Comment: Missing information

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I know you do mind (see in situ)

Missing information

I started looking at the video linked and at time 2:22 or so the speaker misses crucial information.

Do you miss the crucial information too.

This is a test, as I pretend to be the teacher, and you can pretend to be the student.

The speaker also fails to identify the most obvious current example of what will probably happen in America IF total War is not purchased by the Legal Criminals, so that Americans are then paying all that Total War Debt, after that event is followed through on schedule. I'm speaking about Russia. Russia just went through "collapse" of "only" the monetary kind, and that example serves as the best example if it is not a "collapse" that includes total war where America is chosen as the losers by the most powerful among us (the one's writing the purchase orders for World War III), so why not inspect current Russia if the idea is to figure out what America is going to look like while the most powerful among us remove our Legal Money Power from us?

I think the speaker misses a lot of vital information and as a consequence his viewpoint is relatively irrelevant.

Examples: "There is absolutely no reason why..."

The fact that there are very powerful people whose goal is to subject everyone to their exclusive power of will, that Elephant in the room, is again ignored.

What is the cost of absolute abject belief in falsehood without question?

Why can't reasonable people, honest people, productive people, sane people, not see the Elephant in the room?


Could it be that their minds have been invaded, and occupied, by a foreign power, a power that works to destroy them from within?

The Elephant in the room exists, so what explains the lack of capacity to see it, account for it, and then deal with it?

The defenders have to know what they are defending against.

The aggressive ones know this, so why don't the defenders know this fact?

I see know that the speak does tie in the need for mutual defense, but against what? The often repeated line (heard a lot in the Libertarian Party and "capitalist" circles) is non aggressive violence, and the missing element here is another test for you while I pretend to be teacher, in this case, and you can pretend to be the student.

Mission impossible on both counts?


What is missing in the history of America where the speaker goes all the way back in time to The Constitution?

What is missing in identifying the enemies of Liberty when the speaker lists the enemies as those people who resort to violence to impose their will upon non-violent people?

As to the name of what works, already prove to work, is Competitive Voluntary Associations.

Words need to be nailed down, since competitive does not mean antagonism (might makes right), competitive means mutually beneficial competition whereby better is chosen over worse (adaptation).

The speaker appears to understand the competition angle, whereby "experiments" are relatively comparable in search of something.

A Democratic Federated Republic with Trial by Jury based upon sortition - worked.