The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: The ideas intended.

(See in situ)

In post: Big Lie

The ideas intended.

"What ideas were forged?"

"The Utopian Socialists Charles Fourier and Robert Owen had preceded Marx and Engels in their rejection of traditional family relationships, and many nineteenth-century leftists followed their cue."

The ideas that are being forged, willfully, the actual intent, is to falsify perception, because people infected with false perceptions are power-less.

The idea is to be power-full, at the expense of those who are rendered power-less.

The actual work of Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, like the work of Stephen Pearl Andrews, and Mikhail Bakunin, is their actual work. If they are allowed to speak for themselves, instead of having someone speak for them, then someone caring to know what caused them to be rejected by Marx and Engels could know, rather than be filled with false perceptions, it seems to me.

That is the horses mouth. That is The Communist Manifesto, unless that Web Page is printing a counterfeit version of it.

Here are words taken from The Communist Manifesto:

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a _socialist_ manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the "educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it."

In my way of seeing those words, it is obvious that one is opposite the other one in ways that can be understood.

My understanding is that one way is the voluntary way and the other way is the involuntary way.

If the idea is to be against involuntary families, the word "family" is out of place, in my opinion.

Examples abound.

"Dad" and "mom" have children to enslave them, torture them, then murder them, for fun and profit.

That may appear to be a happy family, a good thing, even if asking the children, who know no better, who they love, in their family, as they scream, and before they die.

If someone says that I, me, someone, says, hey, look, I'm against involuntary associations, and then someone else says, hey, look, that guy is anti-family, then the case is rested?

Falsehood is not so hard to understand, in my opinion.

When someone uses the word free, they may mean free from involuntary associations.

I can do that now.

I think children can be free from torture and mass murder by their parents, or anyone else.


A mom, her name is Cindy Sheehan, had a family, they paid investments into The FUND, orders were signed, a family member joined The Military that is funded by The FUND, that child of that parent died.

Who was free from responsibility in that case?

If I say "free from torture and murder" and someone else says "free from torture and murder" there can be further confusion between the two viewpoints.

I mean, no one is tortured and murdered, because we are all free from it, finally, at least the legal form of torture and murder, we are free for that, finally, and that is what I mean, when I say free.

Someone else means, free from being tortured right now, since thinking about it is torturous, and it is much easier to just pay the extortion fee, or even easier to wave the flag, and join the fun, as our earnings are being sent to The FUND, and orders are signed, and babies, expectant mothers, and all kinds of people, millions, are tortured, and murdered, willfully, on our investments in being so free.

So Cindy Sheehan went from being this free, here in this place at this time, a living son, a real parent type person in a family, to wallowing in pink, and so her viewpoint is no longer as free as can be, and certainly not of any use to me.

Too much pink for me.

I'm not having a good day.

"I realize you didn't grow up that way, I didn't either. My mom did. But think entropy. Think of decay, it spreads. A little affects the whole until the whole is affected."

Lies and violence are exemplary things, done, willfully, by individual people. One lie demands 2 more to cover up the first one. 2 becomes 4.

4 x 4 = 16.

Violence is similar, or worse, or there is a relationship worthy of note.

Speaking about communists, and pink, and all that, there is this Russian guy, and his words haunt my brain at times.

"But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE."

I think I know what that means, and I don't see a need to translate the message in any way. It appears to be an accurate message the way it is written.

"If it cannot be performed as of yet upon the people of the United States because we are still armed, can it be public consumption on TV instead?"

That is the point of me pointing out Waco as the exemplary Trial by Jury Case up for discussion anywhere, anytime, when the idea is to accurately measure the most serious threat to mankind, to all life, and then to begin to effect remedy.

Waco was a Nation Wide False Advertizement Campaign. It was Reality Television. It was made to happen on purpose, without any room for any reasonable doubt, it was not like a driver of a car falling asleep at the wheel and a resulting accident occurring.


"As women, we have gone from covering our heads and our bodies to flaunting it all."

Here is where we part, as if I have any stake in what other people do, how they dress, whatever, I don't. To me the "family values" subject is diversion.

Waco was pivotal. Note how The Franklin Case, by contrast, was not broadcast on National Television for months.

Waco, big story, "news worthy", in your face, each day, for months.

What was the time period, I forget, but I want to check now.

"Between the days of February 28, 1993 and April 19th, 1993, approximately 80 men, women, and children living peacefully in their home near Waco, Texas, were killed by the combined efforts of the US Defense Department and other government paramilitary units: the US Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The incident also claimed the lives of four ATF agents."

From the most accurate record I have found so far:

Note the stark contrast in two ways, now, please.

Take that report on that web page and compare that report on that web page with any memory you may have of the events as they were happening.

Now remember The Franklin Case as you remember it happening.

The point here may be that you don't remember The Franklin Case as it happened. There was a documentary done on it, and the record I've seen, possibly not accurate, reports that the documentary was canceled, but can be seen on YouTube.

"Power that is internal to human life. There is human power that is deminished thru moral decay...IMO."

We part there too. If the words of Catherine Austin Fitts measures up, then there is a lot of power removed from humankind, productive power, in her words equity used to crate more equity, and why that word equity is used, I don't know.

What happens if instead of 12 hours a day at work, a person could spend 4 hours a day at work instead, and have more, not less, power to invest in other equitable things?

I can offer my own experience. I went from too much work to no work, measured as Federal Reserve Notes transferred from other people to an account having my name on it, which I won't call a "private" account, since the actual fact of the matter is that THE account with my name on it constituted a supposed gift from me to people who claimed to be authorized to take that gift from me as Federal Income Tax. Going from high income to no income corresponded with me being an absentee father and me being someone near those people my wife and I reproduced, these people we call son and daughter. The change was remarkable going from absentee father to father of some measure.

What measure?


Not perfect.

Take a similar measure, some, but not perfect, and times that same movement from path A to path B, and what happens?

The viewpoint where men are bad claims that we are bad no matter what, so more time on our bad hands is more mischief, or some other measure of a possible consequence to moving from path A to path B.

Tapeworm economy to what I call Power Independence.

I'll grab a relevant quote from Catherine Austin Fitts.

"If we could finance communities with equity, how much equity could be created?"

"...the float on the New York Stock Exchange increase a multiple of six times..."

So you want to focus on the moral decay of the degenerate targets, who happen to be targets because they can actually produce more during the day compared to what was available at the start of the day, so they may, I may, we may, be degenerate in a religious sense, but focus on that, is your choice not mine, and someone else may focus on how Catherine Austin Fitts is promoting socialism and a planned economy and how wrong she is, since she is not a true (religion) conservative republican free market Austrian Economics Professor.

Someone else may want to focus on the symbolism of the Devil pervading many modern forms of media, television, corporate, magazine, brands, logos, whatever.

The devil did it.

Moral decay did it.

The point to me is to point out what you found in Catherine Austin Fitts, and her video report.

Problem = These people doing these things.

Solution = We, who are people, do these things instead.

Which things?

I think Catherine Austin Fitts spells it out well enough.

Stop sending money to The FUND.

Person A sends money to The FUND to get a .07 percent interest rate on a savings account because Person A has this much surplus wealth, produced, transferred to Person A, and a savings account is an investment, a use, a consumption, an employment, of that POWER.

Hide the POWER in a ditch in the back yard, and that is an investment too; either way the POWER is consumed.

Does the POWER generate more POWER or not?

Person B borrows money from The FUND and pays 10 percent interest rate do then be employed and to then hire people who are wanting to be employed, locally.


What are you talking about now, Joe, the subject is the moral decay of society.

No, Joe, the subject is the stark differences between the evil socialism and the ever so wonderful capitalism.

No, the subject is a test trial because the same people offering .07 percent if you let them consume the POWER you earn, are the same people who use that POWER they get to then Fraudulently claim to be loaning out that POWER, when they are actually borrowing it, and they claim that the people loaning that POWER to them, are borrowing it, and so they claim that the lenders own them the entire Principle of the POWER they borrow, and they claim the the lenders, who loan them the entire principle, are then authorized to pay them National Interest to the tune of 10 percent for each unit POWER that they borrow from the lenders, and because those same operators of that same Fraudulent FUND, are guilty of running the Reality Television Show known as Waco.

So the idea was to hold a trial, employ the concept of due process, and see if such a concept is a viable one, and if it isn't, then why send another dime to The FUND?

If it is one, if due process is a viable process, then why send another dime to The FUND?

If due process is false, and isn't worth a dime, then why send another dime to The FUND?

If due process is workable, if not perfect, and worth a dime of your time, then follow through with it, and how can you, or anyone, arrive at anything other than the clear understanding that sending another dime to The FUND is an investment in makes sure that WACO arrives at your door, with you in the house, or the church, or if you are gone by then, it will be your children's door, their home, or their church, as The FUND sends the collectors who collect torture and death.

And by The FUND I do not mean a thing, I mean a list of names, people, all of which are connected to The FUND through the ONE MONEY that is produced by those same people collected together with that Fraudulent FUND, currently denominated in Federal Reserve Notes.

"I do feel abit like I am on a soapbox this morning."

Fine with me, but meanwhile, as you are discussing the moral decay of humankind, it seems to me that there are at least three general things that can be done by a certain date, whereby the particular thoughts and actions done to reach for these goals are common sense things, not too tough to understand, so I get on my soap box too.

"I think there are plenty of people to bring to the stand, and you make a good point, why do we send them our power? Why do we pay for our own demise? I can no longer claim to be naive. Now what is my excuse? Too afraid? Too lazy? Too conditioned?"

The fact that you are no longer willfully hiding the facts is a huge victory. I want to again borrow from Catherine Austin Fitts:

"We are coming into an end game and the question in that end game is: a lot of the people who have been following the criminals, because they thought it paid, are now discovering maybe it is not going to pay."

"The minute we say OK you know something we're going to run our capital, and were are going to make our decisions based upon what has the highest total economy return, and suddenly you are talking about wealth creation that literally most people in my generation can't even fathom."

That is not news. That is along the lines of the words by Thomas Paine and "providing the means by which we suffer" and the words of Henry Ford having to do with the revolution that can happen "before tomorrow morning".

The minute we say OK, how about trying equity, to trust in something other than Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, what happens?

One individual person, like you, is no longer polarized to cause total destruction of mankind and every other form of life on this Planet.

You can go back to being a cog in the wheel, sure, it can happen, but you are now a wrench in that machine, because you question it.

How many people questioning it is needed, I don't know?

More than one.

What if everything on TV had provided energy for ectropy? I think Bernays can tell us, it would not sell like energy for entropy does.

Why? Could it be the baseness found in our humanity?

Once again we part. You blame humanity, because that is your safe place, I suppose, but to me it is a very serious contradiction.

If, you say, "TV had provided" as if this thing called a TV picks out this show and that show to show this person and that person, to offer something to people who may, or may not, choose this, and not choose that, so this TV has this POWER?

What if?

What if instead of WACO being Reality Television for all, at once, or else, do watch, and to know the lesson told, and to obey without question, instead of that, what if the documentary on The Franklin case was chosen by this TV to be on TV for people to watch or not watch for months on end every night?

Of course, under that scenario, people would turn off the second time The Franklin Case Documentary aired on TV, since they saw it already. OK, so what if, in stead of every time WACO was aired on every channel it was broadcast on, every magazine, every newspaper, every Television show, every time The Sinful Messiah Message was Fraudulently Broadcast from those who did the broadcasting to those who witnessed that crime in progress, instead of that, there were hand picked reports picked by me, or by Alex Jones, or by Gerald Celente, or by Ron Paul, or you, or all of us who just happen to find that the Monopoly News Organization, funded by The FUND, is false, and that maybe, just maybe, people would trust each other more, if they could see someone worthy of trust once in a long while, instead of the constant, relentless, barrage of evil that pervades modern mass media?

By accident?

Natural choices of errant mankind?

We part on that point in opposite directions.