Comment: Take 2

(See in situ)

Take 2

In the effort to answer accurately, I can go step by step, and even quote by quote, and if English words can convey meaning the goal may be reached.

"Please try to correct me if I am wrong in any point or find a flaw in my thinking if there is any."

That is an expression of human rights. The word please is a manifestation of human rights, when it is spoken honestly, and when it is meant to ask for help. When human rights are expressed by a human being there is an offer for consideration, or a request, and human rights are in that way expressed, and connections between human beings are held in that way to strictly voluntary associations, because that is how human rights remain human, by that design, since the genetic advantage of humans being humans are expressed in that way.

I will cut and past to MS Word at this point, so as not to loose this effort to honor the request.

"Rights are claims to a given political power or freedom, and can only be granted real existence by persuading the collective power of society of its interest in granting that power or freedom. No individual by himself has the ability to enforce any political claim if opposed by a sufficient number of others."

Those are only "rights" if you are speaking (in English) about "claims" and therefore you are speaking about claims, so what are rights if by using the words rights the true meaning of rights are genetic capacities of individual human beings to cooperate rather than to perpetrate crimes upon one another?

If you fail to know that there are human beings who are incapable of cooperating unless the concept of cooperation is "honor among thieves," which is a counterfeit form of cooperation, since criminals only cooperate as a secondary goal whereby the primary goal is to commit crimes upon the targeted innocent people, so the secondary goal is for the criminals to band together into a criminal gang.

If you fail to know that there are examples of inhuman beings, and therefore their versions of rights only work among them, and their versions of rights are not applicable to the targets that these criminals target for their exclusive pleasure, then you may confuse genetic, inalienable, rights, with the claims being made by inhuman beings, whereby those criminals claim that their counterfeit rights are the ONLY rights that their victims get, at the pleasure of the criminal groups, then, failure to know that, you are fooled into confusing actual, inalienable rights, with the criminal counterfeit versions.

If you fail to accurately identify these very dangerous claims made by these very dangerous inhuman beings, then your failure is not merely an individual failure, since you may now be powerless to express your rejection of such false claims of such false rights offered by such false people as that merry band of criminals.

"Rights are the legal or formal acceptance of a political claim; they are not inherent in man or nature or in any natural conditions, and are not "provable" from argument like a scientific or mathematical postulate or claim. They don't have an objective existence in the real world, they only come into existence as a outcomes of a political process."

When the merry band of criminals take over the idea, concept, and workings of the power of law, the idea, the concept, and the results of the workings of law are counter, or opposite, or counterfeit compared to the actual idea, concept, and workings of law, so confusing the counterfeit version with the genuine version is the obvious result in any individual case where such confusion occurs, and when many individual human beings are confused in this way the net result of having so many confused people, misdirected in this way, is a collective sum total of all that confusion, all that misdirection, resulting in specific ways that can be easily documented in an unambiguous manner. Examples of accurate records of the massive amounts of confusion include your sentence, your paragraph, and your offering of an idea, a concept, and a offer, a plea, a voluntary contact offer, in a world of confused people who are trained very well in mindless action, absent conscience, absent thought, absent focused power of will, reactionary, routine, aggression, argument, conflict, contention, antagonism, and anything but effective work reaching for the goal of finding accurate agreement.

"they are not inherent in man or nature"

If you are speaking about "claims" then you are not speaking about genetic capacities embodied into life forms as those life forms are born with brain functions that work as a moral conscience, or a capacity to sympathize, or empathize, or to feel the thoughts of another person, or to know the injuries of another person as if those injuries are your injuries, on and on, in a way that drives human behavior.

Where, from what source, are these ideas that claim that rights are no more than claims? Is it possible that there are rights that are of genetic origin? If so, if there are rights that are of genetic origin, then are these genetic forms of rights in any way connected to these man made claims of rights? If there are two rights, one set of rights being claims, where the origin of these rights are individual human beings who may, or may not have brains that have the required circuits necessary for sympathy, empathy, and a working moral conscience, those claims from those people being one form or rights, and if there are a second set of rights that are inalienable among those who may, or may not have that same brain function called human conscience, then which set of rights, now that it is know that there are two sets, which set of rights are productive, conducive, amiable, applicable, workable, reasonable, and agreeable with human peace, prosperity, and happiness for now, for us, and on into the future for posterity, and which set of rights only work out well for people who lie, cheat, steal, rap, kidnap, slave trade, torture, and mass murder for fun and profit?

"Power and freedom, on the other hand, each have concrete meaning in the real world. Power is what you can control, freedom is the absence of interference or control over yourself. A right is only a claim to this or that political relation (either power or freedom) between yourself and the rest of society. Any such claim can only be upheld by force, in the last resort."

Those who are powered by deception, can be those who are saying things like "nothing personal, just following orders, show me your papers, get on the train, your time on earth has expired, and on the way you have the right to give me your finger nails, your screams of excruciating pain" on and on. So where is the origin of any power that you see as being this power each individual human being is power by in any case whatsoever?

If there is only one set of rights, those rights that are claims being made by a few people who may be called politicians, or high paid liars, or criminals with badges, or Legal Criminals, and that is the only set of rights acknowledged by anyone, anyone with power, then the result is that there are many people who are powered by that single set of rights.

That single set of rights, being those claims made by those Legal Criminals, are counterfeit rights, false rights, and those false rights can be known to be false because those false rights power people towards their own destruction in accurately measurable ways.

True rights, the genuine articles, the non-counterfeit set, are those rights that are always known by the fact that they are always the same set of rights agreed upon by every volunteer in every human group NOT formed for the purpose of destruction, or not formed as a criminal organization, or not formed for the hidden goal of enslaving targeted, and innocent, victims.

The counterfeit version of rights form Master/Slave associations or Involuntary Associations as a RULE, with no exceptions to the RULE of counterfeit claims called rights.

The true, natural law, inalienable, rights form strictly voluntary associations that must include a mechanism by which the volunteers are more powerful than the criminals, otherwise these rights are powerless against destruction by the frauds, extortionists, and Legal Criminals who invent, produced, and maintain their false claims of false rights and their false money.

The concept of knowing friend from foe, in any case where individual human beings meet, connect, associate, defines precisely this battle between Natural Rights and Man Made Claims of false rights, and any example you choose as an example, or I choose as an example, proves the case every time, without exception, unless you, or I, or anyone can offer such an example where there is one exception to the rule.

Counterfeit rights are used by individual people to perpetrate crimes upon the targeted innocent people every time, that is the purpose of counterfeit rights, that is the goal, and that is the result, and in each case, every time, without exception, that is the outcome of use of counterfeit rights used by an inhuman being or criminal upon an innocent targeted victim.

Natural rights always end up avoiding the injury of one person willfully injuring another person for fun and profit of the criminal person and at the expense of the innocent victim, always avoided, every time, each time, whenever natural, inalienable, rights are employed by those human beings employing natural rights.

Take any example of any human being meeting, connecting to, and associating with any other human being in any specific time, and in any specific place, and show where the above RULES produce any exceptions to the above RULES, and how would you manage to convey the truth of that exception, if you do find one?

Will you resort to deception, threat of violence, or violence upon the innocent so as to make me know that there is one exception to the RULES so stated?

You will have to access Natural Rights to arrive at the goal of conveying accurate information from you to anyone else, and if you resort to Claims of False Rights (you resort to lies, threats, and violence) to reach your goal of making me know this exception that you find to be an exception to the RULES so stated, then you prove the point, or you prove the opposite point?

"Prior to force, the battle for political relations and outcomes can be waged with propaganda, argument, moralizing, rhetoric, emotional appeals, deception, or threats of violence."

The battle for dominance over human kind is exactly what it is, and it is a crime in progress, no different in principle than any crime invented by any inhuman being upon any other human being, different certainly in scale, as the battle for dominance over human kind is the inevitable battle among the criminals, as their claims of rights of access to the supply of innocent victims are always, without exception, cause for greater conflict among the criminals themselves.

When there are 2 criminals and only 1 victim left on Earth, what do you think happens?

"The way your claims become politically real is if you can persuade others to defend them along with you, with force if necessary. "Might is right" thus becomes, Law is right. The joined might of mutual defense of the legally established political or legal relationships, between members of society. The claims are transformed into legal and actual relationships by force, and hallowed by custom and usage into 'rights' by time. People feel entitled to the rights they are accustomed to by long usage, established originally by the real power that turned the claim into the right."

Those words fail to accurately identify the difference in origin of rights, and those words fail to identify the opposite willful employment of force in defense compared to offense by any individual, or any group of individuals willfully employing force.

When the source of rights are those inalienable rights being the moral conscience source, NOT the man made false version of false claims of false rights (criminal rights), then those individuals powered by moral rights have no use for aggressive force, whatsoever, there is no need for aggressive force when people are powered by those inalienable rights.

When the source of rights are those false claims of criminal rights hidden behind claims of false authority then there are always, inevitably, and by design, the invention, production, and maintenance of aggressive violence upon the innocent, and only at that time will there be a sudden, clear and present danger, to the innocent, and therefore a sudden need for defensive force.

Furthermore the concept of inalienable rights if used by individual human beings, leads to the concept of deterrence, which can take many forms, such as The Declaration of Independence, whereby the criminals are informed of the fact that crime will not pay well.

"These arrangements will tend to follow the actual power distribution of individuals and classes in society, so that your actual level of power and influence will be reflected in your political rights. They will also tend to be disrupted by changes, rapid or gradual, in the real underlying distribution of power between individuals and classes, due to technology or other changes. The petrified political mold will shatter if the power relationships underlying the structure move too far from the overlaying formal, legal structure. Revolution is the result (and can go in either direction)."

Society as an entity onto itself does not exist, and classes, similarly, do not exist as if one class is a being, and another class is another being, and so all of these words here in this paragraph are indications of false claims made by false people, and failure to identify the true meanings of rights may be a very serious failure yet again. Criminals create classes by creating false entities for their targeted innocent victims to bow down to, worship, and invest into by way of fraud, extortion, and very tortuous, terrifying, and horrible violence.

Criminals create these claims of false rights, and they claim that there is this entity of some mysterious power that gave them the right to claim these rights, and this particular fraud is as simple as a petty thief yelling "thief" so as to distract the targeted victims attention, as the targeted victims are then looking elsewhere for a thief while the actual thief does what the actual thief is well prepared to do with impunity.

In answer specifically to the paragraph just quoted, concerning revolution, there is a possible need to understand how well the Legal Criminals have managed to stupefy their targeted victims. The concept of revolution is only knowable as being of any measure whatsoever, only when it is contextualized within the framework of Legal Crime. If there is no crime, in other words, there is no need for any power exerted to fight crime, and therefore there is nothing for the criminals to take over, no power of law that any group of criminals can USURP, or "revolutionize," in any manner whatsoever. So this concept of "revolution" places the cart before the horse. It is the criminals who band together to reach the goal of USURPATION that constitutes the removal of government (a power in place designed to deter crime, or make crime pay less well) and in place of that power to deter crime (government) the Criminals put in place (Usurp) a Criminal Form of Government. The Criminals REVOLVE defensive government into offensive (criminal) government.

The Criminals revolutionized the concept of defensive government and turn (USURP) that defensive concept of government (deterrence of crime = don't feed the criminals = crime no longer pays well) turning, twisting, fraud, extortion, natural law into Man Made Law, or Crime made Legal, or a Monopoly of Crime enforced by ONE most powerful Criminal Cabal.

So the cart before the horse is the cart of Natural Law, or the cart of a power of deterrence against crime, a cart of not paying criminals so well for doing what they do so well, a cart of Liberty, a cart of Free Markets, being the true condition of human life, that being the cart IN FRONT OF THE horse, and when the criminals take over, when the criminals "revolutionize" the concept of Natural Law, when the criminals "revolutionize" the concept of Liberty, they, the criminals, "revolutionize" a FALSE version of Government, where the criminals make themselves the only source of POWER, and they inevitably use a Legal Money Monopoly Power to reach that goal.

So cases where Friends of Liberty retake Natural Law from the Criminals, such as the examples provided in history, where those events are called "revolutions," such as the American Revolutionary War, that is actually a Counter-Revolution, or a return to Natural Law. Gain the simple case of a thief yelling "thief" to distract the targeted victims applies here too. The thief yells "revolution" so as to steal away Liberty.

Why call it a revolution when the idea is merely to return to some semblance of sanity?

Are you just following orders without question?

"Your argument, or appeal, for your 'rights' to society will have to be an appeal to their moral beliefs, their interests in common with yours, or their interests in not 'treading' on your claimed rights. Or all three."

Here again is the fundamental error, as the intended victims look away from the thief who yells "thief" and therefore the victims are powerless against the thief, so there is no deterrence against crime, and crimes pays well.

Rights are inalienable, to take away inalienable rights is to commit a crime. A crime is a crime. The criminals claim that rights are man enforcing something upon man. What is a man doing when a man enforces something upon a man? There is a word for that in English and it isn't rights. The word is CRIME.

Morality is not a belief. Morality is a genetic construction of brain functions that occur within examples of human beings who have this power of knowing how an injury to another person exists in the other person. Morality is expressed with English words such as empathy, sympathy, The Golden Rule, equity, peace, harmony, cooperation, voluntary association, honesty, justice, honor, and Liberty, whereby people think things along these lines, do things along these lines, find agreement, reach for agreement, and agree, even if every experiment to find agreement, along the way, to this exact point in time and place, the only agreement found is to agree to disagree until such time as an agreement can be discovered.

To claim that morality is merely belief, is to counterfeit the words in English that are meant to find agreement as to what morality is, in fact.

There are many efforts done by many individuals when seeking to find out exactly what is morality, including studies that study brain functions of normal human beings compared to abnormal human beings where the abnormal human beings are labeled with accurate labels such as psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and nihilists, whereby these accurately identified abnormal human beings act exceptionally destructive of life, and in many cases the pleasure centers of the brain are triggered when these inhuman beings are busy torturing and murdering, or destroying life.

Morality = life is good = pursuit of happiness = productive

Is everyone possessed with a firm belief in Morality?


How about the criminals?

Happiness is an innocent scream as another lifeless body is thrown onto the pile of murder victims?

If you are now possessed with the infection of nihilism, it may be a good time to understand exactly where that infection has invaded and occupied your mind.

"Therefore they have to be reasonable, foremost, in that they make sense to other people. If you make crazy, wild claims and your moral or ethical arguments are easily refutable, they won't carry weight and will fail to persuade sufficient members of society to join in defending your claims (rights)."

Once the infection of falsehood takes over a human mind there is almost no way out of that unfortunate situation because the infection is self-defeating. There is within the infection a control by which the infected person is made to believe that the infection itself must be defended at all cost, and that any power of any measure that threatens to remove the infection is to be feared, and defended against, without limit.

Any form of exposure of the lie is seen as an attack upon the person who is infected, and therefore the infection inspires the person to shun any form of exposure of the lie.

This is remarkably effective, and it is manifest in many forms such as the belief in paying National Debt with Federal Reserve Notes.


"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Thomas Paine Common Sense 1776

National Debt is a flow of power flowing from anyone in America who can still produce something worth stealing, and that power flows to The International Monetary FUND, and that POWER is then used to Start World War III, where The Chinese "Leadership" is on the schedule to "Win" and American will then be paying National Debt INCREASES, for having failed to "Win" the next World War.

The current single World Reserve Currency is The Federal Reserve Note.

That is currently being phased out, on purpose, so as to phase in a revolutionary replacement, which will be much better for the few who make money on the revolutionary replacement, and much worse for all those fools who are fooled into paying National Debt.


That is the order.

You don't have to take my accurate words on this, offered honest, offered honorably, to anyone caring to know.

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

"Secondly, they can't infringe on the basic interests of others, or they won't find any supporters."

Infringement has a basis in fact, what is that basis? If that basis in fact is the willful injury of an innocent person by a criminal, in fact, then knowing that fact is based upon what basis? Knowing better, as to what is, and what is not, factual, is based upon what basis?

If a natural right is to know better, then that can be known better.

"Finally, your appeal needs to be broad enough so that the collective strength of all who subscribe to put forward the same claims actually have sufficient social, economic, and physical force to uphold the claims against the other segments of society and those opponents of your claims."

That is so filled with falsehood, as far as I can tell, that is an example of this:

"Otherwise, you're just pissing in the wind!"

An appeal can be made to anyone caring to know.

An offer can be made to anyone caring to agree with the offer.

Payments of Federal Reserve Notes being paid by people who start out in the day with less of anything worth anything, and ending the day with more things worth stealing, and paying those payments to THE FUND, as National Debt, is an investment in willful destruction of life on Earth, as those payments are funding World War III and lesser horrors designed to be horrors by those who steal all that power though that deception.

Keep paying that way and the benefits of that investment will be realized in that way.