Serious problems result from the misuse of words, and is there a willful intent to confuse people?
Media offer 1 from link 1:
At time: 46:25
"You need to go from a competitive mindset to a creative mindset."
Gerard from Liberty National Alliance may read my competitive offer right now. I hope he does, I plan on speaking to him during the Monday 10/28/2013 Meeting Call.
The concept of competition is synonymous with the concept of creation. When the word competition is misused the result is confusion. Who is confused?
Consider a competitive version of the sentence offered:
Sentence offered (by the speaker in Media 1:
"You need to go from a competitive mindset to a creative mindset."
Competitive offer intending to create a more accurate (shared) viewpoint:
"You need to go from an antagonistic (destructive) mindset to a cooperative (creative/productive) mindset."
Is the goal in the mind of the person creating the sentence, offering the sentence, an interest in, a desire for, and a intent to reach the goal of destruction?
"I want to destroy your ability to produce, as I want to gain at your expense, as I want to take from you that which you have, as I want to consume you, since I have a parasitic mind, a mind that sucks the life out of other people, and in that way the infected, parasitic, antagonistic, destructive mind does end up destroying their own sources of economic power."
That is NON-COMPETITIVE in a real sense, in a sense of reality, in a sense of which ideas work to sustain life compared to which ideas work to destroy life.
"I want to sustain life, therefore I want to sustain my ability to produce, therefore I want to help you sustain your ability to produce, therefore I want to compare my competitive viewpoint with your competitive viewpoint, so that we can share an accurate understanding of which parts of our shared viewpoints are less competitive, less productive, and which viewpoint of our shared viewpoints move away from destruction, move away from antagonism, and which viewpoint move toward more competitive viewpoints, moving toward viewpoints that sustain, rather than destroy, our lives?
Competition is the force that forces production toward higher standards of living and competition is the force that forces production toward lower costs of living, as competitors produce those products that the consumers of those products want, and no one, no individual person, having the power to choose (freedom) will choose worse over better, no individual human being, on their own volition, will willingly choose lower standards of living and higher costs of living because doing so defines the meaning of destruction on purpose.
Those whose purpose in life is to destroy life (hatred?) are those that willfully confuse (counterfeit) the mediums of exchange that are used by those whose purpose in life is to sustain life.
So why are people, anyone, you, the next guy, the next woman, anyone, why are people using the English word "competition" to mean the same thing as "antagonism" when the actual PROCESS of competition is merely a choice between better and worse, and as a matter of demonstrable fact, the competitive choice is always better over worse in the mind of each individual making each individual choice.
In Media 1 the topic for discussion moves to the concept of "Free Speech" (so called) and that too exemplifies the process of competition.
1. Monopoly Non-Choice = one single idea = Obey without question
2. Competitive Choice = many competitive choices = invent a competitive choice
Not spoken in that discussion are the concepts of Voluntary Association and a Court of Record, and that may help those who are unfamiliar with the concept of Voluntary Association and Courts of Record.
The volunteers wish to maintain a process by which the process improves, so the process of improving the process of Voluntary Association includes the process of maintaining a Record by which errors are recorded so as not to repeat errors, and a Record is maintained whereby improvements (trial and error) are repeated because those currently working at Trial and Error have a Record by which past Errors are Recorded, knowable, and past successes are Recorded, knowable, and the Volunteers can choose, competitively, the successful processes instead of choosing to repeat the same errors, over, and over, and over, again, and again, and again, expecting a success when past Records show that every time the same error is repeated, the same failures result.
A Court of Record is merely a process by which a place is chosen by the volunteers to have, to maintain, to keep up, to finance, to repair if broken, to improve if possible, in brick and mortar, or wood and plaster board, or steel and asbestos (one obvious error not needed to be repeated), and the volunteers then have a place to process current Record keeping, and keeping past Records from vanishing out of human memory.
Allowing the criminals to take over the process of improving the process results in an obvious lack of success. Criminals are knowable, in fact, as criminals demonstrate the fact of a crime existing, as criminals create Involuntary Associations.
Consent of the governed, as declared in The Declaration of Independence, which was created in a "common law" Court of Record in Philadelphia, 1776, is what it is, when it is, and consent of the governed is no longer what it was, when it is no longer consent of the governed. How easy can it get to find the criminals? Follow the fraud money to the source of it, like following the dead bodies to the source of the serial killer.
Note the subject of "securitization" of indictments.
That goes back to the information offered by Frank at UCADIA along the lines of "monetizing sin," (do not shoot the messenger please, the value of information is directly proportional to how competitive the information is among volunteers, in other words: if the information works for everyone without excluding anyone, then the information isn't JUST US having advantage over our targeted victims, which is the definition of a lie, or the definition of falsehood, since those who know it is a lie, and those who know it is false, have an advantage over those who do not know that the lie is a lie, or that the information is false, in other words: if the information is true, then it is valuable, if the information is accurate, then why shoot the messenger?), and along the lines of what became known as Annuities, or Bonds, whereby a new human being begins a new "bond" or "securitization" or "monetization" of that human being.
Think clearly people, what is the excuse being used to create Federal Reserve Notes?
The excuse being used is "The Good Faith and Credit of the American..." what?
If there are no people, will there be any Federal Reserve Notes SOLD to anyone?
When there is one human being born, there is then an excuse to "monetize," or "securitize" or "bond" or "Sale-able good," from which to profit at the expense of that "commodity" or that "capital" of human flesh.
Annuities, like guns, or like pointed sticks, is not necessarily bad, and when the "bonded" know that they are bonded, and that their potential to "make money" is being traded, then a "bonded" person can consent, or not consent, to such bonding, when government is based upon the consent of the governed.
When the "bonding" with "Annuities" is done fraudulently, secretly, covertly, by a few exclusive people in an exclusive group, then that is normally called Human Trafficking, Slavery, or Organized Crime, but when the so called "government" does it, by their "laws," then it is called what?
It is not the process of Annuities (voluntarily done among volunteers within a government based upon consent, which requires "full disclosure," and full knowledge) that is bad, what is bad is the practice of Annuities (or money, or government) processed into being by criminals who are willfully perpetrating crimes so as to "get something for nothing" at the expense of the targeted victims.
Serious mistake: "We own you." The point at which the human brain becomes corrupted? When is the point at which a Voluntary Association (consent) becomes Involuntary? Note: The point was corrected, but the damage was done - on the record.
Gerard is working on a point that may be understood easily as a method by which a human being declares themselves competent.
The idea there is to establish competency, whereby there is a Record maintained in a Court of Record, whereby the competent person records the fact that the competent person will proceed forward from that moment knowing that they are held accountable as a competent person. In other words, a person failing to establish competency can be someone who is not competent, such as an insane person, and therefore the ambiguity of an question concerning willful intent, or insanity, is not a question, not in question, once it has be established that Gerard, or any other person acting in service to the "public," has given his word, his bond, his oath, his "authority" (he is competent) and therefore from that point on, that person, that bonded person, that competent person, who has established competency, on the Record, in a Court of Record, will be held accountable for what that person does, that person cannot claim to "not know any better," and that person cannot claim to be "insane," as Custom (common law or common sense) is such that it is a good idea to avoid hiring insane people to be then given license to work on behalf of other human beings in a voluntary association.
So "raising up to" "the level of a higher standard" is a competitive way to communicate the actual facts, compared to, say, "raising up to the level of a public servant" which is an argument in itself.
The higher standard (thanks Gerard) means "not insane and therefore not accountable as a willful, thoughtful, premeditated, capacity to act, instead, the person is raised up from an ambiguous, possible, insane person, or infant, or dependent, raised up into the level all adults, all independent people, are at, whereby the independent people are accountable for what they willfully do, as each volunteer understands to be the most competitive way to maintain Liberty, Life, Economy, Politics, and other Voluntary Associations"
In other words, hey, look here, I'm not an infant, I'm not an insane person, I am not a criminal, I am here to declare my capacity to act willfully among the other volunteers, so as to serve our Voluntary Association, to maintain it, and to protect us from criminals who lie so well.
What if the person lies during the process of making an Oath, an Affirmation, and Affidavit, or any other customary way of declaring that "I will be responsible, and I will be accountable, for what I do."?
That is similar to the question of "What happens if someone becomes insane?" What happens if someone becomes corrupted after Oath taking?
There aught to be a way, a process, by which the criminals are found out, and the criminals are then avoided, and the victims are keep out of harms way as the criminals run amok.
What do you think Trial by Jury was, back in the days before it was corrupted by Corporate Common Law/Admiralty Law/Maritime Law/Commercial Law/Statutory Law?
When common law was first introduced in England at the time of Magna Carte the process was customary, anyone was processed, the same way, no one above, or below the law, and then the process was Incorporated into a Monopoly, as it was made into a Trademark, or exclusive right, a thing only these few can do, and only something that works for Just US.
So the confusion is this:
The process is due to all the volunteers, each one, as each volunteer volunteers to be held accountable for what each volunteer does, in fact.
The process is used by those who use the process to exempt themselves from it, and they do as they please, which is to exempt themselves from accountability for what they do, as they punish other people for doing exactly what they do.
When the process is 1, it is competitive, anyone can do it, and the best ones at it raise themselves, volunteering, to be working in that process, to reach that goal. What goal?
Defense of the innocent from the criminals.
When the process is 2, it is monopolistic, only those doing it allow only themselves doing it, and the best ones lower themselves into criminal thoughts, criminal actions, lies, threats, and violence, to reach that goal. What goal?
Offense against the innocent, or the guilty, just so long as they reach the goal of subjecting everyone but themselves to their will.
A possible source of the confusion concerns the term "servant," as it may be easy to make the mistake of thinking in terms of an Employee owned by an Employer, in much the same way as a Master (or Criminal) owns a Slave (a victim), while the actual common law, customary, rule of law, type thought is the opposite, whereby each Volunteer is volunteering to serve mankind, to serve Liberty, to serve the process by which the innocent victims are separated and protected from the criminals.
So the concept of a "Public Servant" is NOT someone enslaved by "The Public" whereby the actual Master is a person (judge/jury/executioner) "serving" a presentment/notice/indictment to a Slave.
That is a serious error in thinking, and a serious error in speaking, and a serious error of action if an innocent person is ever enslaved by a criminal, in mind, body, or spirit.
So...the idea is to get past the false crap and go forward as volunteers serving the cause of Liberty.
Do you serve the cause of Liberty?
The Oath is meant to establish a Court of Record by which the answer is officially yes, yes I do, I serve the cause of Liberty, so from this moment forward, that is on the Record, and it is therefore more difficult for me to claim otherwise at some future date when I'm caught red handed with my hand in the cookie jar.