyn:


"Those who fell into that abyss already bearing a literary name are at least known, but how many were never recognized, never once mentioned in public? And virtually no one managed to return. A whole national literature remained there, cast into oblivion not only without a grave, but without even underclothes, naked, with a number tagged on to its toe. Russian literature did not cease for a moment, but from the outside it appeared a wasteland! Where a peaceful forest could have grown, there remained, after all the felling, two or three trees overlooked by chance."

When you begin to see, you see dire things, because that is the truth.

Balance can be earned at the same time. I can help with that, in time, I have things to do today. I want to work on Product 1 and Product 2 more, if there were two or three trees overlooked by chance before, then that can happen again.

"You have my MO, do you?"

Balance is not easy, and you may surprise both of us in reaching that goal, you already surprise me.

"I know, there are a lot of things I do not do because to do them I know my personality, that I mostly keep hidden, would come out and bite someone. I am not diplomatic and I do not couch my words. It is better for everyone when I stay quite."

Here I think there is a balance of self censoring those words that will not communicate the accurate message, the messages that will help someone who can become a friend of Liberty, to help them turn around, if they are working the wrong way willfully, and experience may be a better cattle prod working on you than lies and false fronts have so far been overpowering?

How can you gain any experience if you are always kept silent by external forces (other than God)?

Are you deciding to keep quiet, or are you being told to keep silent and you obey without question such orders from above?

Is there room for balance?

“Ron Paul can't be a hoax unless the Federal Reserve is actually worthy of good credit, how can that not be obvious?”

I will try to remember that. I think you have told me before.

I have since thought up (competitively) a scenario whereby Ron Paul could be a hoax, or False Flag, or staged event, but that belongs in the deeper realm of Doom Day, which I prefer not to expend too much power onto that path.

I think Product 1 and Product 2, or applications of such things, can be more useful.

"That will be ok because: John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

If I may bridge the gap some: I see these words, now, in the continuing context of God as Truth, and Man is unworthy of the same claims, so I have to keep that in mind. God does not speak to me personally, as if God were another man, like my own father speaking to me, so that has to be set aside in my mind, and I have to see God speaking to me as I see life as a whole, life is the message that God creates, including me, so those are his words to me, so far.

If other people know better, that is what they know, not me, not yet.

I can separate words that other people tell me about God, from what God actually tells me, so far, and other people are created by God, but those forms of life are capable of willfully lying to me, and those other life forms are also capable of passing on falsehood, even if they are, themselves, deceived.

I have that check going, that reservation of skepticism, in any word finding its way to me, as I know enough to know that we human beings are not God, so we can fail to know better.

How does the information actually work when the information is applied to life in our time?

"You have many good words that are appreciated by me."

This again is shared.