Comment: Again no agreement.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am rearranging the words as (see in situ)

Again no agreement.

Here:

"And that is the dark side of human nature."

To me that is the Collective Punishment Routine at work again, and against I can't agree with it, if that is what it is, and to me a person who attacks viciously can be known to be THAT person attacking viciously, and it is as wrong to blame a rock for having this "human nature" as it is to blame a chair, or another human being. Furthermore it is understood by me that attacks upon other human beings can be learned behavior and therefore, again, the actions leading up to one single attack can be a compounding of attacks, where a person who was taught to attack then teaches someone to attack and to me it is understood that the person teaching someone to attack is an example of a vicious attack.

I suppose you could be saying that it is human nature that some individual people will attack when they are taught from birth to do so, and it is human nature that some individual people have a specific vicious attack invented and used by them whereby those individual people teach other individual people this routine of using vicious attacks.

I suppose you could be saying that innocence, and vulnerability to being viciously attacked, and then having that innocent beat out of you, mentally, physically, politically, and/or economically is more of this same human nature that isn't rock nature, and it isn't natural things for chairs to willfully be doing in any case whatsoever.

I could know better as to what this viewpoint of yours is concerning Human Nature, but to me, so far, it looks like the Collective Punishment Routine where everyone is blamed for the actions of a few.

"It is a natural occurrence."

That is exactly my point being demonstrated. Whose bright idea was it to blame everyone for the actions of a few: yours?

If this natural occurrence is such a natural occurrence then why has history shown that some civilizations are not naturally occurring in that way, where many people arrive at this natural occurrence where everyone is blamed for the actions of the few, and even more troubling for that claim of fact is the fact that even in places where such "ideas" are ubiquitous there remains to be a few people who do not naturally occur to blame everyone for the actions of a few people?

"I say that it is the sin nature which is part of each human."

I think you have been won over by false people with false science. The "Evolution" counterfeit is this Might makes Right Dogma, in so many words. In point of fact the capacity to love, or to nurture, is a vital necessity in order for living beings to reproduce, so the Might makes Right doctrine is almost exactly false in that light.

If living forms of being were to exist, on some planet, where these living beings evolve into Might makes Right beings, as a natural occurrence, then that example of living being would then have all that is needed in their genetics to cause their own extinction.

The living beings that adapt and survive are the ones that figure out how to love and protect innocence (innocence of crime against each other) because that is the power of knowledge that affords the species the capacity to produce, or re-produce, and therefore ensure that the species will keep on re-producing despite all powers that may align against such things as re-producing.

1.
Blame everyone for the actions of a few, or what I call the Collective Punishment Routine

2.
Another so called natural occurrence, besides one above, is Might makes Right, or Survival of the Fittest, whereby FIT means to be one FIT person, one FIT member of the same species, proving their Fitness by dominating and in that way destroying other less "Fit" beings.

Why do those two ideas just happen to lead toward the flow of power from the many to a few who may have been the few who not only invent such things, but are somehow able to infect their targets with a belief in such nonsense?

"You have mentioned this before and I was intrigued by the comment then and am now as well. What are you saying, exactly? I didn’t ask before…there are always so many things I could ask you."

The person who helped me run for Congress, a coworker, and I went to an event in Los Angeles soon after the Waco survivors survived. I asks one survivor a question face to face, but there were other survivors speaking. One was Clive Doyle.

Look here:

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/burial/doc...

"Are these men of conscience? No. They are thugs, with the stink of military psychological warfare training all over them. Clive keeps strange company for a man of the cloth."

I don't know if that will answer your question.

"Anyways, I think liars have an affect regardless of whether their lie affects me personally. It affects the liar and those that hear the lies, and soon the liar does not know the difference between a lie or the truth, and neither do those that hear them. In the case of my boys’ friends it concerns me that their influence over my boys will affect them which affect me. I am more concerned about the effect on them."

Truth is self evident. When a liar lies and it works on someone, then to me that is a vicious attack by the liar upon the targeted victim, and from then on that victim is infected with that lie.

What happens if the victim of the lie realizes later on, perhaps years later, that their life was misdirected from what their life would have been to what their life was because of that one lie, does that person then employ that lie on other people, viciously, or does that former victim of that lie warn other people about the lie, how powerful that lie is, and how destructive that lie is, IF, and only if that lie has the power to convince the target of the lie that the lie is true?

If you, or one of your boys (even better than you stepping in, in my opinion) expose the liar for lying, then there is no power, no "payoff" for that lie, for that liar, in that case, and that may be an important lesson for the liar to learn early on.

What if the person doing the intervening exemplifies other lies, such as the Collective Punishment Routine, and the Might makes Right Routine Lies?

What then, will the young liar be able to use such lies themselves, having that shinning example offered to them, and will the young innocent victims be themselves victims to those lies too, or will they know better, know that they are lies, but will they use those lies too?

I know that those two lies are lies, and I know how powerful those lies can be if the liars are in need of things that cover up their crimes, so those lies have no power over me, including a power that may suggest that I too can use those lies upon targeted victims who I may want to render powerless in defense against knowing exactly who targets them. I too could merely blame everyone for my own crimes.

What example is being set in any case?

Natural occurrences?

My first thought when reading your accounting of the demonstration of lies by liars is to ask where those innocent people were exposed to that particular routine: was it their parents who taught them how to reproduce that destructive routine, or is it possible that those examples of liars are examples of genetic modifications, whereby they are clinically knowable as sociopaths, or psychopaths, where their brains are missing the natural, normal, occurrences of having the brain functions associated with expressions of empathy, sympathy, and natural human conscience?

Is conscience a power originating from a living soul, or is it a brain function? If there is a conscience within a living soul, how does that conscience in that living soul communicate to other living souls?

Lies?

"So it seems to me that you have told me that trial by jury quit working because jurors began to accept bribes. Am I remembering correctly?"

We may yet be still discussing the Episode 1 or Cult of UCADIA, whatever we may be discussing, and in that information in Episode 1 there are references to major things happening on major dates by very powerful people, such as Kings and Princes, Popes, and the like.

I think there is a connection in there that is worthy of finding.

The Trial by Jury Essay by Lysander Spooner speaks of a human development or IDEA whereby each person is as politically powerful as each other person, by mutual agreement, without exception. If there are exceptions, those exceptions can then be knowable as criminals who volunteer to disagree with the concept of everyone being as politically powerful as everyone else, and instead of each man is a King in their own castle, the criminals volunteer to aggressively attack and enslave other people.

That IDEA, such as it was, moved from Germany to England and that IDEA drove people toward the removal of ROMAN LAW, and replacing ROMAN LAW with such competitive inventions as Trial by Jury based upon sortition.

What LAW is ROMAN LAW?

Precise answers appear to be offered in the information offered by the person who is a Cult leader, as you see him, with his Cult of UCADIA, or whatever it is, I am not so quick to judge his motives, his source of power, or whatever. The information offered appears to suggest that there may be more at work than a slow process of people taking bribes so as to get out of Jury Duty, whereby the Victory for Liberty that was Magna Carta, with Trial by Jury, was then turned into the England that drove all those pilgrims, like runaway slaves, to America. Some of the runaway slaves running to America took Trial by Jury, based upon sortiton, with them. The English Despots sent agents to America too, such as Alexander Hamilton, for one example.

Was Roman Law, the Roman Cult, the Devil Worshipers, working even then, in this place that once worked as a Democratic Federated Republic under The Articles of Confederation?

I don't know, it seems to fit well.

"So Josf, would my language have been more appropriate if I had said that it appeared to me that she joined with a group that promotes criminal or involuntary socialism? I should have said, it appears to me that Cindy Sheehan joined ranks with Involuntary Socialists?"

I can try to borrow an IDEA from this UCADIA Cult (you call them a Cult so I can use your language) in the answer to your question above.

If you can help warn people, to say to people look people, do not make the mistakes made by Cindy Sheehan, do not associate with people who are mislead, so you will be mislead too, and you can use Socialism as your word choice, to speak in their language, and you can improve your ability to communicate accurately by adding the Involuntary word to the term as now it becomes Involuntary Socialism.

I, on the other hand, have the same goal in mind but I use the words Legal Criminals instead of borrowing the word Socialism, since I think the word Socialism had been destroyed as a useful word, it is too duplicitous as if people who see the word are under a demonic spell, and they become hypnotized by that word either for it, or against it, as if the word itself has two head, and one head in visible to half the word as a good head, and the other half of the world look at the same word and under their hypnosis they see a bad word.

Which angle of attack works best to warn people about their paths they choose to go through in life?

1.
Your use of Socialism with my suggested addition of the word Involuntary works better on some people, and perhaps a greater number of people, who see your sign on the road, and they think twice about taking the wrong road that leads to the wrong people who are mislead and doing wrong things.

2.
My use of Legal Crime as the sign on the road, reaching 1 person, or no one, or who knows what, since I don't get much feedback no matter what I write.

I don't know, but the concept of Black Magic appears to answer a few questions concerning where does the POWER to cause so much destruction originate?

What is the source of POWER where human beings end up at each others throats as if human beings are no better than rats?

Where does that power of human destroying human, for fun and profit of the destroyers, come from, as all those victims are sent into lives of living hell on Earth by those few who do that misleading; where is the origin of that much destructive POWER?

Your viewpoint appears to continue to be that it is a power that is a natural occurrence.

I don't plot the enslavement of mankind to be my exclusive power over everyone else, so you can blame me, in that way, but it is false blame to me.

You can blame all the victims in that way, but to me it is false blame.

"Why is that wrong, assuming there are no criminal actions, or subsidies that make the playing field not level."

I can point you to a book written by someone who answers your present question in the detail that your question deserves, and I don't think that my "sound bites," no matter how many times I repeat them, will convey to you without misunderstanding.

http://www.amazon.com/Sane-Society-Erich-Fromm/dp/0805014020

If you define good behavior, saying look Joe, over there, there are people being good, and then you ask me if anything is wrong with those people being good over there, what do you think my response is going to be?

Yes bear, there is nothing wrong with people being good, as you describe them being good, and I have no authority to say otherwise.

"I think those criminal involuntary socialists use good-willed voluntary socialists. I think they will harness the power within the good-will socialists and when those good-willed socialist achieve overthrowing their current government, with some help from the criminal socialists, then the criminal socialists purge the good-willed socialists. I think that has happened in history. That is what makes me afraid."

I think you have described the following events:

1.
Magna Carte (good people gain Liberty in a measurable way)

2.
Whatever happened to return England to Crime made Legal, and driving good people to America (along with bad people)

3.
The Declaration of Independence and the the formation of a Democratic Federated Republic or Voluntary Government, or Free Market Government example in point of fact, working well, despite an Invasion perpetrated by Criminals who make Aggressive Wars for Their Profit Legal for them to do, and illegal for anyone else to do.

4.
Back to Crime made Legal in 1788 when the Criminals take over and give themselves False Badges once again, with their Involuntary Socialism replacing Voluntary Socialism, or their Involuntary Capitalism replacing Voluntary Capitalism.

When you say government, and you say NOT socialism, you are playing with words.

When someone else says government, and they say NOT capitalism, they too are playing with words.

What is the source of all that playing with words?

It is not play, it is crime, it is the crime called fraud, and it can be known in each case where a criminal, such as Alexander Hamilton is guilty of that fraud.

"Should that industry that he is using for his benefit and the benefit of those who use his products and the benefit of those who labor with him be stolen from him?"

Self-evident question 2? You describe good people being good and you ask me of that is good, and then you describe good people being good and bad people threatening to be bad, and you ask me of those bad people are bad?

Why ask me, was it something I said that you then decide is a confession on my part that I don't know the difference between good and bad?

"So, perhaps to save the children, someone will fire a shot."

The British fired shots into crowds of unarmed people, if my history is accurate. Shots are fired, not if, not some future possibility that can be the result of my, your, or anyone's current actions, but the fact is, factual, shots are being fired, criminals have taken over, and that can be known by the crimes done by those criminals who have taken over, and they are on the March, and they are torturing, and they are mass murdering, and their power source is their power source.

Taxes?

Federal Reserve Notes?

That is the source of their POWER?

The Kokesh person improved his IDEA, in my way of seeing things, as no longer is it one Defensive, Peaceful, March on Washington, as now it is many State efforts to return the State governments back into Defensive Powers instead of Offensive Powers (crime made legal).

"So, perhaps to save the children, someone will fire a shot."

No, I think the analogy here is to consider the fact that shots are being fired, already, the Drones for example, are in flight, and reaching the children they are reaching time and again, so the concept here is to step in the way, to step in between the shooters and the children NOW being shot, and to say, hey, that is not right, please don't do that, and if We The People bear Arms, then we do, and if We The People don't bear arms, then we don't, while sitting at home watching Television, or while we STAND in between the shooters who shoot innocent children and the children CURRENTLY being shot to death.

I'm going to break this up, stop here, and start another reply to my own reply and I will call it No agreement Part II. So all that above won't be edited, I want to use time for other things this morning, so this will remove the temptation to edit.

Joe