Comment: Never can trust me.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am seeing red. And I don't (see in situ)

Never can trust me.

I think it may be a good idea to never trust someone, no matter how many times the same lack of trust is shown to be baseless.

So you ask me again if I am guilty of all the bad things you think I am guilty of because I may, somehow, be closely associated with people you don't like?

You don't like people because they are closely associated with other people who do things that you don't like.

Here is your question:

"Are you a member of Or are you a member of any of those “pink” groups?"

You can check.

I was a member of the John Birch Society, United We Stand (Ross Perot's version), the Libertarian Party (was on the ballot in 1996 for National Office), The Mises (Austrian Economics) forum (and I was fraudulently removed from their forum), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (joined in the sense that I won Honorable Mention in a writing contest), The Real News Network (was on their forum before it their forum was removed from the web), Free State Project Forum (was removed from their forum without notice), Anarchism Dot Net Forum (their forum was taken over by spam bots), The Republican Party (at your request, as we made a deal, and I'm still registered Republican right now as far as I know), The American Rifle Association (I stopped paying dues when they would not even recognize that I was a candidate for National office in 1996), The Prison Planet Forum (was removed without any fair treatment or defense on my part and all my work was summarily erased as in Down the Memory Hole), and now I offer my viewpoints on this forum, and now I joined in a book writing effort.

You have the list, you can check it, I may have left something on the left out, the only left leaning thing on the list is the effort to speak to the left on the Real News Network Forum.

Your question again:

"Are you a member of Or are you a member of any of those “pink” groups?"


I have read a lot of the word done by a mother whose son was killed in the Iraq massacre that is still going on today.

I can name that name too, but you may see RED and then my integrity is questioned again.

I have listened to a lot of people who speak accurate words from what can be called the left, but again that is the part of the spectrum that your perspective is trained to censor, so good luck with that and I can help, perhaps, but the point at which the laws of diminishing returns takes affect appears once again.

You wrote this:

"Equity is not possible voluntarily."

That is a confusion of words in English on your part. Equity is voluntary. Voluntary is equity. If it isn't equity it isn't voluntary. If it isn't voluntary it isn't equity. If it isn't voluntary or equity, then what is it?

I may be the one confused.

Which meaning of which word is the meaning of the word you want to use in any given case whatsoever?

"The same kind that takes people's guns and tries to make everyone equal thru force."

I think the word, in English, that is an accurate word for people who gain power by making their targeted victims weaker is Criminal.

I think the accurate word is Criminal.

If a Criminal can get away with crime by wearing a RED coat, then they will wear a RED coat.

If a Criminal can get away with a crime by waring a Sheep mask, then they will wear a Sheep mask.

I think the accurate word in English for people who invent deception and then employ deception on their victims is Crime.

"And they applaud because Israeli ships are turned away and a French/Israeli railroad has been halted…What kind of freedom is that?"

That is a case of you at the store and you find a deal that looks too good to be true and you find out that there are hidden costs because the things being sold are "subsidized" by the very same people that make you see RED when someone tries to inform you that the very same people who "subsidize" are the very same people who make you see RED when anyone tries desperately to inform you about those people, those specific people, such as a guy named Edward Bernays.

I think the correct English words are: receiving stolen property.

I think there are other accurate words in English for receiving stolen property such as: aiding and abetting the enemy.

The "Right" (Might makes Right) love Edward Bernays.

An example of someone on the "Right" who loves Edward Bernays is a guy name Joseph Goebbels.

"The Israelis are people too."

John Pilger is person too, an individual.

The Nazi's are not a people, it is a name used to describe a set of people who can be listed as the only people who aid and abet Nazi's in one way or another.

Neo-conservatives are not a people, it is a name.

Zionists are not a people, it is a label.

Responsibility is individual, or there is no such thing.


"If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all."

"More taxes to help those who cannot help themselves?"

What do you mean by the word "taxes"?

Do you mean the payment of legal purchasing power paid by those who produce productive power to those who steal that power through deceit, threats of violence, and violence upon the innocent?

I think the word you are looking for is: Crime.

You may want to play the word games. I do not.

"That is forced and we see how that works."

What is force? What kind of force do you have in mind?

If a mother is working the coat hanger to pierce the brain of the unborn insider her, and you are there, do you force your will upon the mother?

You speak of force as if it is all bad - apparently.

" No, individuals should help others individually. NOT THRU SOCIALIZED CENTRAL PLANNING."

All capital letters, I like that, it adds a measure of expedience, or importance to the words you choose.

What is the working definition of "Socialized"?

Do you actually mean to capitalize the words that convey the accurate meaning that holds the specific people responsible for perpetrating crimes upon the innocent or do you actually prefer to help those same people who are perpetuating crimes upon the innocent?

I can't tell, so I ask.

"That is what is wrong with this country."

What, in your mind, is "this country"?

Crime is wrong with "this country"?

So, having something assumed on my part, I can ask who, and what army is going to stop crime, ever, and who will that specific individual manage that miracle, and until that specific individual preforms that miracle, is there anything anyone else can do while so many innocent people are currently being tortured and murdered, and lesser crimes perpetrated upon them?

I suppose that we are all guilty, sure, but my guess is that the ones profiting the most for each torture victim's demise are somewhat more a concern for those who are currently suffering the most just before their deaths at the hands of those specific people.

Person collecting the funds for legal torture and murder.
Those paying the cost, or, in other words: the victims of torture and murder, and their families who somehow survive the torture of having their loved one's tortured and murdered for fun and profit.

A is, to me, a concern.

B is, to me, a concern.

A can be, if possible, avoided, and if not, at least held to account for what they actually do in reality.

B can be abandoned, sure, but it may be possible to not abandon them and just let them be tortured more and murdered more while we wait for the one individual who makes everything right all of a sudden.

"There is no New Left. It is all Left. Josf, if this is what you advocate, please be as honest with me as John Pilger is with his likeminded crowd."

What do you consider to be "likeminded" and if you can be accurate I can answer the question. I actually listened to what the person said, so I can quote from those words that were said, and then I can agree with almost all of it, each word, and if you have a contention concerning any word, then I can tell you, honestly, if I advocate telling the truth or not, in any case.

If you want me to say, yes, bear, go ahead and punish me publicly for all the crime committed by all the criminals hiding behind all the falsehood, since I advocate all those crimes hidden by all that falsehood, then you wont' get that from me, because I do no such thing.

You can punish me in this public hanging, go ahead and pull the lever to the trap door, and let me drop to my death, that is fine with me.

Push the button, pull the trigger, whatever works for you.

"Yes, I had trouble with that other link too. It is communist subversion. I am not stupid."

Stupid is relative, just like happy life is relative to miserable death - in my opinion.

If there is a desire to communicate accurately, then it can happen. If there is no desire to communicate accurately, then that can happen too.

If there is a desire to communicate falsely, that can happen, as well as can happen a goal reached to not communicate falsely.

The other link, and I am going to quote, because I actually listened to the words spoken by the brave, or not so brave, person:

"...destruction of Iraq's electrical grids incapacitated the medical system..."

That can be understood as both a confession of ignorance and a statement of fact - in my opinion.

The ignorance concerns the concept of ownership, and I can go in great detail concerning how ignorant it is to suggest that a "country" can own something.

The statement of fact is obvious, as it is essential for criminals to inflict the most injury to their targets in ways that remove all the power that is in the control of the targets.

So I speak in words that make no sense to many people, because I use accurate words?

I don't fall into the traps of employing deception, or I am not victim to deception?

You tell me, after you get over your current hit piece on me, as you again assassinate my character with this close association you are moving me towards criminals that you call "socialists" or whatever false front works to hide their crimes better.

"Do you think that John Pilger is employing deception, threats of violence, and violence to injure innocent people, or the same question is to ask if you think that John Pilger is on the side of the Legal Criminals..."

Yes, that is exactly what I think. He is telling the Left side of the story just as bad as the people on the right tell the right side of the story. IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left.

Here I am left completely in the dark, and for what reason? You are leaving me completely in the dark, so you must know the reason, even if the reason is "you don't know" why you willfully leave me completely in the dark as to what exactly John Pilger said where John Pilger is guilty of what you say he is guilty of doing.

Advocating civil liberties is a guess I have as to what you think is this:

"IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left."

Why should I presume to know anything (from my position of darkness) concerning what you mean when you make your viewpoint known to me in an ambiguous way as you have just done.

What, exactly, is John Pilger guilty of doing according to you, and consider using quotes, so as to shed some light into the dark room that I see on my end concerning what you actually mean when you use the words you choose in the way you use those words.


"IMO he is using the evil of the right to bring about the evil of the left."

My guess:

Civil Liberties = "evil of the left"
Women are no longer the property of men according to "the law" currently being enforced by the enforcers of "the law".

So much for my guesses, from the dark you place me in on this specific concern (which I share).

"It is called domination of the masses. I don't want to be dominated by anyone, not the right, nor the left."

John Pilger, the guy I thought would make a good moderator (if there has to be only one, and not two, and then a need for another moderator, which was my point of pointing out the absurdity of the concept of debate) is guilty of "domination of the masses", and if so, then how, exactly, is that done by John Pilger, and consider using quotes, so as not to leave me completely in the dark.

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

Peirs Morgan and John Pilger on the same side? Now there would be a good interview. Which person is more qualified to interview the other, and what would the questions be, and what would the answers be, in any case whatsoever?

Gun laws in America?

You think John Pilger would be on the same side as Peirs Morgan on any issue?

I think that John Pilger makes it plainly clear that "governments" abuse the "right to own guns" and he does so very well: in an accurate, on the scene, personal witness, sense.

How close to actual gun violence has Peirs Morgan reported as personal experience and qualification to speak about it - at all?

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

Forgive my next flair of emotion that I feel like saying - please.

You say this:

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

I say: "Are you on crack?"

Piers Morgan wants to take more power away from the targets of Legal Crime and that is the same goal as making sure that Legal Crime is handed more, and more, and more power.

Do you really think that someone dedicating his life to reporting the actual, accurate, abuse of gun violence, BY GOVERNMENTS, is the same, or equal to, what Piers Morgan does?

"I think he and Piers Morgan are on the same side = Anti-American."

Do you mean Anti-Legal Crime American Style, Neo-Nazi, Neo-CON, Neo-Liberal, or whatever word covers it up, and if that is what you mean then Piers Morgan is not Anti-American, since he is paid handsomely, or kept alive, for covering up the crimes done by those Legal Criminals American Style.

My guess, at this point, is that you can't, you refuse, you won't, it is not possible for you, to even consider anything said by anyone who you are told is your enemy, as you are told those lies by your enemies.

That is my guess. I'm in the dark, since I have no clue as to what John Pilger actually said that places John Pilger on the same "side" as that Obamination Piers Morgan.

"Is that the truth? I do not know."

Neither do I. I can say that after listening to Piers Morgan I suppose I'm supposed to pay more taxes and let his kind take care of everything. After listening to John Pilger I prefer not to allow another watt of my power, that I earn, to be stolen from me and allowed to finance more of the same mass torture and mass murder already piling up on my account.

"His house, my house, your house, too? Are much nicer than those of the 3rd world victims I just saw. Why should we have what we have?"

Because we earn it.

That is going to change, you know the whole "change" thing, a big play on words, so much fun, play, play, play, with words.

We are on the hook, supposedly, for some TWO HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF DEBT, for our part in "Spreading Democracy" and who do you think is going to be collecting that sum?

We here in American are being sold out by the Piers Morgans, and all our power is going to our enemies, through deceit, threats of violence, and in one generation, if we don't wise up sooner, and stop this infighting, our numbers will be the starving ones, and our enemies will be the ones letting us die, because our electric grids will be shut off, and our medical systems will be no more, and our power will be less than required for survival, and we will pass the THIRD WORLD on into the FOURTH WORLD because those on the schedule to raise the BAR of Criminal Dominance will set a new BAR of abject belief in falsehood without question, which is hell on earth, soon enough.

"Are we any better than the super wealthy when people are suffering and starving and we live in our “ivory towers?” and talk about it?"

Do you resort to deceit, willfully, to gain at the expense of your targeted victims?


Not as much?

Not at all?

What did you ask?

"Are we any better than the super wealthy when people are suffering and starving and we live in our “ivory towers?” and talk about it?"

Which super wealthy?

Those who earn their earnings in a big way by way of honest work traded within a narrow band of moral sense, or the other way, which is the criminal way, by way of deceit, threats of violence, and violence perpetrated willfully upon innocent victims?

Why is this at all difficult to understand? I don't know.

I can't give that which I don't have, but I can give that which I do have, and if I give up too much, then I die, and then I don't have anything to give anyone.

Giving is an investment, it is good for me.

I can't give that which I don't have, and I can't be a martyr for the same reason, I have nothing to give. I don't have the need, or want, or reason to make myself powerless so as to remove the need for someone else to figure out what they need to do to make themselves powerful.

"Why should we have what we have?"

I think every living life form must, by necessity, produce more power than the power they consume, failure means death. If a life form consumes itself, its own power, as in cannibalism, then that life form is soon extinct - gone forever - with or without God's help.

We ought to figure out that helping each other, by asking first, and settling only for the accurate answer, is better for us, individually, and as a sum of all the individuals put together, since the opposite is, in a word: cannibalism.

English is tricky business.

"men that killed their own?"

"And I don't know about Hugo Chavez..."

I actually listen to what the man has to say. I don't agree with a lot of what he has to say. I keep asking one question: Does Hugo Chavez enforce a Legal Money Monopoly or not?

You tell me.

I know that an answer of yes is a confession, and so is a non-answer.