Comment: Look people

(See in situ)


Look people

Please

Divide and conquer is easier to recognize than it is to explain.

I can offer two cases in point, or two examples, and I hope the effort to get at least one person (human being) to look, and see, works, in these cases.

1.
Law versus Anarchy

2.
Intelligence versus ignorance

In the first example there can be an illustration that works where Earnest Hancock represents anti-law or anarchy (so called) and Karen Hudes takes up the side, divided, and opposite, the other side, which is this Law side, and why, where, is this divide?

If a person listens to the interview between Hancock and Hudes the divide can clearly be seen, and it is never resolved.

Resolving the divide may answer the why and where the divide exists.

I can offer that olive branch to both sides, and that will conclude this first example, and I can then move onto the second example.

Karen Hudes explains how Law is simple enough to inspire consensus, agreement, or willful thoughts and actions that each person within this Law network obey, without question, and this will constitute a monopoly of power based upon that simple fact of universal agreement among those connected in that way.

Those are my words, not Karen Hudes, and my guess is that I won't be able to connect to Karen Hudes to get an agreement from her as to the viewpoint she shares in that network of law abiding members of that monopoly of defensive force.

I can explain that viewpoint in much greater detail if anyone cares to listen.

On the other side is confusion concerning how the power of law works whereby the other side will not admit to, or agree to, this power being what it is, how it works, and why support for it is vital as human beings make crime pay less, and less, and less, so as to reach a point whereby the fewest number of people can afford to be criminals.

The side represented in this power struggle act, this theater, this interview, by Earnest Hancock has no actual answer, no power, by which any criminal GANG of any significant POWER could be over POWERED were such as POWER to be actively consuming victims, other than, and this is important, to say that freedom is the answer, what is the question?

So, Karen offers a way to get to freedom, while there is this criminal power actively consuming victims at a fantastic rate, and this criminal power is set to consume victims at an even faster rate, while Earnest Hancock fails to acknowledge that LAW is the POWER of Defense, with guns if necessary, that glues each defender's individual POWER into one POWER that is greater than the sum of all the parts disconnected.

So that may not be easy to understand, and if not then the reader can either work to understand how that divide and conquer works, or the reader can just give up, remain on one side, or the other side, and keep on wasting defensive power.

Whatever works for you, will work that way.

Moving on.

2.
Intelligence versus ignorance

Karen Hudes repeatedly refers to mathematical models by which rule of law, Golden rule, Liberty, whatever you want to call a human network where no one gains more "legal" power than any other person, where everyone is equal in the eyes of everyone, where no one is exempted from rule of law, by any means including deception, threat, and aggressive, willful, violence upon innocent people, no one is above Rule of Law, and Karen Hudes says the model, the formula, the math, supports the idea that now is the time when Rule of Law returns, and now is the time when criminals who took over Rule of Law are going out, being paid less, whereby crime is no longer going to pay so well with bonuses for lying, cheating, stealing, raping, torturing, and mass murdering are not checks that will be cashed at banks anymore.

Those are my words, not Karen Hudes words, and again I can't expect to be acknowledged by her, personally, as being in agreement with her viewpoint. I can only offer.

The program used by Karen Hudes, or the Model, or the Formula, is likely to be very complicated and very difficult to understand by any human being other than someone of extreme intelligence or training.

The average person could not agree to such a thing as being a true thing, since such a thing would be beyond their capacity, beyond their POWER to know, and therefore they would be set with a choice to trust or distrust the information.

That need not be the case, and I can offer an experiment to prove it.

Look here:

http://prisonersdilemma.sergehelfrich.eu/

If you cannot figure out how to get the applet to work, and you refuse to get help so as to get the applet to work, they you may miss out on a very good illustration of how human interaction works from a simplified mathematical calculation.

You don't have to see it to believe it, you can read the words that explain The Prisoner's Dilemma.

Any independent human being can understand the Prisoner's Dilemma, if they are in it, realize it, and are then seeking a way out of it, and are thoughtful, caring, enough to accept the right way out, and are not weak, powerless, and in a position to take the easy way out, which is a false way out, which does not actually constitute a way out of The Prisoner's Dilemma.

Those few among us who are rich because they were born with a silver spoon stuck up their bum, or wherever they hide their "means of support," by Crime made Legal, investors in War, making War good for their exclusive economy, may be those few among us who will never admit to there being a Prisoner's Dilemma working as it does work in our time, in reality.

Those of us actually in it, working to find effective ways out of it, can see it clearly, if we care to look, and once it is seen, for what it is, a light bulb moment may occur. God help those who can't see it, and can't see the way out, clearly.

It is a numbers game.

Those who see the way out have to be of a number that is sufficient to reach critical mass, and then there is no turning back, we get Liberty.

See it, know it, and then you won't have to trust, or believe, in how cooperation works so much better than defection, if the idea is more POWER for everyone, an abundance of POWER, rather than POWER being so scarce that only the few have it, and those few use what is left to steal their "Lions share".

Another good way to express The Prisoner's Dilemma may exist in something I found, something offered by another person who can obviously see how The Prisoner's Dilemma works.

Warning Strong Language:

http://www.beatthecourt.com/LAWDAWG%204.pdf

Look for "How the government solves it's cases"

Read it.

Consider how each victim of any crime, no matter how much license, or how many badges are worn by the criminal, can see how things work, in real time, in fact.

There is no better educator as to what is, or is not, crime than the criminal who defines the meaning of crime upon the victim.

Many victims are not innocent, many victims are innocent, but does that matter to the criminal?

No, the criminal makes a deal, offers a deal, and you can call it the lesser of two evils, or any word in English you care to use, but while you are in the hot seat, you know what it is, without question.

Criminals teach, even the least fortunate among us, the meaning of crime, what it is, how it works, and there is no room left for doubt.

As low as an education can get, in terms of productive capacity to end the day with more power than the power available at the start of the day, without resort to crime, is an unfortunate place to be in, in any case, but even that low, is not low enough to fail to realize exactly how crime works. Criminals set the bar lower every time, down to that base of lies, that base of threats, and that base of violence, every time.

So who claims to be too stupid to see the facts, and is that a false claim made for some very interesting reason that won't be confessed?

Summing up:

1.
Law versus Anarchy

2.
Intelligence versus ignorance

In the first case it turns out that Law is Anarchy when Law is defined as a voluntary association whereby the volunteers volunteer to make crime pay less for good reason.

It the second case it turns out that once crime pays very well it may be a good idea for the remaining innocent victims to learn a thing or two from those criminals who cooperate so well among themselves.

Joe