Comment: I detect some coloring with a false brush.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You were the one singing the (see in situ)

I detect some coloring with a false brush.

"You were the one singing the praises of Anthony Sutton..."

Your version of what I did is contained within the words you choose. My version of what I did was published even before your words were chosen by you. What I actually did was offer evidence that adds to the mountains of evidence (FRNs for example) that point to one most POWERFUL group. As to praiseworthy people, those deserving praise, I'd like to know the meaning intended by the words you have chosen.

What do you mean by your use of the word "praise" in context as follows?

"You were the one singing the praises of Anthony Sutton..."

Also: I'm not much on singing, but I am working on a cover for the song Cortex the Killer by Neil Young. Currently I am a very poor singer.

"Man……did I touch a nerve or what?"

If the medium of exchange was not black type on white background the quote above would have to be, by necessity, a false statement, since your version of what I may have felt, is out of place in my thinking. No such touching of nerves happened by you, so what is the inspiration for asking such a question?

Difficulties conveying accurate meaning through type?

"You trot this guy out….but do you know anything that he says."

I have found further evidence of possible willful intent on your part to color what I do with a false brush there in those words. What do you mean by "trot this guy out"? What I did was link work done whereby the work having been done points to the source of the causes of World War II. Rather than World Wars being some accidental occurrence blamed upon the evil nature of everyone, what is more accurate as a focus of defensive effort in case the same type of people doing the same types of things are occurring now?

1. Collective blame for collective punishment.
2. Accurate accounting instead

Find those who benefit most, and see if those are the people who are pulling the strings that are pulled in each case where there are major losses of innocent lives?

I have no intent to "trot" or "praise" or do anything similar, unless you can explain to me how those words somehow paint what I do in an accurate way.

I don't spend a whole lot of time focusing my effort on Anthony Sutton. I use the work he did, in those three works, to show a Central source of World War, which is not a mystery anymore to a whole lot of people. The phrase "all wars are banker wars" is not my invention, and it is not Anthony Sutton's invention either. These "money changers" go back a long way.

"Your post does not follow a cognitive thought, allow me to illustrate."

This is familiar territory for me. Someone accuses me of some nebulous wrongdoing, then the same accuser claims that the wrongdoing that the accuser says I've done will be shown to me, and the end result, so far, is that the accuser points out where the accuser confuses what I wrote with what the accuser thinks I've meant to covey with my word choices.

What I actually meant to convey is what I know I meant to convey with my word choices.

What the reader attributes as being what I meant to convey with my word choices.

When 1 is not the same meaning as 2, who is to blame for the confusion?

"Hamilton…….what you posted is exactly what is written in the book…..but what is YOUR point? Are in favor of or against a National Debt? "

The point of offering the link to the book where the quote was found is an effort to inspire other people to read the book. I did not praise the author of the book, and I did not trot the guy around. The intended meaning by the author, to me, is clearly conveyed in English through those word choices.

Hamilton made campaign promises so as to get National Debt started, then Hamilton broke those National Debt promises once Hamilton gained Despotic Power.

Hamilton and Washington assembled a conscripted, monopolistic, "National" army to invade the formerly sovereign state of Pennsylvania, to collect a National tax and to crush a money competitor, that was in 1794.

That last sentence is my version of the words quoted on Hamilton. I was able to get the message from the book clearly. I may be wrong, of course. Where am I wrong?

Do I favor National Debt? The answer is maybe. If National Debt is the result of National defense against a clear and present danger, such as what was happening between 1776 and 1783 then I favor crediting those who defend against such things with the credit they earn, so the flip side of that is indebtedness concerning those who defend against attacks by criminal invaders, even when the criminal invaders constitute the largest criminal army then on the planet Earth. The problem with choosing the word "National" for that Debt, in the case of the Revolutionary War, is that there was no Nation (Monopoly) during the Revolutionary War, instead it was a Confederation of Constitutionally Limited Republics.

After Hamilton and the so called Federalists gained their National Debt Monopoly in 1788, then the liars started crushing money competitors, and then the liars started making their crimes exclusively legal for them to do at will, including the practice of making purchases as investments that pay the few very well and cost the many everything.

"If for…….then you would probably..."

No thanks on your false versions of me, if that is what you are offering me, no thanks. If you are offering warnings to other people, then you are to be warned against, not me, you are the one resorting to deception.

"...these are the philosophies of Statism exercised as Mercantilism, which is exactly what Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris plan was when they called for the Annapolis Convention in 1786 to address the so called “weaknesses” of the Articles of Confederation."

Somehow the intended meanings were not transferred intact and you find cause to blame only me? Not often do I find someone who has made the Hamilton-Morris connection, but I do appreciate those who have managed to see that conspiracy by those money changing central banking folks. Thanks for that, I consider that a reinforcement of what I have offered here in this Topic, even if you think I am somehow accurately placed in opposition to the accurate accounting of what actually happened.

"If you are against Hamilton’s National Debt then you would be also against the U.S. Constitution because what the Constitution was……….was a plan to implement a coup d’état over the States with the bribe of assuming their Revolutionary Wars debts."

I am not against constitutionally limited Republics, so get that straight please, but as to the Usurpation that occurred in Philadelphia, I am most certainly against it, what it was intended to accomplish, and I am not alone.

Here are two very good sources:

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

There was a deal made between criminal slave traders in the south and criminal money changers in the north called The Dirty Compromise; making slavery legal. How bad does it get? Make torture and mass murder legal too?

George Mason Speech Virginia Ratifying Convention

June 04, 1788

Mr. Chairman—Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers, that it is a National Government, and no longer a confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the General Government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes, does of itself, entirely change the confederation of the States into one consolidated Government. This power being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of controul, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly confederation, to a consolidated Government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the State Governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harrassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: The General Government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than, the State governments, the latter must give way to the former.

"Further proof of your confusion was the addition of the paragraph of “voting with your feet” which would have been maintained with the Confederation of States vs the removal of that option with the ratification of the U. S. Constitution."

How is that (in your mind) my confusion? The Constitution was a Usurpation of Liberty: clear as day is not night.

"As far as the banking conspiracy ……to be honest….and you won’t like me saying this, but I truly don’t think you know a damn thing about banking or the history of banking……you are only regurgitating what you have read and heard, but with no real knowledge or understanding."

What you truly think and what is demonstrable in fact appears to be a question worth answering to me, not a dictate handed down from on-high to down-low, as your words command into being.

" currency called the Mandrake Mechanism. Did you know that the process was design and implanted by the Republicans and Lincoln during the Civil War?"

I know that there is no inherent wrong in paper money, as there is no inherent wrong in self defense weapons.

Four sources follow, and I've read The Creature from Jekyll Island.

If your claim of my ignorance is as accurate as you dictate, then perhaps you have read and understand the following four sources, and the quote from the last 2 sources, as proof of your authority to dictate to me how stupid I am.

A Parasite City.

Suppose 5,000 men to own $30,000 each; suppose these men to move, with their families, to some desolate place in the state, where there is no opportunity for the profitable pursuit of the occupations either of commerce, agriculture, or manufacturing! The united capital of these 5,000 men would be $150,000,000. Suppose, now, this capital to be safely invested in different parts of the state; suppose these men to be, each of them, heads of families, comprising, on an average, five persons each this would give us, in all, 25,000 individuals. A servant to each family would give us 5,000 persons more, and these added to the above number would give us 30,000 in all. Suppose, now, that 5,000 mechanics—shoemakers, bakers, butchers, etc.—should settle with their families in the neighborhood of these capitalists, in order to avail themselves of their custom. Allowing five to a family, as before, we have 25,000 to add to the above number. We have, therefore, in all, a city of 55,000 individuals, established in the most desolate part of the state. The people in the rest of the state would have to pay to the capitalists of this city six per cent on $150,000,000 every year; for these capitalists have, by the supposition, this amount out at interest on bond and mortgage, or other wise. The yearly interest on $150,000,000, at six per cent, is- $9,000,000. These wealthy individuals may do no useful work whatever, and, nevertheless, they levy a tax of $9,000,000 per annum on the industry of the state. The tax would be paid in this way. Some money would be brought to the new city, and much produce; the produce would be sold for money to the capitalists, and with the money thus obtained, added to the other, the debtors would pay the interest due the capitalists would have their choice of the best the state produces, and the mechanics of the city, who receive money from the capitalists, the next choice. Now, how would all this be looked upon by the people of the commonwealth? There would be a general rejoicing over the excellent market for produce which had grown up in so unexpected a place, and the people would suppose the existence of this city of financial horse-leeches to be one of the main pillars of the prosperity of the state.

Each of these capitalists would receive yearly $1,800, the interest on $ 30,000, on which to live. Suppose he lives on $900, the half of his income, and lays the other half by to portion off his children as they come to marriageable age, that they may start also with $30,000 capital, even as he did. This $900 which he lays by every year would have to be invested. The men of business, the men of talent, in the state, would see it well invested for him. Some intelligent man would discover that a new railroad, canal, or other public work was needed; he would survey the ground, draw a plan' of the work, and make an estimate of the expenses; then he would go to this new city and interest the capitalists in the matter. The capitalists would furnish money, the people of the state would furnish labor; the people would dig the dirt, hew the wood, and draw the water. The intelligent man who devised the plan would receive a salary for superintending the work, the people would receive day's wages, and the capitalists would own the whole; for did they not furnish the money that paid for the construction? Taking a scientific view of the matter, we may suppose the capitalists not to work at all; for the mere fact of their controlling the money would insure all the results. We suppose them, therefore, not to work at all; we suppose them to receive, each of them, $1,800 a year; we suppose them to live on one-half of this, or $900, and to lay up the other half for their children. We suppose new-married couples to spring up, in their proper season, out of these families, and that these new couples start, also, each with a capital of $30,000. We ask now, is there no danger of this new city's absorbing unto itself the greater portion of the wealth of the state?

There is no city in this commonwealth that comes fully up to this ideal of a fainéant and parasite city; but there is no city in the state in which this ideal is not more or less completely embodied.

Bills of exchange, bank checks, and negotiable paper of all sorts add just so much to the body of the currency; and this issue is unlimited by law, and unlimited in fact, except by the exigencies of trade. They are just as really currency as the specie dollar, the greenback, or the bank bill. A field which has no fence up one of its sides is not fenced in, no matter how high and strong its fences may be on the other sides. So, the volume of currency is not, in any true sense, limited by prohibitions of free banking, by a return to specie basis, or by any other means, so long as negotiable paper can be freely issued by individuals; and this free issue of negotiable paper is too useful, and too well entrenched in necessity, ever hereafter to be interfered with. Commerce can be hindered and trammeled to some extent—by statute arrangements claiming to regulate the currency, whether by restrictive measures, or by flooding the community with over-issues; but the volume of the currency can no longer be adjusted by such means.

Money is, as well as any other product offered by producers is, competitive when it is offered competitively in a market that is not criminally made into a Monopoly, and money will therefore be forced ever higher in quality and ever lower in cost to the consumer, not so much for the producer.

What is the highest quality and lower cost money ever in human existence according to your understanding of money?

I have my own understanding, and your answer can be compared competitively with my answer, rather than you dictating to me what my stupid answer is according to you.

"Yeah you are still under the impression that the Federal Reserve Act was where it started."

Who are you claiming has such ideas as you claim they have in their head? If you are directing those thoughts to me, as you claim that those thoughts are mine, then you are guilty of coloring me up with your false brush strokes, in fact, proven by you, again.

" corruption in your beloved Constitution…"

I have my own understanding of love, what it is, what it is not, and I am incapable of loving a piece of paper. Your words directed at me are false. Why?

"……we have a philosophical problem… is State Absolutism vs Natural Law Liberty."

Failing to find agreement because one of us makes up fiat thoughts to be placed in the other person's head, is an example of a larger problem. Blaming the victims for the actions of the criminals, for example, seems to be ubiquitous?

I use my own methods of communicating the full measure of the problem and the full measure of the solution to the problem.

1. Problem = criminals gaining the power of government

2. Solution = stop paying the criminals so well, and they may actually look for a productive job

How to get from 1 to 2?

End the FED (produce and use better money)
End the IRS (The IRS taxes users of Fraud Money, don't use the fraud money)
Bring the Troops Home (the first one is in the mirror)

A good place to start work may be here:

"I suggest you read a few books mostly Rothbard."

I did. He is one of the Gold Bugs, and he lies, falsifies, and employs the same tactics you are using on me now.

Birds of a feather?

Rothbard page 215-216
The Spooner-Tucker Distortion

It should be remembered by radicals that, if they wanted to, all workers could refuse to work for wages and instead form their own producer's cooperatives and wait for years for their pay until the products are sold to the consumers; the fact that they do not do so, shows the enormous advantage of the capital investment, wage-paying system as a means of allowing workers to earn money far in advance of the sale of their products. Far from being exploitation of the workers, capital investment and the interest-profit system is an enormous boon to them and to all of society.

I have a copy of The History of Banking too.

I like this work:
In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.

His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces.

"Or you could just read my post “The Journey to Jekyll Island”"

Someone so readily able to personally attack me earns my trust in what they have to offer (dictates)?

"You’ve got to stop reading this crap which you referenced in your post."

The person who produces what you call "crap" offers one one one questions and answers which is far more than almost everyone else does, when someone offers information voluntarily. Most people parrot the dictators they follow without question.

"these people are straight up ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT control freaks…’s this supposed to be what you are against……this is why you sound so confused….."

A monopoly built upon strictly voluntary association (no behavioral modification, response conditioning, manufactured consent, meaning: no fraud, no threats, and no violence used to create "volunteers") is what happens in free markets, there is FORCE applied by all the many shoppers shopping for better instead of worse. The best corners the market, and that is an effective monopoly, until something better is produced by a producer that produces something better, and then the shoppers vote with their shopping votes.

Frank at UCADIA offers something for those who claim that there are no alternatives to Involuntary Associations. If people want crime made legal, that is what they get, if they want something else, they will start shopping.

Your version of crap is not mine, even though you think you have authority sufficient to dictate to me what is, or is not crap TO ME.