Comment: Accurate not innacurate

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Long Reply (see in situ)

Accurate not innacurate

“The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.”

So is the first like the Bolshevik revolution where a worse tyranny is taking over thru revolution?

But I don't understand the second except that what I am hearing in my mind is that a violent revolution excused because of repression.
__________________________________________________

Is it a good idea to confuse the goal with an accident? If it is, then a person may continue working half their life to pay someone to repeat accidents perpetually, since the person making that mistake fails to know that the goal of the person spending the money is to confuse the person sending the money.

That is how I read the first part:

"The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions;"

That is the essence of the lie that is crime made legal. The criminals know their goals, and they know that to reach their goals they have to confuse their victims with False Fronts so that their victims are led to believe that they are not victims, and the victims are led to believe that "revolutions" (Legal Crimes) are "the indispensable" agents of fill in the blank.

The big lie perpetrated upon the victims is always a transfer of power from the victims who create that power, that power that is worth stealing, and then that power is used to steal more power from the victims.

That is how I read the first part.

You ask:

"So is the first like the Bolshevik revolution where a worse tyranny is taking over thru revolution?"

Why do you ask the question in that way? I've broadcast the links to Anthony Sutton's work on Wall Street financing all sides, including the Bolshevik "side" so as to cause World War II. Why was Stephen Pearl Andrews and Mikhail Bakunin thrown out of The First Internationale? Where did Lenin get his start up money?

A quick look (by me, not a quick look by other people) finds this:

http://www.whale.to/c/karl_marx.html

____________________________________________________
According to the most famous myth, Marx had no money and was economically dependent on his "friend" Engels. In reality, Nathan Rothschild financed him. This was revealed by his close associate Mikhail Bakunin in his "Polemique contre les Juifs" ("Polemic Against the Jews"). Bakunin broke away from Marx and his companions, because "they had one foot in the bank and the other foot in the socialist movement"
_____________________________________________________

Who is currently funding all sides in World War III? You are told that The Chinese are buying Federal Reserve Paper, Debt, owed by who to who?

That POWER, you, me, we, are told, that POWER from The Chinese, as Loans, loans from The Chinese, is then being spent by American Military Forces, to encircle, seize oil, gas, minerals, water, precious metals, and threaten The Chinese?

Those LOANS, from The Chinese, those hard working industrious people, making things we use to make here, making things no one in their right mind would buy if their mind were not bombarded constantly with lies, those LOANS, that DEBT, is not seen by you as an investment, because you are spending how much of your life sending your earnings to The Federal "Government", so you are confused by those investments that become bombs, boots, knives, tanks, Aircraft Carriers, missiles, liars in suits, television shows, torture, death, destruction, and the perpetual moving of power from those who crate it to those who then use that stolen power to perpetuate their destruction of all competition where ever, and when ever, competition to the Single Legal Money Monopoly Power exists.

In history the names were Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and the goal was moving the too well discovered Bank of England Monopoly False Front to America under the new better, less discoverable Federal Reserve World Bank International Monetary FUND.

It is the same FUND.

It is The New World Order already working as planned and the plan has nothing to do with falsified concepts like socialism, or capitalism, or fascism, or communism, or liberalism, or imperialism, or despotism, since all those words are merely words, and they are all used as false fronts for the real plan.

The real plan is a Legal Money Monopoly Power whereby DEBT is institutionalized as a method by which the few remove the power of the many and then use the stolen power to keep on stealing, and crushing any competition that may exist anywhere on the planet.

Then you wrote:

"But I don't understand the second except that what I am hearing in my mind is that a violent revolution excused because of repression.

You wrote that in reference to this:

"the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.”

I read that as Legal Crime (The One Monopoly Power) is a willful effort by the few most powerful human beings to keep their power and they "repress" because that is the only way they can maintain their power, since competition removes their power.

The lies run so deep that even the word "revolution" is a lie, because the natural human condition is peace and so the victims are twisted up so much by those few legal criminals that the victims are led to believe that it is "revolutionary" to be natural; while the opposite is true. Mankind destroying mankind is not natural, so that is the "revolutionary power" at work, as that power works against natural human peace and harmony.

1.
Natural human peace and harmony is measurable as a steady growth of surplus wealth making human life higher in quality and lower in cost, and that is not revolutionary, that is merely humans being humans.

2.
A few human rejects, mutations, unnatural examples, turn the natural order around, revolve the natural order into destruction instead of production, and then those few divide their targets against each other, so as to then command that man made twisted power of production, turning it into a destructive power instead.

Natural order is peace, harmony, love, cooperation, competition to be better today than yesterday, honestly, accurate perception, and an ever increasing supply of power. In your terms, to me, that means that God made human beings for human prosperity, that is how we are made by God - to me.

Evil people among us, remake, or unmake, the natural order, they twist it, they revolve it, they turn it up-side-down, and they set each of their targets against each of their targets, so as to employ, control, command, take-over, and consume all that human power in the work of destroying any competition to their power.

It all sounds so cartoon like, so unbelievable, sure, but a quick look at how Legal Money Works in Legal Crime uncovers the gruesome proof of just how true what I say is, in fact.

________________________________________
“The first considers revolutions as the indispensable agent of evolutions; the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.”

So is the first like the Bolshevik revolution where a worse tyranny is taking over thru revolution?

But I don't understand the second except that what I am hearing in my mind is that a violent revolution excused because of repression.
__________________________________________________

Tucker was quoting words from someone who was as clued in as Tucker. Might I remind you that Tucker was not clued in on The Constitution as it was a crime in progress, as explained by George Mason and Patric Henry, so many people intending to help you and me see the facts, do not see the facts well themselves.

So...the language becomes confusing.

Violent revolution is employed by someone, it is not accidental, there are human being signing purchase orders, and where do those human beings get their power to purchase with those purchase orders that will be followed without question.

We are back to the mirror.

I can tell you, again, this is a very dangerous path to be on, this concept of knowing the truth, it gets ugly fast. I have built up a few ways to avoid becoming very depressed very fast, but I don't have the safe place you have, so my ways may be of no use to you.

When looking in the mirror, to me, there has to be an accurate measure of the power available, and then an understanding of exactly how far my accountability goes in this mess.

If I had a button, for example, where I can make someone else see the truth, then I would not push that button on myself, and I would not push that button on other people, because that is not how it works.

The friend I had who was one of the survivors of the Bataan Death March cautioned against the wastes of wishing things into being.

If...

How about when instead?

How about a short list and a due date?

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (not to collect War Debt)
4.
Get all that done by July 4th, 2013

Who is investing in the other direction?

"But I don't understand the second except that what I am hearing in my mind is that a violent revolution excused because of repression."

You read more into what was said, to me. What was said was an accurate statement concerning the cause of the effect.

"the second teaches that repression alone turns evolutions into revolution.”

I read that as an accurate statement teaching people to see the cause as being the cause instead of failing to do so.

Repression = Legal Crime
Evolutions = Natural competition reaching for better instead of worse
Revolutions = Legal Crime (victims led to fight each other instead of avoiding Legal Crime)

The author may himself be confused.

I don't know, it depends upon how the author defines the words used by the author.

"So from what I am reading from that statement is that once Jefferson was the president he pardoned those that had been imprisoned by Adams, but then Jefferson used those same laws to prosecute during his own presidency."

That is interesting and I'd like to know more specifics in that case. It sounds a lot like the Legal Crime Television News Media in this Country blaming Hugo Chavez for prosecuting Television Producers in Venezuela.

What was said by the people who are prosecuted by John Adams?

What was said by the people who are prosecuted by Thomas Jefferson?

If Hugh Chavez is prosecuting the Television Producers for libel, slander, and fomenting violent take over of a peaceful (relatively peaceful) Democratic Federated Republican form of government, not that I know it is, but I'm asking if it is, because knowing better is better than knowing lies.

John Adams may have been looking for power to then use that power to destroy the competition being offered by The French.

Thomas Jefferson may have been looking to promote competition between Americans (north and south), The British, and The French, to allow the best to be the best.

I don't know. I'd like to know what was said by the people Thomas Jefferson censored.

I'm pretty sure that John Adams censored people who spoke the truth.

John Adams was a so called Federalist and not too far in the distant past those same Nationalists hiding behind their False Federalist Papers were called out as Nationalists by such notable figures as George Mason and Patrick Henry. John Adams may have fought The British, in some sense, but like Hamilton and Washington, they were, those Nationalists, with their False Federalism, were on the side of The British, The Legal Monopoly Money Power, etc.

The French used their power to help Americans drive the British Mercenaries out of America, mercenaries themselves, hired by Americans.

Who was going to pay all that War Debt? Who created all that War Debt?

Is this sounding at all familiar?

"While speaking highly of Jefferson, they mentioned that Jefferson had his contradictions as well. I found it interesting that Jefferson represented a negative form of liberty; i.e. the state does not grant liberty but the state is to protect liberty. I already knew that but I had never heard the word “negative” used with Jefferson’s approach."

I think that goes back to Tucker and the poem offered. What is the cause? The cause is caused by repression. The cause is repression. So, what is the solution?

The false solution is positive? Let us, you and I, repress those who repress?

No, it is negative, let us avoid having anything to do with repression, so my advice is to be more accurate with words, so why call it repression, why even call it negative or positive?

Why not call those criminals by their names. That is a first step, and it is positive, and then the negative action is to not become them, not be them, not join them, not connect to them, not allow them to take our earnings and use our earnings to take more of our earnings.

So Jefferson took control of U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), which was not a Democratic Federated Republic. So did Jefferson ever face a State governor, a State demand, a power that threatened Jefferson's power to "preserve the Union"?

Free Speech can be exemplified right here, as I could say, hey, those guys are criminals, with badges, and the revolutionary suggestion is to stop paying them so well for so many very evil crimes they commit with the power they steal.

I'm not a tax protestor, what I am saying is true.

If I were to say that all government is bad, and all of us people must overthrow all government, then I am just another idiot running at the mouth.

If I begin to have many people marching beside me all through a city like Selma, in a State like Alabama, or if I begin to inspire people to gather round me at a College Campus like Kent State, then what is bound to happen under those conditions?

What happened to Thomas Paine? Which side wins?

A. No, no, no, we don't become that which we abhor.

B. Now that we are in power, we command The Routine, what can be more positive!

__________________________________________________
• Mark 2:27 KJV
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath

So, I can say marriage was made for man [people], not man for marriage and the laws that were in place were actually making marriage the thing of importance instead of the people. Now I am thinking a little of Marx’s words that you have repeated to me several times about labor and the living ruling over the dead. Tho I still do not completely understand that.
___________________________________________________

I think this can be seen from another angle that may help.

A person is built to survive as an individual. There are powers internal to the individual that kick in when threatened, and these instincts for individual survival are irrefutable facts, knowable realities.

That is one power.

There is also a power in the individual where there is a goal of perpetuating the species, to make the species survive, not just the individual.

That is another power.

Where do those powers agree?

Do those powers ever disagree?

That addresses the "made for man" idea, or perception, because the goal is "going forth and prospering", as individuals, because that is how we are made, and as "collective" sum totals of individuals over time.

Time is where Marx points out a lie, and a very good lie, in my opinion. I misuse the word good on purpose.

When an individual chooses to lie, then the two powers discussed earlier disagree, do they not, or am I lying to you?

Person A wants to survive better so Person A decides to survive better by passing on the costs of surviving better to Person B, but Person A knows better as to what Person B will accept or not accept from Person A.

Problem: solution = invent a false front so that the target gives up the power that the target needs for survival so that the criminal can live better at the expense of the target.

What does that do to the power needed for the survival of the species?

Total power goes down, since the criminal adds nothing to total power, and the criminal reduces the capacity of the target to produce more power out of less power, so the end result is disagreement in purpose; as offered earlier.

1. Individual power, will, force, desire, need, demand, for survival.

2. Collective power, will, force, desire, need, demand, for survival embodied within the individual.

What happens when a criminal, or a wild animal, or mad dog, is threatening the child of a mother?

If the threat is a mad dog, then there is no question by the mother as to the need to negate the power of the dog in such a way as to save the mother from the dog?

So the mother waits until the dog is busy chewing on the child to then get a chance to do something about protecting herself from the dog?

Here have this kid to keep you busy while I go call 911?

Is there a different problem if it is a human being threatening to take your kids and drive them into hell on earth for fun and profit?

So you may see my trouble being passed onto you, as I keep looking at myself in the mirror, reasoning out all those years of making so much money, and having so much of my earnings flowing to mad dogs who torture babies, burn them to death, for fun and profit?

It sure is negative, sure is, and there isn't anything positive about it.

"I guess in Tuckers day that would have been grounds for imprisonment or the such."

Tucker was as student of Warren, and Warren's work predated The Civil War, a big event, but Tucker was more contemporary with the situation after The Civil War, if I understand the situation, so the idea of "free love" being a high profile issue, is to me more of the divide and conquer routine at play, to dilute the power that goes right for the heart of the matter. Cutting to the chase can't be allowed by the Monopolists.

"The interview I linked below also spoke about disassociating history from happenings. I think I fail in that way. I fail miserably to follow who, what, where, when, why and how method of reasoning before throwing my thoughts out for your review. I suppose I talk off the top of my head too much."

That again, to me, has to do with the Marx quote republished by Eric Fromm, and here it is a good idea to forget about Marx and see the context offered by Eric Fromm. The concept of things being current, as in "Hey, what do we do now?" is the true meaning of the statement, to me. Instead of being led to slaughter, by the big lie, by The FUND, by National Debt, by World War III, by things held responsible for the actions of people, instead of that false leadership down that false positive path, instead of all that destruction, how about a better current reality such as what happens after a few things being negated?

1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
End Wars of Aggression where War Debt is collected
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2013 and then see what we can do with all the power we earn that is no longer being sent down that false positive path.

If you think about it, all that we can do to reach the goal by July 4th are all positive things, because the best way to End the FED is to invent money, produce money, and use money that isn't the Monopoly Money, and that goes for The IRS too, since the IRS demands Federal Reserve Notes, if no one uses them, they don't have anyone to target, unless they change their own rules that they may or may not even follow.

Bringing the Troops Home can be home schooling your children, private tutors hired, children becoming private tutors, anything but dressing them up in Union Uniforms to fight for The FUND under the false banner of God and Country.

What is current? What is a thing, held accountable?

There are very serious crimes IN PROGRESS, and "the government" or "the gun" didn't do IT.

Thinking in terms of ONE THING, a static object, is a way of dividing the targets and keeping them powerless.

Thinking in terms of current events is a competitive and powerful way to exist while being alive on this Earth. How were things happening in the past, how are things happening right now, and how will things probably happen in the soon and in the distant future?

1. Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question

2. What options are there other than the ONE listed above?

"I haven’t changed my mind about Jericho, and you haven’t either as far as I can tell, but I do not take that as a reflection upon me. You and I come from very different places in our understandings."

That appears to be apples and oranges to me. God murders babies? That is a question. You tell me the accurate answer, please.

You made the claim that Tucker was advocating adultery.

That is not the same thing. I can understand how you arrive at the false claim about Tucker (if it is false), and you can understand that the answer to my question about God is the answer you give me, but to suggest that one is the same as the other situation, if that is what you are doing, is false.

It is the same situation in the context that we are both reaching for the same goal, through competitive discussion, to know better, and to work to avoid knowing worse. That is my goal.

"That was a cheap shot IMO."

One guy attacks Andrews, misrepresents Andrews, in almost the same way that you misrepresent Tucker, and you think that Andrews, in defense, is guilty of a cheap shot.

I guess I can understand how that works, but finding agreement is not possible at this point in time. More evidence proving the point, the personal nature of the letter, Andrews overstepping the boundaries of good conduct in divulging private, not public, information, etc., could open my eyes to this alleged cheap shot perpetrated by Andrews.

"It would be like you publishing the words I wrote about myself here on this public forum in a book adding words of ridicule against me and then publishing it."

In your opinion it would be like that, but I have no cause to do that, since this is a public access forum already. The obvious intent, at least to me, and very well repeated over and over again, by Andrews, was to help his mutual associate James, to know better, despite the fact that James, not Andrews, was guilty of attacking, and doing so with falsehoods.

"I am not sure I like the way Andrews did that to that man who was speaking privately about his own wife and their personal “adjustments.” That incident caused me to loose respect for Tucker at that time."

If that is cause for loss of respect then there are so many things about me that you aught to consider before you credit me with any respect whatsoever.

"I remember you didn’t like me questioning Pilger either."

If you are going to work on avoiding further misrepresentations then you aught to know that the above sentence is another serious misrepresentation. I think that you must, in the sense of "it is vital for survival", question.

Question Pilger.

Question your own viewpoint.

Now you are claiming that I don't like it when you question?

That is false, so long as I know me, so long as I am not victim to my own lies. What I did not like was your misrepresenting Pilger.

You say you don't mean to misrepresent people, sure, I get that, but you keep doing it.

"I remember you didn’t like me questioning Pilger either."

That is a misrepresentation.

You did it.

"I like to read your words."

I like to read your words, and when your words are misrepresentations I point them out, as far as I can tell, within the obvious limits of my power to know better.

"It never crossed my mind that the government was punishing people for making mistakes."

That sentence confesses a lot of trouble in thinking, to me. A thing cannot "punish" and that is what Tucker was all about, the message offered, is that individuals punish, and individuals make up these lies where the liars are not held to account for the actions of the liars, instead there is a thing that is held to account for those actions.

The lie that works is the lie that affords a person the power to punish someone who does no wrong to anyone.

A person who publishes accurate words reporting the facts that expose the liars holding government offices may be a person who is legally captured, legally sent to another country, legally tortured for years, and then legally murdered.

The government did it.

The government did it in the name of National Interest.

What is the interest rate now?

"No men with badges ever banged on the doors and hauled me off to jail for the things that were going on in my parent’s home."

You are looking into dark places. I have tried to warn you. Occasionally I begin to lose the battle for my own sanity, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

"Please be more patient with me when I don’t understand."

I want to continue our discussions, and I can continue to be patient.

I see that you have done the work on Tucker defining words, and if you can now see, in any case, it still works.

If you place a definition in Tucker's mouth, then he is not speaking about the definition in your mind, so Tucker is not talking about Love, as you see it, in that case.

If you place your definition of the same word in Tucker's sentence, then does that still work or not?

In any case, the same result is the same result, if an individual can, he or she can, and if an individual will, he or she will, and if an individual may, he or she may, in each case.

How does that turn into Tucker advocating adultery?

I was not steaming so much as determined to stand in front of Tucker to take the hits you aim at him, and it became a futile effort in my own mind, something wasteful, at your expense. You were attacking, I was defending, and I was sticking to the facts, but current realities are such that you and I will either know better or we won't, and Tucker isn't going to be turning over in his grave, as far as I can tell, so what is the point?

My wife just asked me to get to work in an hour and pay the bills.

"Regarding Ron Paul and legalizing drugs. During the 2008 election that is all I knew of him. That is what the media made sure people heard about…some politician that wants to legalize drugs. It was not until 2011 I actually heard all of Dr. Paul’s message."

That is the angle on throwing "Love and Marriage" into the Public Discussions on Liberty. Instead of discussing how evil it is to pay the most evil people the most money for doing the most evil things, the discussion is moved to "Love and Marriage" as a challenge to the principles of self-government, or Liberty, or Competitive Open Source Free Market Government.

It is called a diversion. It is part of "Divide and Conquer".

"Try to help without enabling. Ron Paul says you can’t legislate morality. I still do not completely understand those words except that I think that what he is saying is that laws will not make people moral. Individuals have to make themselves moral. But in my mind I think that laws can and do act as deterrents in a good way. I don’t have all that sorted out in my mind."

Take any case of any wrongdoing anywhere and apply the concept of Competition in Government or Free Market Government Competition Products.

Do you know any competitive forms of ways that people have invented and offered to each other as a means of solving the crime problem?

If you don't, then you are well behind in the learning curve.

One way is Trial by Jury based upon Sortition.

Try that out in a few cases, see how it works in any case.

Pick up any case of anyone anywhere where there is a willful criminal making a victims out of someone targeted by the criminal.

Pick one.

We can do the work.

Take any case that can, will, or may happen, and we can try a few angles of view, competitive angles of views, as to which ways can work to solve that crime problem, and which ways work less well.

"Ron Paul says you can’t legislate morality."

In context the man is a National Congressman, not even a Democratic Federated Republic Congressman, and that POWER is a Monopoly Power, and it is a criminal POWER, because the criminals have taken over that POWER, if it every was anything but a criminal POWER, it certainly is a criminal POWER now, and in that context the word "legislate morality" has an unambiguous meaning, case by grueling case, in any case you may want to use to illustrate the truth of the words spoken by Ron Paul.

"I don’t know. I have never read the Articles of Confederation.'

The People who fled from religious and "legal" persecution had competitive, constitutionally limited, State governments being threatened by ONE MONOPOLY POWER known as The British. They formed a Democratic Federated Republic so as to combine defensive military power against The British.

The plan was to disconnect from the Legal Criminals known as The British.

It worked as planned. The British were driven out of America.

Is that not true?

I think it is demonstrably false to claim that The Constitution and The First Amendment ending State Sanctioned Religion, if that is a serious claim made by anyone. If Rhode Island was one State where a few people where not forcing everyone else to participate in this or that, including this or that religion, then that proves the case that competition works in a Democratic Federated Republic as Rhode Island sets the better example.

The Constitution made slavery legal, so people in Rhode Island, by law, had to return runaway slaves running to Rhode Island. Does it matter that the Masters call Slavery with names that sound religious?

Isn't the worship of evil a form of religion, when it can be know that there are such things as counterfeit forms of the genuine versions?

If The Articles of Confederation stood longer as a working Free Market of Government, is it possible that Mormons could have settled Utah, became a State, without the order to Kill all Mormons issued by the Union Man who ended up taking over the POWER of that State in the Monopoly Nation State where evil is the religion?

If all those Mormons are merely another counterfeit version of religion, and I don't know, I have my guesses, then what about a competitive Amish State in the Voluntary Union to set a better example?

The solution to the State sanctioned false religion problem was to make evil the religion and destroy all competitive inventions of better examples?

Rhode Island was made better once the National Government Power began to enforce free speech?

The Whiskey Rebellion Proclamation and the Alien and Sedition Acts were examples of such goodness found in such Consolidations of Power?

"Baptists worked to get the First Amendment"

Were those Baptists working to get the first amendment attached into their State Constitutions? Were they working with the all powerful Nation State Constitution proponents? In other words, were they working for a Nation State along side of the Federalists (Nationalists, Slave Traders, and Central Bankers) or were they, like the true federalists (called Anti-Federalists), working to take the evil out of the National Power Grab, and doing so by adding, at least, a Bill of Rights to the Usurpation where the Central Bankers like Hamilton, the Monarchists, where allowing the British Legal Criminals to retake control over the productive capacity of the people in America?

Buying votes with promises of a secular, and all powerful, man-made, government? If we can't preach to everyone at once, no one can? No one can preach to anyone, and is that not preaching from a different religion, such as counterfeit versions are apt to inspire?

Monopoly religion of ONE, being NONE, instead of any that may, will, or can inspire on their own merit, since competition is so dangerous?

The people may actually find the best from the worst, and God help US if they do?

"It is troubling to me that abortion is being used right now by the politicians for those same reasons."

The tactic of dividing so as to conquer the targets is used so often because it works so well?

Joe