I came up with this and thought why not post it here:
You can't make a stand while on your knee.
I came up with this and thought why not post it here:
You can't make a stand while on your knee.
there's always exceptions, such as:
"except when steadying your elbow while aiming a rifle."
" As we try to answer the question, New Zealand, Heaven on Earth, or the perfect location for a Criminal Colony. "
That's Australia you're thinking of. NZ is a different country.
Pass the cake.
That's Australia you're thinking of. NZ is a different country.
Pass the cake.
Pass the cake back. Nope, I'm thinking NZ.
David Wilcox has been tirelessly reporting on the collapse of the cabal, filling in a narrative as to exactly what the plan is.
Some elements may be true, but I certainly don't agree with everything he says.
The entertainment value is off the charts.
It's one of those narratives that concludes that humanity is about to be set free from the Satanists. But since he's misidentified who they are, and what they believe, you might want to take this with a grain of salt.
The idea that freedom can just be handed to us, is a farce, unless humanity structures its belief system to actually know what liberty is, and to vigorously defend it.
I agree with Green Lantern, we are as a society nowhere near that.
But things are definitely headed in the right direction.
I think I've been played. I noticed your post about The Milgram Experiment A few days ago, because I was going to use it to explain just how the belief in the authority fucks over an individuals ability to exercise conscience so drastically, that using it as a societal construct is completely absurd on its face.
Now, I haven't responded to "What do you do with the bad guys" yet, and today, I thought of Botany Bay.
It worked then, it always would.
But you keep posting my solutions before I do.
Are you really a closet anarchist just pretending to be a moron or what?
You seem to think that any argument advocating for human Liberty is it a non-sequitor, and that pointing out blatant violations of natural laws is a false argument.
Distortion of my arguement.
No, I don't. Do I look like I have a missing chromosone? I think any argument that doesn't respond to the argument the other person is making is a non-sequitor.
If suddenly, you removed all the roaming gangs of criminal thugs that people are forced to pay for through theft,
So you know magic?
Or just magical thinking. Let's start with if dolphins could fly, and advocado's could dance. Or if If I were rich man. Ya da da da da da. Now continue your argument choosing the appropriate fairy tale.
I am confident, that by now, I am not the only one that sees the inherent idiocy of your arguments.
You've just graduated from non-sequitor to ad hominem fallacy.
So you think you're not the only one that can't repeat back to me inaccurately what I've said? They might take unbridged to this assertion.
Here's a problem with the constitution you overlook:
The first 10 amendments that everyone agreed upon, are fine, they are natural laws and human rights inherent in nature.
They don't need an officially sanctioned gang of thugs to enforce, because rights and responsibilities that are inherent in nature naturally reinforce themselves.
Arguement of irrelevance to mine and non-sequitur. Irrelevant penalty declined, 10 yards on the continued non-sequitor
Why do smart people keep electing thugs?
Taking a piece of parchment, scribbling out natural laws does not make them natural laws
Fallacy by exaggeration. Fabrication of the process which occurred and misrepresenting natural law. See above arguement to AM
it only gives a gang of thugs that call themselves government the legal right to enforce what was scribbled down on a piece of parchment.
The citizenry already had the right to defend themselves under natural laws,
but now an officially sanctioned gang of thugs has been handed rights that do not exist under natural law.
You meant to say that the sanctioned gang of thugs do not exist under natural law or the rights do not exist under natural law. Because you clearly wrote "rights do not exist under natural law" Clearly anybody here that is reading that argument saw the idocy in the statement. Ohh, you mean just governance doesn't exist under natural law. Ad Populum Fallacy.
Since nobody noticed, because humanity seems to have been uniquely indoctrinated into ignoring natural laws, and substituting theological dictates, many of which are blatant violations of natural laws, including the imaginary need for authority figures,
Oh so they don't know they have rights???? How can people who don't understand their natural rights ascert them??. You have succesfully made my case.
Let people who don't know the rules, the mob, in a state of slavery, and let the slaves do it themselves. GOOD IDEA. Let's start today!!
You have just manifested an incredibly dangerous scenario.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Why is this arguement so popular under Trump?
Let's make those corrections and then we can continue with the others.
Take your partners hand, and stand perpendicular to their shoulders. Back straight, shoulders relaxed and not too stiff at the knee's.
When the dancers are in-sync and agreement has been made as to the style, The Dance Is Beautiful.
I'd like to pick a partner to demonstrate proper dance etiquette.
AM thank you for volunteering.
I had a lengthy reply to your post on that but it went down the internet deleted posts plughole. I didn't get adequate time since to redo such a thorough post due to time constraints. But I will some stage in the future. Here's the best we get this week, then its back to other work for me.
In summary I know that I have deliberately mixed the two phrases natural, as in natural law, and as in natural world. This goes to the source, the root, of what you disagree with in my comments. That's ok, I use rhetorical devices to achieve conversational communication. The point is not the rhetoric with me. it's the conclusion.
So I mentioned that natural law can be considered as a social construct, and this offended your sensibility on that matter because you are well aware that it goes far beyond that. I would agree if you said that. We would I suspect both agree if I were to assert that natural law is a theory of justice as explained by many scholars, but choose Greek scholars Aristotle, Plato, as a good example. Shakespeare reproduced these "natural law lessons" , Aesop-like, within his plots for people to experience, enjoy and benefit from.
But I can still say that natural law is a social construct, in that absent the context of society natural law applies pretty much immediately, but society seems to be able to suspend the application of natural lay consequences. For a period.
So natural law could also be described as in invisible balance point between extremes of this or that social activity - a balance point that we human beings are being found wanting in our ability to dally within it's honesty based behavioural requirements.
GL said: >>>But it's more than cycles. Isn't it? It shows up as equidistant events but what the hell is making the market do that? Has anybody asked the question? <<<
Yes. that is the case. And also yes I have been asked the question. The reaction to my answer was in one cae to the effect that this was being able to see the footprints of God's actions on Earth, and was a proof of the divine presence. I didn't see it that way, but I did understand his perspective on what I had explained, and it didn't go against anything I had said. He was using my work as a stepping stone to jump to a further satge of which I retain an open mind.
Reality and spirituality come very close because when we discuss these matters we are talking about the metaphisical side of things and the real side of things. When I was younger I would have dismissed that connection. but the connection between the real, the mental, the group mental, and a fresh reality is easy to prove. People who become famous for whatever reason, become rich. The fame is a mental construct, a feature of society which is immaterial. The wealth that flows from that is very real. That case is clearly proven.
And it also applies to respect, authority, and power. Study one, learn about the other. All of celebrity fame (notoriety) and power can be earned, and received as a gift, or it can be seized by nefarious means. In this way, for an example, Satanists might be totally wrong that their deity exists, and yet just because they believe that, and because they then act as a group, reality is the same as if it does exist. they create evil events to further their aims. The presence or non presence of "Satan" in this case is of less import than the fact that the dogs have been inspired (trained, educated, sponsored, appointed) and let out to do what dogs do. That's another example. These things are all around us, in society, like fleeting fashions for a colour of baseball cap to be displayed or hated, and also like thousand year affectations for religious beliefsets, or cultural mores.
And beliefs change, each in its appropriate time.
GL said: >>>...The neutral force that science has yet to discover. What is it that is so hard for people to see?
We talk a lot about religion but very little mention of this force despite the fact that Christianity even has a name for it. Star Was, "The Force" Chinese "The TAo" Fix and the Greeks "The Aether" Christians a little bit more personal " The Holy Ghost" The Voice of God etc,, etc, etc,. Lots of names. Lots of descriptions. is it only in markets or is it in all things?
The Chinese have accounted for these extreme polarities a long time ago. ...<<<
Yes indeed to this too. The force of neutrality may be considered in various ways. I embrace a few possibilities in this, and again have a certain degree of open mind and non-conclusions formed to allow learning as extra information arrives at myself.
Here are two possibilities: A: the neutral force is like a natural law based magnet from which this fly away only to return later, and overshoot again. B: the neutral zone is not a force, but a void and this is why we never pause in the place of natural justice or law. Instead there are strange attractors at certain distances away from the neutral, we are attracted to them, but when we arrive they touch and reverse polarity and begin to repel, which initiates an accelleration away from that extreme, through the neutral, and towards another extreme strange attractor.
The description "B" uses terms that come up in financial markets (support and resistance both attract and repel at different times/circumstances), and are also seen in the study of non-random non-linear "chaotic" complex systems in a great many things. There is thus, due to the observation of these in the universe in eg planetary motions, in interactions between species on this planet, and in certain measurements of humankind to attempt to build a philosophy from building blocks which allow the final philosophy to accommodate this.
GL referred to good and evil as opposites and said the Chinese saw it in a different way. >>>There were no absolutes, no absolutes of good or evil. Opposing forces worked in harmony with each other. Feeding each other. <<<
I see it something like that: Orbiting around each other, with each dependent on the other for it's present location and state. Interlocked but somehow separate while at the same time on a higher scale of seeing deeply connected.
GL said near the start of the second post I am answering: >>>What I find interesting is that you teach traders about this hidden force in markets but when it appears elsewhere, it's a construct. I'm pretty sure I've seen that criticism aimed at your work. you paint the lines where you want to paint them instead of the cycles at work. They are accusing you of creating a construct that doesn't' exist. <<<
(I am not taking the points in order so this reads more easily) The lines (being unconventional) were painted where I saw points of interest, connecting similar pints of interest and not touching all the other points of interest not pertinent at that time for that post. naturally, people who did not know my thesis, or methodology could not replicate to test. Which is intentional on my part. It is adequate to see over time that something works, and then beging a process of examination as to why that could be so. Straightforward telling is silly, counterproductive, gets dismissed instantaneously, and has many other negatives. In a skill, the skill level is invisible to those without that skill. The fool says to the craftsman, "that's easy anybody can do it, you're overcharging me!". The craftsman replies "ok go do it yourself or try to find somebody else as good for a lower price." Then the lesson begins. It did not begin while the fool was watching the craftsman at work the first time. I think some of my posts have a function in ways similar to that. Other posts are self evident. I suppost some make no sense at all to some readers, but hope they catch on and can come back to reap rewards at a later time.
All this stuff takes too long to explain, sounds too wordy when explained, is too easily dismissed, and why is that so? We have been mis-educated to not see certain important stuff. Mr Fix castigates the organized religions, and authorities for being the cause of this. He is right. Religion (and civil and other authority routinely buries inconvenient knowledge and always has done) The funny thing is he is also wrong. Let me explain in one last wordy portion of this reply. During the Dark Ages, Christianity abolished education and punished knowledge which might undermine its own propagandistic reasons to rule over everybody with a tyrannic might. Civil forces retained the artists, and the writers who eventually pushed the forces of latter day Rome back. As the theocratic force diminished, the civil authority increased, and knowledge blossomed into the Renaissance. So is authority good or bad? It depends on when, circumstance, and which is dominant, and which is submissive.
The Civic authorities resisting bishops with their racks, brands, dungeons and burning stakes in the town square, at that time, were an authority serving to protect, not oppress, in my opinion. The requirement for their rise was caused by the oppression by medieval Christianity (which was itself not walking in the ways of Christ) and the theocracy threatened the civic rulers, kings, queens, princes, so they had to defend themselves. Their self interest was congruent with the self interest of the peasantry. They pulled the church's teeth out of self interest. The swing has swung to a different extrame attractor since then. Nowadays excessive state authority occupies that place of dishonour and conceals its intentions against its subjects. It will create and forge it's own opposition, indeed, is already doing just that.
Natural Law as a process rather than a set of rules ... possibly a its a work in progress ... perpetually.
1.) He demonstrates Social Graces. Like a bow and curtsy before the dance.
2.) He recaps right from the start, our discussion to date and then communicates where he see's the area of miscommunication/confusion. So then I'm clear what he is saying and what we are talking about.
3.) He makes a dilineation between an inner reality and an objective reality that he calls a social construction. We both now know there are levels of distinction within the discussion. He is defining what we are talking about and delineating his view for clarity.
3.) Throughout the post, he acknowledges my statements, mostly by quote, so there is no confusion what he is referring to and then proceeds to reply directly to the point I made. There is absolutely no distortion of my workds and thoughts. Always keeping in step and in time 1-2-3, dip, 1-2-3 dip
4)He'll often augment his point through providing an example that lends support to his initial statements. No statements like because this hasn't worked, I am going to call certainty to my hypotheticals.
5,) He recaps and provides an executive level summary. Clarity and Precision. I repeat back to him what I understand he is saying mostly for my self edification because I know that he knows what he is saying. That's clear. I can tell he is not struggling to push through an argument out of stubbornness aIthough I could construe this post as either a slight shift in position, or just a clarifying position. Either way, it's well done. Absent of any form of logical fallacy including misrepresenting my position. He makes no assertions or unsubstantiated postulates to forward his position. He demonstrates an understanding of the subject matter and there is no laziness of thought or effort. He has matched me in that regard and therefore I accept him as a worthy discussion partner demonstrating an expertise in the subject he is speaking to.
If you follow the users manual, and work the system the system works. When you violate the laws of anything, even argument/debate, society falls apart, the conversation falls apart, a forum falls apart. But as long as all participants agree to the rule set and abide by them, things go along swell. Road bumps still come along BUT you use the process to work it out.
Life is hard work sometimes.
Even if we had a society of rule followers, like AM does in conversation, I might still like a wise elder to facilitate difficulties as they come up.
Well Green Lantern,
If you're going to keep on tripping me up on my debating style, without actually addressing any of my assertions, I guess I'll have to go back to Elementary Rhetoric, and start wrapping my mind around some of the terms you use to avoid actually addressing the arguments.
That last video that you watched, was actually quite well presented, the terminology that was used, as well as the terminology that I have been using isn't meant to exaggerate a position, so much as to accurately define it without using popular euphemisms to disguise what we are actually describing.
A gang of thugs is just that, regardless of them being in or out of uniform. A Satanic empire of lies is just that, regardless of whether you want to use the name of an established religion, a governmental designation, or a particular Bank branch. They are all the same.
When I describe taxes as theft, I am simply stating a fact. When I describe a government as a terrorist organization, that is a fact, for they could not exist without employing that as a control mechanism.
So I describe politicians as parasites, or slave masters, because they are, and those that they govern as slaves, because they are.
And the list goes on and on, because the control matrix really does have many, many facets, all intentionally mislabeled to obscure what they actually are.
You may say that I am exaggerating your position, when as far as I'm concerned, I am simply accurately defining it without all of the satanist inspired euphemisms designed to disguise what they actually are.
I haven't changed any definitions, or principles, only the verbiage, to more accurately reflect reality.
Obviously, you don't agree,
You choose to believe in the fairytale of limited government. I guess I'll put that right next to the imaginary sky daddy in a list of false beliefs that have totally and tragically fucked over humanity.
You show me a picture of our founding fathers forming a government, and then accuse me of arguing irrelevancies when I say that it leads to a police state.
And yet history proves my point without exceptions.
A lot of the verbiage I use, is because I have specifically trained myself to think in such terms. I did it intentionally so I could walk into court without making the fatal mistake of showing fear, as most people are incapable of standing up to a perceived authority figure, as the Milgram experiment shows.
Taking on a lying sack of shit pig, a peace of human debris who calls himself a district attorney, a demonic cunt in a black robe who has the gang of thugs at her beck and call to stick me in a cage for her own amusement, meant that I at least had to get over my own internal terror of confronting them before I actually showed up in court.
These things take time, and with my best efforts, I barely pulled it off as it was.
You can't beat these fucking bastards unless you can convince them that you have leverage over them, and that they could actually be in genuine trouble.
That is exactly what I did.
That would be impossible to do with a quivering voice, and shaking limbs.
So you might still hold these demon possessed pieces of scum up as legitimate authority figures, but I certainly do not.
I view them as self serving traitors to humanity.
If I were to take the Milgram experiment a couple of years ago, somebody may have gotten hurt, since I used to shake violently in the presence of psychopaths with guns and badges. It was a completely involuntary response that I had no control over.
Maybe it's just a post traumatic stress disorder that I needed to overcome, and you might not approve of my strategy, but I don't shake any more in their presence, anymore then I would feel terror looking at a steaming pile of shit.
So I must conclude that we may have reached an impasse, since I am quite comfortable with how I define authority figures these days,
I am also quite comfortable with how I describe their theft, fraud, coercion, terror and violence.
They don't promote peaceful coexistence, in fact, they work night and day to ensure that it's not even possible.
If you have to believe in the legitimacy of a government, then of course, I understand why you would consider my editorial inserts instead of your euphemisms an exaggeration.
For if you ever considered them to be an accurate assessment of these malignant, malevolent, parasitical critters, it might seriously undermine your belief in authority.
I wasn't trying to win a debate, I was trying to change your mind.
Oh well, you can't win them all.
Best wishes in your servitude.
Part of the downfall of mankind, and in almost all man made institutions, is the magnetic effect of advancement.
Enlisted Army Ranks. There are 13 enlisted ranks in the U.S. Army: Private, Private Second Class, Private First Class, Specialist, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Sergeant First Class, Master Sergeant, First Sergeant, Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major, and Sergeant Major of the Army.
The clergy looks for advancement, rising above the level of a layman, hoping to work to be a priest/pastor, a bishop, or a pope.
West Point will make you an officer, bible college will make you anointed to be clergy, and a 19 year old Mormon youth can wear a badge that says "Elder". The lawyer seeks to become the D.A., or finally become a judge, working his way to the S.C. in W. D.C.
Yes, this is the way of the world. The believers, departing from the freedom given by Jesus in Matthew 20. Looking for true Freedom, will require a departure from the ranks of men. These are traps of control and suck the citizens into slavery. jmo Jim
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His [n]life a ransom for many.” (How will the priestcraft ever understand this basic?)
Fix, we are going around in circles like a gerbil on a wheel. I am not pointing out the details of the fallacies because I've done it multiple times we finish and you start again. Unrealistic assumptions don't help .there is nothing you have to look up because you aren't discussing/debating my position you are debating/discussing the position you perceive me making.
i honestly can't assume that you understand my position if you are unable to articulate it accurately.
The subject is not evolving. Its revolving
Thanks for your compilation of my views on the subject of natural law.
You are right to suggest we should write a book and make a fortune.
With my brains and your literary genius I have no doubt we could 'crack' it!
In 1858, at a grotto by the river Gave near Lourdes, France, a 14-year-old peasant named Bernadette Soubirous claimed that the Virgin Mary, identifying herself as "the Immaculate Conception," appeared to her some 18 times.* You'd think such a great number of visitations would have provided an opportunity to channel a short theological treatise of some significance. It seems, however, that the main message from the alleged "mother of a god" was: "Pray and do penance for the conversion of the world." Oh, and take a drink of the spring water.
In a nutshell: Gods are beings with unnatural powers who never die. Some are believed to be the controllers or creators of various parts of nature. Many are thought to require worship and obedience from humans. These gods reward or punish us depending on whether we please them.
Stories of gods have been told in most societies that we know of going back at least 10,000 years. Gods are portrayed as beings who never die, with mighty powers, able to make nature do what they want. Most gods are pictured as being born and having parents. Some stories show gods as being able to change the weather and cause mighty storms, floods, earthquakes, or volcanic eruptions. For the most part, scientists have replaced stories about gods with scientific explanations of how the universe was formed and how humans and other living creatures evolved.
Judge Napolitano on an anarchist show introducing himself as a libertarian.
Judge Napolitan Pro-Life LIbertarian combining libertarian views, his support for Ron Paul, with his Catholic Theology. AHHH, notice now he is taking an invisible law and combining it with a theology which than DOES become an objective social construct. Nobody is perfect.
Judge Napolitano supporting the scribbles on the parchment paper, the Founders, British Monarchy's total ignoring of natural rights and search and seizure, and NOTING that it was John Adams that twisted the words of the constitution attributing God endowed natural rights to the state giving you rights. NOT A LEGITIMATE POWER OF GOVERNMENT.
If the government no longer adhere's to it's constitutionally written role, than it is no longer a constitutional government. Therefore one can not argue the same points for two different types of entities.
Natural Law as a restraint against Tyranny
Thanks for the Judge Napolitano videos,
Yes, a constitutional government would be such a massive improvement over what we've got now, that it would probably get me through the rest of my life, as a happy camper.
The picture that you posted of the founding fathers just reaked of a Masonic Lodge meeting, and upon reading much of their history, I have good reason to question their ulterior motives, even if those who wanted to engage in a totalitarian two step as David Icke would put it, were not in the room at the time.
If the original 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) were established as the governing principles, I would signed onto that.
That would at least put an end to the criminal gangs that run our lives now.
It would also make the government virtually irrelevant.
That is as close to a stateless society as I will ever see.
It's too bad nobody is draining the Swamp.
It's too bad nobody is draining the Swamp.
First for a critical mass to recognize that "The Swamp" was master level Ericksonian technique. That by invoking a picture and hyperbole, it taps into our emotions and that we all define the Swamp to mean, whatever it is that we don't like. Avoiding specifics and avoiding facts taps into our emotions and then you are able to lead people through control of their attention directionally in whatever way you need to them.
And to recognize that he publicly stated that he would no longer refer to government as a swamp once he was elected by saying, you were angry then, now you are cool, calm and collected. No longer refer to that which he is in charge of as a Swamp.
Adams made two assertions pre-election, that a consensus republic no longer exists. That is not how things get done anymore and that persuasion and linguistically mastery was the only way to succeed in public life. It assumes a very low cognition for factual dialogue among the American public and a purely emotional level conversation. He also noted that Trump will move your attention away from that which he can't speak to factually and on the topics which he has more expertise and therefore he owns your attention and the American dialogue which never includes these, apparently, decisive, uninteresting topics that we are discussing. Does our conversation have an effect on other DOTERS?
While facts Do not matter in decision making, and consensus making in politics and among the electorate, it does in natural law. It does in attempting to decide the causality of problems.
We must involuntarily and by force outlaw the use of Post hoc ergo propter hoc logic. We can no longer spend our days dabbling in pretending that we understand causality and markets and events are a result of some linear process. And 2 dimensional thinking.
The Swamp was never meant to be factually correct or refer to large and overreaching government. It was referring to his enemies. Until we can acknowledge this level of hypnosis on a more mass level, than we can never discuss how to fix the problem because you can't correct the problem state when it is ill defined.
Maybury suggests that this ideological and gang warfare between factions in government is the dynamic that will clean house out. In other words, stand back, get out of the way and watch.
Armstrong suggests we are moving from one end of pendulum, socialism to the other tyranny. If he is correct, that means we are seeing pieces of the chessboard, players, actions that in the end will lead us to the next step. It's difficult to see how it will all come to together to fulfill that cycle (if thats what happens) but it's a worthwhile process to see the end, and look at the possibilities of how everything can come together to bring us to that end.
identifying the problem state requires individual and collective self-reflection which doesn't happen that much. It's easier to justify our actions then it is to look deep down and ask ourselves, why did I make that choice.
I have no evidence that the freemasons were a nefarious organization trying to hide secrets to obtain control. What I see is alot of talk by individuals not versed in certain esoteric principles who interpret any invocation of symbols or numbers as acts of an evil force.
The Mason organization today, seems to be only a brotherly fraternal organization. The only mason I know is not versed in deep mysteries. Whether the mason's have just dissolved as a mere shadow of it's former glory, or those in the know are few and far between, I don't know. I haven't investigated it but read alot of Mason texts where I found nothing that would give me concern.
having read some of their history, not all the way back to the Temple but how the Scottish Lodges came into being and interaction with Arab schools, there is some indication that the free masons were once a very active path that were taught many of these concepts we talk about including the fact that they held the idea of the "WORD" as important, not only to recognize but use. Maybe the light is no longer part of this organization and it no longer serves the purpose it once did.
But again, never saw anything that suggested that they didn't have the best interest of America in mind.
Lots of interesting pointers in Judge Anna's latest missives.