Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0)
Highest posts
Latest posts
Links
Highest posts
Latest posts
C:- The evil-empire feeds off of the fear they instill in the commonpeople, and we have the potential power to destroy their ability to do that.
mS:- If you allways talk about “evil-empire” and “enemies” than it is highlyprobable that they will come soon and try to destroy us. Leave thenegative thoughts and start thinking positive!
-M: The common enemy that republicans such as myself have with theenemy are populists. And the enemy does read our posts,
C: Agreed.
M: so we have to let them know that we are no threat to their physical security(I am opposed to guillotine parties)
C: Your above reference to “guillotine parties”, Mark; seems to me to be an indication that you are really opposed toun-justifiable & indiscriminate killing of everyone loosely associated with oppressive activities of present despotic governmental policies. If that is what you trying to say, then we are in agreement.
-M: yes, so rock on.
C: But if you are advocating an essentially “Pacifist” position, to the effect that we do not have the right
to use force in our own self-defense, then we are in disagreement.
-M: I, and my religion, are not pacifistic – and I encourge everyone to prepare to defend themselves, but I see no current reason for bloodshed.
M: nor are we a threat to capitalism.
C: I am basically libertarian, & i do believe in the “free market”. But i view “Capitalism” as an entirely different creature,
founded in the paper-documents of title & paper/credit money based economies, which are inherently under the control of the fat-cat social-parasite “Banker” interests, who so powerfully oppress the common people of this planet.
-M: That is British mercantilist type capitalism. (the enemy) By contrast, I support the Hamiltonian American System of political economy.
C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests, are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…
-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.
C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.
-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
M: And we should think in a positive manner! :-)
C: Oh, yes. But please keep firmly in mind, that: all of us seem to have profoundly Different Interpretations of
what thoughts actually are “positive” or “negative”.
-M: People, I insist that the hard truth is positive because it still is the truth.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.
Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lying issues; sir.
-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.
mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This isnot war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there isscientific evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used totrust you more.
-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit,
C: Thank you, Mark. This, and much “republican” or right-leaning tendencies, …
-M: It can also be left-leaning – our republican Founding Fathers were liberals(liberators). (And I don’t consider neocons like the Bushmonkey to be republican.)
C:…we may have in common as in comparison to many others here-in. This is another reason i have been hesitant to debate intensely with you.
-M: Don’t you think that they are fascinated by Americans like us? Shouldn’t we show them our culture as much as possible? Friends, there is still a beautiful undercurrent in American culture that Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
M:…but plese remember it wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution, but it was great leaders…
C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders; & i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,
that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficiently
deciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted with
those leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that our
American Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;
& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly been
avoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursued
the “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democratic
common-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such as
the attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
-M: I am not aware of this. And I hope that you aren’t donning a loin-cloth like Gandhi.
C:…like Hamilton and Franklin.
C: Hamilton was a banker and a lawyer; & he was deeply involved in ‘secret societies’
such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was also
involved in those secret-societies,
as were washington & numerous other founders.
They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needs
of the common american people.
-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the common
people?
Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?
C: If those early americans had been in possession of tools for more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,
much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.
-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.
C: Hopefully; with the work of this group, those same mistakes will not continue in our nations future. Related point: on your “Elites” debate;
Jefferson (one of my favorites) spoke of “Natural Aristocracy”, &
“Un-Natural Aristocracy”. The “Natural Aristocracy” are those people
who
the good-hearted but incompetent lemmings…
M: Sounds familiar. :)
C:…of the nation vote to choose as their naturally more-competent leaders. The “Un-Natural Aristocracy” are those people who are
well-financed by the powerful banker slave-trader interests, to command the obedience of the people in top-down authoritarian romanistic military command structures. There was a very big Factional-Division between Hamilton & Jefferson over this precise issue. Jefferson was winning form may years of our early history; but especially after the civil war, the banker/lawyer trade-unions gained much control in government, & Hamilton’s philosophy is largely the resulting model in todays forms of government.
-M: Hamiton gave us industrialization, which is the biggest liberator of the people. He was also a supporter of a national bank, which would help to collectivise investment (to the opposition of the bankers).
M: SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business,
C: So may CLD2. Is there a Reason you fail to mention my proposed model?
M: Because it appears to be in-degree(lemming) based. :(
M:.. if so, winning the hearts and minds of people will occur without direct effort on our part.
C: I agree that once the process is running, that not much effort will be needed for it to gain immense popularity. But i do not consider attempting to market our ideas in the capitalistic profit-oriented business community to be the preferred environment for gaining that popularity.
-M: Yes it is, because the lemmings are motivated more by greed than altruism.
C: I admit i could be wrong there, but i prefer to focus on working with the common people.
-M: Just because you are for the common people doesn’t mean that they
are for you and each other.
Give them what they want, which is perceived self-interest.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote
Very Good.C: But if you are advocating an essentially “Pacifist” position, to the effect that we do not have the right
to use force in our own self-defense, then we are in disagreement.-M: I, and my religion, are not pacifistic – and I encourge everyone toprepare to defend themselves,
but I see no current reason for bloodshed.
Agreed.
I am glad you recognize some problems.M: nor are we a threat to capitalism.C: I am basically libertarian, & i do believe in the “free market”. But i view “Capitalism” as an entirely different creature,founded in the paper-documents of title & paper/credit money basedeconomies, which are inherently under the control ofthe fat-cat social-parasite “Banker” interests, who so powerfullyoppress the common people of this planet.-M: That is British mercantilist type capitalism. (the enemy)
By contrast, I support the Hamiltonian American System of politicaleconomy.
We have more pressing issues.
This debate can wait.
Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests, are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can bemanipulated.
As you previously stated,C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, thistransparency will do little good.
If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.
Well said.-M: People, I insist that the hard truth is positive because it still is the truth.M: And we should think in a positive manner! :-)C: Oh, yes. But please keep firmly in mind, that: all of us seem to have profoundly Different Interpretations ofwhat thoughts actually are “positive” or “negative”.
I am glad that we seem to agree.C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how tointerpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can haverigor.
We have all of these points in common.mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This isnot war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there isscientific evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used totrust you more.
-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit,C: Thank you, Mark. This, and much “republican” or right-leaning tendencies, …-M: It can also be left-leaning – our republican Founding Fathers wereliberals(liberators).(And I don’t consider neocons like the Bushmonkey to be republican.)
Perhaps.C:…we may have in common as in comparison to many others here-in. This is another reason i have been hesitant to debate intensely with you.-M: Don’t you think that they are fascinated by Americans like us?
Shouldn’t we show them our culture as much as possible?
As it serves the higher goals, yes.
Friends, there is still a beautiful undercurrent in American culturethat Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
Again, well said.
Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader-M: I am not aware of this.M:…but plese remember it wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution, but it was great leaders…C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders; & i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
We do not have to wait for the next election.
We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures
necessary to attempt to “Impeach” him.
Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removed from public offices
by any single man who has properly framed
a legal complaint against him.
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSupportingQW.htm
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSupportingQW.pdf
This gives each of us as individuals,
immense “leverage” in producing positive social change.
The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions.
This process is unfashionable because
the corrupted education & media monopolies
glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods,
& because they paint our few knowledgeable activists
like radical right-wing whackos.
And I hope that you aren’t donning a loin-cloth like Gandhi.
Well, i am a vegetarian, & i do believe in fasting, & i do have some profound respect for Gandhi; but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.
I phrased my concern poorly.C: Hamilton was a banker and a lawyer; & he was deeply involved in ‘secret societies’such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies,as were washington & numerous other founders.-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums.They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing
through indirect implications by
the documented oppressive activities of their members.
Precisely opposite.C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needsof the common american people.-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the commonpeople?
Such as, for example: the mafia, or the nazi party. And each of those entities frequently conducted secretive meetings.
Just because skull & bones members
have not been caught with blood-stained hands,
does not mean that there is no conclusive evidence
that their activities are subversive.
Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?
I am not familiar with that society.
This entire subject-string is not good to pursue further.
It is not worthy of our time & energy
at least at this beginning-level juncture.
They had common-law, & they knew aboutC: If those early americans had been in possession of toolsfor more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.
When those townships & precincts are run
with full knowledge with their lawful rights and duties
to elect responsible leaders in each of their smaller
10 & 100 household jurisdictions (respectively)
they only need pen & paper,
not any SD2 or other electronic voting program.
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/World12Divisions.html
It came on too fast, & in un-natural manners.C:…of the nation vote to choose as their naturally more-competent leaders.The “Un-Natural Aristocracy” are those people who arewell-financed by the powerful banker slave-trader interests, to commandthe obedience of the people in top-down authoritarian romanisticmilitary command structures. There was a very big Factional-Divisionbetween Hamilton & Jefferson over this precise issue. Jefferson waswinning form may years of our early history; but especially after thecivil war, the banker/lawyer trade-unions gained much control ingovernment, & Hamilton’s philosophy is largely the resulting model in todays forms of government.-M: Hamiton gave us industrialization, which is the biggest liberatorof the people.
The common american people were doing just fine
tinkering in their shops and garages.
Industry did have its advantages,
but it was controlled by the powerful money-changers,
and they were the ones who truly increased their power in society.
The common people only gained
comparatively insignificant increases in power,
which were mostly negatively counter-balanced against them in other areas.
He was also a supporter of a national bank,
Oh yes.
http://www.themoneymasters.com/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3510313821923167501
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn02-1
which would help to collectivise investment (to the opposition of the bankers).
If you are saying that Hamilton was trying to
help the common people become more economically self sufficient,
i believe the above links will strongly contradict that.
As do i.
We should probably let his thread go.
Maybe at another time it will be useful,
after our forums are better established, & segregated by subject.
<snip, separate email>
shantiMark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
C: I am basically libertarian, & i do believe in the “free market”. But i view “Capitalism” as an entirely different creature,founded in the paper-documents of title & paper/credit money based economies, which are inherently under the control ofthe fat-cat social-parasite “Banker” interests, who so powerfully oppress the common people of this planet.
-M: That is British mercantilist type capitalism. (the enemy)
C: I am glad you recognize some problems.
M: By contrast, I support the Hamiltonian American System of political economy.
C: We have more pressing issues. This debate can wait.-M: Yes, this is ideological.
C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…
-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.
C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.
So i suppose we agree here.
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpreted in a negative way.
C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.
-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.
-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).
M: And we should think in a positive manner! :-)
C: Oh, yes. But please keep firmly in mind, that: all of us seem to have profoundly Different Interpretations ofwhat thoughts actually are “positive” or “negative”.
-M: People, I insist that the hard truth is positive because it still is the truth.
C: Well said.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.
-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.
C: I am glad that we seem to agree.-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion.
mS:- I’d rather think of this as a normal evolution process. This isnot war! If you think negative you attract negative energy (there isscientific evidence of that), so think positive and maybe people will get used totrust you more.
-M: Charles, I like your revolutionary spirit,
C: Thank you, Mark. This, and much “republican” or right-leaning tendencies, …
-M: It can also be left-leaning – our republican Founding Fathers wereliberals(liberators). (And I don’t consider neocons like the Bushmonkey to be republican.)
C: We have all of these points in common.
C:…we may have in common as in comparison to many others here-in.This is another reason i have been hesitant to debate intensely with you.
-M: Don’t you think that they are fascinated by Americans like us?
C: Perhaps.
M: Shouldn’t we show them our culture as much as possible?
C: As it serves the higher goals, yes.-M: OK.
M: Friends, there is still a beautiful undercurrent in American culture that Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
C: Again, well said.
-M: I do think that the USA has a historic mission to uplift humanity. This needs to be rediscovered by our popular culture.
M:…but plese rememberit wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution,but it was great leaders…
C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders;& i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
-M: I am not aware of this.
C: Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader whom he can produce evidence is knowingly & willfully abusing his position of trust as a public-servant. We do not have to wait for the next election.We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures necessary to attempt to “Impeach” him. Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removed from public offices by any single man who has properly framed a legal complaint against him.
http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…
-M: Then the Cheneydick needs a law-suit against him for manipulating the US into war.
C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change.
The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making
unfounded malicious prosecutions.
This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media
monopolies
glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint
our few knowledgeable activists
like radical right-wing whackos.
-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly
LEMMINGS.
Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or
not.
M: And I hope that you aren’t donning a loin-cloth like Gandhi.
C: Well, i am a vegetarian, & i do believe in fasting, & i do have some profound respect for Gandhi;
-M: He was a spiritual man.
C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.
-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary. EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip. Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/ now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and Schumacher College.
I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had been
invited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to a
small group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they were
impressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I saw
him drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat
(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make a
nationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington Hall
Trust is packed with Imperialist blood money.
http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
C: Hamilton was a banker and a lawyer; & he was deeply involved in ‘secret societies’such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.
People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families). The best institution for economic collusion is a shareholding corporation.
If you are suggesting ideological collusion underlying secret societies, I am skeptical since ideologies have been used by the ruling families to manipulate the masses and not the otherway around.
C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needsof the common american people.
-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the common people?
C: Precisely opposite. But there are organizations which have clear “patterns of behavior” of oppressing the common people.
Such as, for example: the mafia, or the nazi party. And each of those entities frequently conducted secretive meetings.
-M: Did the American Revolutionaries conduct secret meetings? So? Have you ever told a secret?
C: Just because skull & bones members have not been caught with blood-stained hands, does not mean that there is no conclusive evidence that their activities are subversive.
-M: They are just a branch of the British Empire. These families have
blood and economic ties.
They want you to focus on the front because that is part of the Puppet
Show.
M: Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?
C: I am not familiar with that society.
-M: Franklin founded it as a republican form of Masonry to replace the
oligarchic Masonry in the USA.
Nepotistic degeneracy caused this society to degenerate from its intial
ideals.
C: This entire subject-string is not good to pursue further. It is not worthy of our time & energy
at least at this beginning-level juncture.
-M: OK.
C: If those early americans had been in possession of toolsfor more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.
-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.
C: […]they only need pen & paper, not any SD2 or other electronic voting program.-M: Yes, an unwritten rule in Common Law appears to be ease of computation.
C:…of the nation vote to choose as their naturally more-competent leaders.The “Un-Natural Aristocracy” are those people who arewell-financed by the powerful banker slave-trader interests, to commandthe obedience of the people in top-down authoritarian romanisticmilitary command structures. There was a very big Factional-Divisionbetween Hamilton & Jefferson over this precise issue. Jefferson waswinning form may years of our early history; but especially after thecivil war, the banker/lawyer trade-unions gained much control ingovernment, & Hamilton’s philosophy is largely the resulting modelin todays forms of government.
-M: Hamiton gave us industrialization, which is the biggest liberator of the people.
C: It came on too fast, & in un-natural manners. It dispossessed the common people from their family farms.The common american people were doing just fine tinkering in their shops and garages.
-M: No, it gave the North the money needed to win against the South during the Civil War.
C: Industry did have its advantages, but it was controlled by the powerful money-changers,
and they were the ones who truly increased their power in society.
-M: Things were fine until around 1886 – this is when the Robber Barrons came around.
C: The common people only gained comparatively insignificant increases in power,
which were mostly negatively counter-balanced against them in other areas.
-M: Isn’t this what usually happens when change occurs?
M: He was also a supporter of a national bank,
C: Oh yes.
http://www.themoneymasters.com/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3510313821923167501 http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=Fi…
M: which would help to collectivise investment (to the opposition of the bankers).
C: If you are saying that Hamilton was trying to help the common people become more economically self sufficient,
i believe the above links will strongly contradict that. As do i. We
should probably let his thread go.
Maybe at another time it will be …
-M: There is misinformation out there to attack the American System of political economy, so be careful.
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpretedin a negative way.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…
-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
You seem to again be criticizing-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use thelemming-algorithm(counting).C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”. If that is your assumption, it is in error.
Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of
100 possible maximum weighted approval.
Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes,
to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.
So your critique that the CLD2 process if only “counting” is in error, sir.
It would be greatly appreciated
if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist day
to explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail.
That would enable me to respond more intelligently, instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.
I have frequently found myself in the same position.-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points fordiscussion.For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing aboutpeoples controlling and fundamental assumptions.When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entireworldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
But i have come to realize that
the target audience for seeking to educate
concerning these superior modes of procedure,
are best lead to the superior knowledge levels
through the use of carrots, as opposed to sticks.
Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists.
Sticks & deception are the tools of
the un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.
Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as
humble “Servants” of the common man.
For sure, there are times to go ballistic;
but generally speaking,
adopting an empathetic view of the other mans views,
trying to see things from his point of view,
is a characteristic of a natural-born leader,
which in-turn builds the critically-important “Trust” in his supporters.
With all due respect,
I believe you argument concerning “Elitism”,
failed to empathize sufficiently with the opposing arguments,
to give those debaters due credit for
their perhaps poorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns.
The natural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; to accommodate his followers, imho.
Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly, their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.
I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.
Agreed. 100 %.C: Again, well said.-M: I do think that the USA has a historic mission to uplift humanity.This needs to be rediscovered by our popular culture.
Precisely.M:…but plese rememberit wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution,but it was great leaders…C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders;& i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.-M: I am not aware of this.C: Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader whom he can produce evidence is knowingly & willfully abusing his position of trust as a public-servant. We do not have to wait for the next election.We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures necessary toattempt to “Impeach” him. Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removedfrom public offices by any single man who has properly framed a legalcomplaint against him.http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…-M: Then the Cheneydick needs a law-suit against him for manipulatingthe US into war.
I will file them all at the same time
in the us supreme court in approximately 1 month.
These suits are in the nature of class-action suits.
It would be good to be engineering the masses in mass support of these suits,
similar to how mass-support for petitions
are presently being engineered by on-line communities.
Your support in this very needed effort would be greatly appreciated. But there-under, we need to be making better efforts at clearly communicating with each other.
I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark.C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change.The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by makingunfounded malicious prosecutions.This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & mediamonopoliesglamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paintour few knowledgeable activistslike radical right-wing whackos.-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostlyLEMMINGS.Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it ornot.
Im believe you noted my christian beliefs,
especially in my above-linked domain name.
Conservatives & liberals frequently presume that
i am not capable of resorting to the usage of
such drastic terminology.
They error.
Interesting link.C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.
I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
Well said.
I know how “Due Process of Law” works.such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.
It would be a distraction from more pressing concerns to pursue this indictment here & now.
People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families).
You are entitled to your opinion.
I view “Slave Trading” to be more than a mere economic concern.
The Romans were slave-trades, as were the Babylonians before them.
Those ancient belief systems have not become extinct, they have just modernly morphed into modern neocon imperialism.
In medieval & later european time times,
they operated as the roman catholic church;
which has always supported top-down slavery-oriented authoritarianism.
It was the protestants & barbarians of england, france, & germany; which stood in opposition to those romanistic authoritarian slave-traders.
The best institution for economic collusion is a shareholding corporation.
I prefer non-profit religious corporations.
Statutes recognize that religious organization
can refuse demands from the attorney general to produce books & records.
No other corporation has statutory approval for refusing such a demand.
If you are suggesting ideological collusion underlying secretsocieties, I am skeptical since ideologies have been used by the rulingfamilies to manipulate the masses and not the otherway around.
Well, the first half of your premise we agree on.
The ruling families do use private organizations, especially religious ones,
as mind-control tools to control popular behavior.
But this does not either support or negate
your inferred linkage that secret societies
are not routinely used for hatching imperialistic conspiratorial schemes.
You fail to focus on my central point, sir.C: Much better leaders were surely available to more faithfully serve the true sociological needsof the common american people.-M: WTF, so now a social forum can’t be established to serve the common people?C: Precisely opposite. But there are organizations which have clear “patterns of behavior” of oppressing the common people.Such as, for example: the mafia, or the nazi party. And each of thoseentities frequently conducted secretive meetings.-M: Did the American Revolutionaries conduct secret meetings? So?Have you ever told a secret?
I admit many secret societies are used for benefit. That is not the point i wish to draw into controversy.
My point is that skull & bones & other illuminati like organizations, are routinely used to hatch & implement oppressive imperialistic schemes.
You have said nothing here-in to negate that proposition.
We are not able to focus, constructively, presently. I suggest we let this issue slide until later.C: Just because skull & bones members have not been caught with blood-stained hands, does not mean that there is no conclusive evidence that their activities are subversive.-M: They are just a branch of the British Empire. These families haveblood and economic ties.They want you to focus on the front because that is part of the PuppetShow.
K.M: Why wouldn’t Franklin’s Society of Cinninatus be benevolent?C: I am not familiar with that society.-M: Franklin founded it as a republican form of Masonry to replace theoligarchic Masonry in the USA.Nepotistic degeneracy caused this society to degenerate from its intialideals.
Well; it is the only on-line voting program which is presently running. And if you and the others would quit boycotting it, we could find all of that out really quick, now, couldn’t we?-M: Yes, an unwritten rule in Common Law appears to be ease of computation.This may make it doomed to lemminghood.C: If those early americans had been in possession of toolsfor more effectively choosing their most trusted leaders,much violence & bloodshed could have been avoided.-M: SD2 would have been hard to compute back then.C: […]they only need pen & paper, not any SD2 or other electronic voting program.
Further; “ease of computation” is not a “rule” in the common-law voting system. But it is the present operating mode.
“Simplicity” is a profound recurring theme in literally multitudes of social concerns.
Further, “Simplicity” instills confidence in the common man. History if chocked full of re-curring accounts of schemes which Failed due to artificially & un-naturally built-in complexities.
And i dare suggest that your “SD2” voting model
is a primary example of this form of overly-complex engineering.
I may be wrong there,
but you certainly have not articulated to me
any reason as to why that would be the case.
I reviewed a number of your links here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/links
You certainly have an impressive assembly of egg-heads supporting your page-rank & SD2 voting program model. I am printing-out & reviewing some of the pdf files you liked to.
But it appears to me that you & your page-rank fellows
have engineered a ferrari for
a population which are traveling by horse & buggy,
& who would be quite happy &
significantly advanced in their self-governing abilities,
with a model-a ford.
Step back and look at your situation, Mark.
Your SD2/Page-Rank model voting program is so complex,
that you & your fellow intellectual elitists
can not even engineer a working model for the common people.
Shoot. You cannot even articulate in common terms
what are the advantages of your SD2/Page-Rank system
over other systems that are presently fully functional
& available for use.
I see serious problems with the picture which you paint, Mark.
The north did not fight the south.C: It came on too fast, & in un-natural manners. It dispossessed the common people from their family farms.The common american people were doing just fine tinkering in theirshops and garages.-M: No, it gave the North the money needed to win against the Southduring the Civil War.
The common people in the north did not want that war.
It was not necessary to wage that war.
Slavery was declining rapidly
& becoming extinct in the south anyway.
The purpose of that wars was just like the purpose of the war in iran.
It is designed to make an excuse for
implementing top-down authoritarian militarized control over
the common-people populations in both geographical areas.
And your hamiltonian elitist industrialization was
a powerful tool for achieving precisely that imperialistic goal.
Further, the civil war was a “war of nothern aggression”, just like the iraq war is a “war of aggression”.
True, the leaders of south may have been as evil as sadam hussain; but that does not justify implementing a war of aggression against either the south or iraq.
Well, things did get much worse at that date.C: Industry did have its advantages, but it was controlled by the powerful money-changers,and they were the ones who truly increased their power in society.-M: Things were fine until around 1886 – this is when the RobberBarrons came around.
The changes which occurred with the american revolution and through the articles of confederationC: The common people only gained comparatively insignificant increases in power,which were mostly negatively counter-balanced against them in other areas.-M: Isn’t this what usually happens when change occurs?
And i do not expect that to be the effect of
changes produced through the use of CLD2.
But i do suppose that may be the case with SD2.
The true constitutional (organic) system of american political economy, is a libertarian “free-market”.C: If you are saying that Hamilton wastrying to help the common people become more economically self sufficient,i believe the above links will strongly contradict that. As do i. Weshould probably let his thread go.Maybe at another time it will be …-M: There is misinformation out there to attack the American System ofpolitical economy, so be careful.
But, again, we should probably let this one go.
And “Yes”. There is much mis-information circling about us at all times.
A good voting program will be able to help us
develop concensus concerning what is good or bad info.
shalom; charles …
shantiMark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpretedin a negative way.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
C: We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.-M: I say it has these two charateristics:
Do you disagree with this?
C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).
C: You seem to again be criticizing my CLD2 voting algorithm, among perhaps others. You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”.If that is your assumption, it is in error. Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of
-M: The weighting sets the intervals at which the total is counted.
C: Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes, to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.
So your critique that the CLD2 process if only “counting” is in error, sir.
-M: Addition is counting. With 2+2, the counting starts at two, and ends at a interval of two from there. This yields 4.
C: It would be greatly appreciated if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist day
to explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail. That would enable me
to respond more intelligently,
instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.
-M: ‘hamiltonian elitist day’ – LOL!
We are brethern. Lets be nice.(You are understandably empassioned, so
I don’t need an apology.)
The problem with CLC2 is the fact that it is based on the in-degree
algorithm, which determines the center of a social network with the
depth of only one order. This is arbitrary and yields lemminghood.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion. For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing about peoples controlling and fundamental assumptions. When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entire worldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.
C: I have frequently found myself in the same position. But i have come to realize that the target audience for seeking to educateconcerning these superior modes of procedure, are best lead to the superior knowledge levels through the use of carrots, as opposed to sticks.
-M: For educating individuals, carrots tend to be better. But in group situations, sticks tend to be useful too, because others usually like to see them used on others(but usually not on themselves).
C: Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists. Sticks & deception are the tools of
the un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.
-M: I’d say that carrots and sticks are used by both kinds of elitists(because they both work sustainably), while deception is the trademark of the parasitical elitist – deception can give the short term gains that the parasite wants.
C: Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as humble “Servants” of the common man. For sure, there are times to go ballistic;
but generally speaking, adopting an empathetic view of the other mans views, trying to see things from his point of view, is a characteristic of a natural-born leader, which in-turn builds the critically-important “Trust” in his supporters. With all due respect, I believe you argument concerning “Elitism”, failed to empathize sufficiently with the opposing arguments, to give those debaters due credit for their perhaps poorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns. The natural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; to accommodate his followers, imho.
-M: I make no compromises.
C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly, their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.
-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
C: I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.
-M: It allowed me to test their worthiness.
culture that Hollywood doesn’t properly represent.
C: Again, well said.
-M: I do think that the USA has a historic mission to uplift humanity. This needs to be rediscovered by our popular culture.
C: Agreed. 100 %.
M: :)
M:…but plese rememberit wasn’t the people alone that created the American Revolution,but it was great leaders…
C: Well, i do recognize the very serious concern for competent leaders;& i do agree that if our goals are to be achieved,that the common people need effective tools for quickly & efficientlydeciding who among them is most deserving of being entrusted withthose leadership positions. But i am inclined to believe that ourAmerican Revolution was purposefully set on an un-wise “Fast-Track”;& that the massive blood-shed there-in could have very possibly beenavoided, if the then-chosen leaders had pursuedthe “pathway of peace” more zealously, through some direct-democraticcommon-law class-action judicial process which their leaders (such asthe attorney Hamilton) should have been aware of.
-M: I am not aware of this.
C: Every citizen has a constitutionally guaranteed right to bring a law-suit against any leader whom he can produce evidence is knowingly & willfully abusing his position of trust as a public-servant. We do not have to wait for the next election. We do not have to gather the massive numbers of signatures necessary to attempt to “Impeach” him. Corrupted leaders can lawfully be removed from public offices by any single man who has properly framed a legal complaint against him.http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/Clerk/PaperBullets/MemorandumSuppor…
-M: Then the Cheneydick needs a law-suit against him for manipulating the US into war.
C: Precisely. I have one in the works. A number of others for similar crimes are already completed.http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/usa/Treason/QuoWarrantoBush.htm http://christiancommonlaw-gov.org/usa/Treason/QuoWarrantoBush.pdf I will file them all at the same time in the us supreme court in approximately 1 month. These suits are in the nature of class-action suits. It would be good to be engineering the masses in mass support of these suits, similar to how mass-support for petitions are presently being engineered by on-line communities. Your support in this very needed effort would be greatly appreciated. But there-under, we need to be making better efforts at
-M: Rock’n.
C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change. The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions. This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media monopolies glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint our few knowledgeable activists like radical right-wing whackos.
-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly LEMMINGS. Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or not.
C: I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark. I occasionally indulge in using the f word myself. I think it is the single most powerful word in our vocabulary. I merely prefer to save it for use in very desperate situations.
-M: This is a deserate situation because peoples’ woo-woo-egalitarianism is causing PARALYSIS.
C: Im believe you noted my christian beliefs, especially in my above-linked domain name. Conservatives & liberals frequently presume that i am not capable of resorting to the usage of such drastic terminology. They error.
[…]
C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.
-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.
C: Interesting link.-M: Prince Charles has commented positively about Kumar. I wonder if Kumar knows that he is being USED.
M: I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
C: Well said.
-M: Why can’t Americans and Indians face it?: We are CULTURALLY SUPERIOR to British Imperialists.
This reminds me of seeing my grandmother watch the wedding of P.Charles
and L.Di.
She had a stupid glazed eyed smile while watching the TV – I knew there
was something VERY wrong with this even though I was only 9.
“Gramma, we are Norwegian-American republicans – we are productive and
benevolent. This makes us SUPERIOR.”
I didn’t say this, but I wish I would have.
such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.
-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.
C: I know how “Due Process of Law” works. The Proof is there, for those with eyes to see.[…]-M: They are just fronts, and people have the right to organize secretly if they want to.
M: People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families).
C: You are entitled to your opinion. I view “Slave Trading” to be more than a mere economic concern.
-M: I never said that it was only an economic concern.
C: The Romans were slave-trades, as were the Babylonians before them. Those ancient belief systems have not become extinct,
they have just modernly morphed …
-M: Yes, and like I said ‘People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families)’, so current wage slavery and globalistic imperialism is organized under ruling families.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Mark wrote:
No.-M: I say it has these two charateristics:1. 50%+1 of the population are eligiable voters2. The in-degree(counting)algorithmDo you disagree with this?-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpretedin a negative way.C: We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
I only used the phrase to differentiate this concept from
the artificial look-alike puppet-democracies
which the neocon/imperialists own & manipulate.
Ummm. Maybe.-M: The weighting sets the intervals at which the total is counted.C: You seem to again be criticizing my CLD2 voting algorithm, among perhaps others. You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”.If that is your assumption, it is in error. Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of100 possible maximum weighted approval.-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves. If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’ their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
Well, yea.C: Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes,to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.So your critique that the CLD2 process i(s) only “counting” is in error,sir.-M: Addition is counting. With 2+2, the counting starts at two, andends at a interval of two from there. This yields 4.
But now that we finally seem to be
comprehending each other’s terminologies clearly;
can you explain why this simple CLD2 weighted-voting model
should be rejected by reasonable people
as a valuable tool in promoting “responsible self-government”?
I am glad that you appreciated my impassioned terminology. I do desire a nice & brotherly relationship with you.C: It would be greatly appreciated if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist dayto explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail. That would enable meto respond more intelligently,instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.-M: ‘hamiltonian elitist day’ – LOL!We are brethern. Lets be nice.(You are understandably empassioned, so I don’t need an apology.)
But we still have remaining points of contention, good sir. And im sure you comprehend that there are some issues which i simply can not compromise on.
In particular, please help me achieve concensus with you
concerning how most honorably to respond to
the presence of my CLD2 voting program.
The problem with CLC2 is the fact that it is based on the in-degreealgorithm, which determines the center of a social network with thedepth of only one order.
I really need a more detailed explanation here, sir.
This is arbitrary and yields lemminghood.
Those are two different critiques;
the first of which seems to me to be
the only critique of any possible substance.
Let me elaborate on how i see the program optimally being used.
An anglo/american “Township” has 10 heads-of-households which are voting to elect their own “peace-officer”, aka: “constable”, aka “cop”.
They all register their weighted votes over the internet in the CLD2 voting program.
All votes lower than 33 mean a veto has been cast.
Those heads-of-households with no vetos against them
are ranked in order of their average weighted vote.
For example; total township averaged votes are:
Joe = 91
Jack = 85
Jim = 75
Jeff = 69
Jerry = 65
Billy = 50
Bobby = 45
and the other 3 have been vetoed.
Now can you tell me Why this process should be considered as not being 100 % efficient for this small community of people in selecting their own township leader?
It seems to me to be achieving 100 % of
the desired needs of the common people there-in.
I see Nothing “Arbitrary” about these people
using this voting program in this way,
as you above words seem to imply, sir.
Please explain to me why this CLD2 voting process
is “Arbitrary” & not functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance.
And if you concede that it is functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance, then what makes you think it will not do so in more complex instances?
Please.
Agreed. 100 %.C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lyingissues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion. For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing about peoples controlling and fundamental assumptions. When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entire worldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.C: I have frequently found myself in the same position. But i have come to realize that the target audience for seeking to educateconcerning these superior modes of procedure, are best lead to thesuperior knowledge levels through the use of carrots, as opposed tosticks.-M: For educating individuals, carrots tend to be better. But in groupsituations, sticks tend to be useful too, because others usually liketo see them used on others(but usually not on themselves).
Misapplication is serious bad-karma.
Again; 100 % agreement.C: Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists. Sticks & deception are the tools ofthe un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.-M: I’d say that carrots and sticks are used by both kinds ofelitists (because they both work sustainably), while deception is thetrademark of the parasitical elitist – deception can give the shortterm gains that the parasite wants.
There is a time and place for such fervent devotion to truth & justice.C: Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as humble “Servants” of the common man. For sure, there are times to go ballistic;but generally speaking, adopting an empathetic view of the other mansviews, trying to see things from his point of view, is a characteristicof a natural-born leader, which in-turn builds the critically-important"Trust" in his supporters. With all due respect, I believe you argumentconcerning “Elitism”, failed to empathize sufficiently with theopposing arguments, to give those debaters due credit for their perhapspoorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns. Thenatural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; toaccommodate his followers, imho.-M: I make no compromises.
Granting a proud but simple country farmer his pride by making a token-concession to his uneducated but common use of words, will enable the collective-spirit of the movement to gain momentum, and the concession can be worded with the clear caveat that we believe that he is not correctly observing the rules of the queens english.
You are an adult, Mark.
You do what you believe is best.
But i must say i think you could be a very charismatic leader,
if you just were just not quite such a hard-ass.
There are times and places to be hard-asses.C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly, their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
But the men who are your foot soldiers,
who are marching into battle with you/us;
are not the ones who you need to be focusing
your hard-ass energy against.
That acidic energy is to be saved for the enemy;
& only is to be used amongst your troops
when they are being so clearly abysmally-stupid
as to directly aid that enemy.
We should be striving to run a hard-assed military operation here. The imperialist neocons will not be routed by anything less. That is clearly the battle before us.
And there are plenty of opportunities to get
verbally-abusive on some of
the ‘less than competitive’ brains in this forum.
But such verbal-abuse should be reserved until
the ‘pathway of peace’ has been exhausted with them;
and they are blocking concensus well after
they have clearly been adequately indulged in
their intellectually-dysfunctional reasoning process.
See these long posts i make?
It takes time & energy to develop concensus among good/proud men.
It takes work.
It takes humility, going the extra mile.
Explaining your position ‘idiot proof’.
Wrestling with concepts, & forging new terms for your target audience,
such as ‘hamiltonian elitist days’.
Im glad that struck your heart.
That was precisely what i wanted.
Now you are indulging me just a bit more than you were before. Now i know, that you know, that i know, you.
Now i can get in your face, respectfully;
and tell you that i need better explanations;
& i can realistically can expect that
you are going to make a serious attempt at explaining things to me.
But i have seen your default mode of procedure Mark;
& i would not have this new confidence
if i had not done this extra brain & keyboard work
in these attempts at blasting through that thick skin of yours
in my attempts at touching your soul.
:)C: I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.-M: It allowed me to test their worthiness.
We need better tools for organizing, sir.-M: This is a deserate situation because peoples’woo-woo-egalitarianism is causing PARALYSIS.C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change. The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions. This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media monopolies glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint our few knowledgeable activists like radical right-wing whackos.-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly LEMMINGS. Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or not.C: I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark. I occasionally indulge in using the f word myself. I think it is the single most powerful word in our vocabulary. I merely prefer to save it for use in very desperate situations.
Please consider registering & participating in my CLD2 voting program, or at least on the BBS i just set up.
I know you do not like my CLD2 voting program.
But presently, i believe it can serve our mutual purpose
for building concensus on vital issues.
If & when your SD2 program comes on line;
i promise i will share all data with you,
or any reputable others in this forum;
& i will bust ass in my attempts to see
any specific advantages which SD2 has over CLD2;
& if i find them, i will drop CLD2 & enthusiastically use SD2.
We are in a spiritual war-zone here, sir.
A musket is better that no defensive weaponry at all.
And we have a spiritual-duty to wage this battle
with what tools the universe has provided us with;
NOW.
I am not really familiar with that situation,-M: Prince Charles has commented positively about Kumar.I wonder if Kumar knows that he is being USED.C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.C: Interesting link.
“Patience”, young sir. This is the dawn of the age of aquarius.M: I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/C: Well said.-M: Why can’t Americans and Indians face it?:We are CULTURALLY SUPERIOR to British Imperialists.
We take what tools are available to us,
we mold & forge & fashion them into
implements for with which to wage this spiritual battle,
& with crystal clear karma we go fucking ballistic
at the enemies of all honest people on this planet.
The arabs have a saying, which i like, similar to: “If a man dies in a holy war, he goes straight to heaven”.
If our karma is clean when we move, & if we die during those moves; we need not concern ourselves with any other considerations; what-so-ever.
Our day will come, young sir. “Patience”.
This reminds me of seeing my grandmother watch the wedding of P.Charlesand L.Di.She had a stupid glazed eyed smile while watching the TV – I knew therewas something VERY wrong with this even though I was only 9.“Gramma, we are Norwegian-American republicans – we are productive andbenevolent. This makes us SUPERIOR.”I didn’t say this, but I wish I would have.
I have many sad memories also.
The battle is ahead of us, young sir.
Our minds & hearts must be constantly preparing for that future battle.
Sadness over the past is an indulgence which a good solder can not afford.
That is not the point in question, young sir.such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.C: I know how “Due Process of Law” works. The Proof is there, for those with eyes to see.[…]-M: They are just fronts, and people have the right to organizesecretly if they want to.
Lets let that one go, for now, also, please.M: People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families).C: You are entitled to your opinion. I view “Slave Trading” to be more than a mere economic concern.-M: I never said that it was only an economic concern.
Well, i do think there are other aspects involved.C: The Romans were slave-trades, as were the Babylonians before them. Those ancient belief systems have not become extinct,they have just modernly morphed …-M: Yes, and like I said ‘People collude primarilly based on commoneconomic interests, or by common ancestory(families)’, so current wageslavery and globalistic imperialism is organized under ruling families.
And on that ‘family organizing imperialism’ point;
here is a mind-blower for you, if you have not already seen it:
http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_satanic_bloodlines.htm
http://www.whale.to/b/sp/bloodlines.html
“Let Justice be done, tho the heavens them-selves may fall”.
Chuck …
shantiMark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-M: I was saying that ‘popularly-based democracy’ should be interpreted in a negative way.C: And it is my humble opinion that those forms of “Capitalist” interests,are inherently opposed to popularly-based Democracy,…-M: Contraire, they know(from experience) that the lemmings can be manipulated.C: Well, i did not mean “popularly-based democracy” in a negative way, as you seem to be interpreting it.So i suppose we agree here.
C: We define “popularly-based democracy” differently.
-M: I say it has these two charateristics:1. 50%+1 of the population are eligiable voters2. The in-degree(counting)algorithmDo you disagree with this?
C: No. I consider “popularly-based democracy” to be a redundant phrase.Imho, all True “Democracy” is “Popularly Based”.
-M: Democracy means ‘rule by the people’ You now must think that rep-democracies aren’t democracies. This puts you in left-field.
C: I only used the phrase to differentiate this concept from the artificial look-alike puppet-democracies which the neocon/imperialists own & manipulate.
-M: Lets say ‘currupted democracy’ vs. ‘uncorrupted democracy’.
C: You seem to again be criticizing my CLD2 voting algorithm, among perhaps others.You seem to infer that the CLD2 model only “counts”. If that is your assumption, it is in error.Every group vote is weighted as a per-centage of 100 possible maximum weighted approval.-M: SD2 has this feature without having to use the lemming-algorithm(counting).C: As you previously stated, the people are hungry for tools with which to empower them-selves.If we build voting-programs with which they can use to elect & ‘immediately recall & replace’their own leaders, then they will immediately begin responsibly doing precisely that.C:…& to all forms of “totally open” government.-M: We need more transparency, but without competent leadership, this transparency will do little good.
-M: The weighting sets the intervals at which the total is counted.
C: Ummm. Maybe. Your term “Interval” seems displaced. But it is a direct factor in the total ofthe power of the final vote counted, so i suppose we may be on the same page.
-M: This is an example of a first-order algorithm.
C: Those votes are added together & divided by the total number of votes,to again present a per-centage of the 100 based total of group support.So your critique that the CLD2 process i(s) only “counting” is in error,sir.
-M: Addition is counting. With 2+2, the counting starts at two, and ends at a interval of two from there. This yields 4.
C: Well, yea. I did not realize that was how you were “counting”. This certainly is not a direct/simplified form of “counting”.-M: This is the same form of counting. You have only arbitrarily predetermined ‘counting’ to be whole numbers in intervals of one.
C: But now that we finally seem to be comprehending each other’s terminologies clearly;
can you explain why this simple CLD2 weighted-voting model should be rejected by reasonable people as a valuable tool in promoting “responsible self-government”?
-M: Because it is about the same algorithm as before, the lemming algorithm.
C: It would be greatly appreciated if you took the time & energy out of your hamiltonian elitist dayto explain your objections to CLD2 in more detail. That would enable meto respond more intelligently,instead of having to guess as to what your true objections are.
-M: ‘hamiltonian elitist day’ – LOL!We are brethern. Lets be nice.(You are understandably empassioned, so I don’t need an apology.)
C: I am glad that you appreciated my impassioned terminology. I do desire a nice & brotherly relationship with you.
C: But we still have remaining points of contention, good sir. And im sure you comprehend that there are some issues which i simply can not compromise on. In particular, please help me achieve concensus with you concerning how most honorably to respond to
the presence of my CLD2 voting program.
-M: OK.
M: The problem with CLC2 is the fact that it is based on the in-degree algorithm, which determines the center of a social network with the depth of only one order.
C: I really need a more detailed explanation here, sir.
-M: It is majoritarian, and most people are lemmings – this yields lemmingism.
M: This is arbitrary and yields lemminghood.
C: Those are two different critiques; the first of which seems to me to be the only critique of any possible substance. Let me elaborate on how i see the program optimally being used. […]Now can you tell me Why this process should be considered as not being 100 % efficient for this small community of people in selecting their own township leader?
-M: Its still based on counting, so the lemmings are simply going to chose lesser lemmings.
C: It seems to me to be achieving 100 % of the desired needs of the common people there-in. I see Nothing “Arbitrary” about these people using this voting program in this way, as you above words seem to imply, sir. Please explain to me why this CLD2 voting process is “Arbitrary” & not functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance.
-M: Because the representation is limited to one level arbitrarily. By contrast PageRank is an adaptive multi-order algorithm that can generate multi-levels of hierarchy.
C: And if you concede that it is functioning with 100 % efficiency in this instance, then what makes you think it will not do so in more complex instances?
-M: I am not making efficency an issue, just quality.
C: As with your interesting debate on “elites”, the larger concern is arriving at agreeable Definitions of terminology.Spouting words up-on which we fundamentally disagree on how to interpret, only serves to further obscure the serious under-lying issues; sir.-M: We communicate with words. Precision is needed before we can have rigor.C: I am glad that we seem to agree.
-M: Also words provide stable and identifyable focal points for discussion. For example the discussion about ‘elitism’ is very revealing about peoples controlling and fundamental assumptions. When I address these axioms, by extention I am addressing their entire worldview. This is a powerful technique that I want others to learn.
C: I have frequently found myself in the same position.But i have come to realize that the target audience for seeking to educateconcerning these superior modes of procedure, are best lead to thesuperior knowledge levels through the use of carrots, as opposed tosticks.
-M: For educating individuals, carrots tend to be better. But in group situations, sticks tend to be useful too, because others usually like to see them used on others(but usually not on themselves).
C: Agreed. 100 %. But it is like surgery. The sticks are like scalpels. One needs to be “surgically-precise” in his application. Misapplication is serious bad-karma.-M: Agreed on all points. And you are welcome to point out misapplication.
C: Carrots are the tools of the natural-aristocrat elitists. Sticks & deception are the tools ofthe un-natural/defacto/usurping/parasitical elitists.
-M: I’d say that carrots and sticks are used by both kinds of elitists (because they both work sustainably), while deception is the trademark of the parasitical elitist – deception can give the short term gains that the parasite wants.
C: Again; 100 % agreement.-M: OK. (You did concede to one of my points. (I am not used to people conceding this easily.) If you are aware of this, you get good sport points.)
C: Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha; all viewed them-selves as humble “Servants” of the common man. For sure, there are times to go ballistic; but generally speaking, adopting an empathetic view of the other mans views, trying to see things from his point of view, is a characteristicof a natural-born leader, which in-turn builds the critically-important"Trust" in his supporters. With all due respect, I believe you argumentconcerning “Elitism”, failed to empathize sufficiently with theopposing arguments, to give those debaters due credit for their perhapspoorly-defined but basically valid underlying concerns. Thenatural-leader will adjust his vocabulary, within reason; toaccommodate his followers, imho.
-M: I make no compromises.
C: There is a time and place for such fervent devotion to truth & justice. Granting a proud but simple country farmer his pride by making a token-concession to his uneducated but common use of words,will enable the collective-spirit of the movement to gain momentum,…
-M: I am creating a new order where token concessions and appeasement to lemmingism will no longer be needed.
C:…and the concession can be worded with the clear caveat that we believe that he is not correctly observing the rules of the queens english. You are an adult, Mark. You do what you believe is best.
But i must say i think you could be a very charismatic leader, if you just were just not quite such a hard-ass.
M: LOL! Being a hard-ass is my online persona. It is fun.
In meat-space, I am very lovable. :)
C: Even tho your opponents were technically defining “Elitism” incorrectly,their definition was/is in full harmony with common usage & thought.
-M: I won’t apease lemming thought. Only the highest rigor is acceptable.
C: There are times and places to be hard-asses. I can fill that role with the best; as you will see if you hang with me long enough. But the men who are your foot soldiers, who are marching into battle with you/us; are not the ones who you need to be focusing your hard-ass energy against.
-M: I am being a hard-ass mainly toward those who I am fairly certain won’t be doing programming for SD2.
C: That acidic energy is to be saved for the enemy; & only is to be used amongst your troops
when they are being so clearly abysmally-stupid as to directly aid that enemy.
-M: By advocating DD, they are directly aiding the enemy. I am trying to undo the enemy propaganda that has led to this. A good example is the book: “The Authoritarian Personality” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393311120/
This book tries to make an authoritative case against authority. This book was popular with the 60’s counterculture movement, and has helped to lead to degeneracy, such as the elite anti-elitism displayed by DDers.
C: We should be striving to run a hard-assed military operation here. The imperialist neocons will not be routed by anything less. That is clearly the battle before us.
-M: Rock on.
C: And there are plenty of opportunities to get verbally-abusive on some of the ‘less than competitive’ brains in this forum. But such verbal-abuse should be reserved until the ‘pathway of peace’ has been exhausted with them; and they are blocking concensus well after they have clearly been adequately indulged in their intellectually-dysfunctional reasoning process.
-M: With SD2, progress would not be delayed.
C: See these long posts i make? It takes time & energy to develop concensus among good/proud men. It takes work. It takes humility, going the extra mile. Explaining your position ‘idiot proof’.
Wrestling with concepts, & forging new terms for your target audience, such as ‘hamiltonian elitist days’.
-M: By contrast, I whup people for their own good, then I rub their nose in it.(Not quite, but this sounds funny.)
C: Im glad that struck your heart. That was precisely what i wanted.
M: :)
C: Now you are indulging me just a bit more than you were before. Now i know, that you know, that i know, you. Now i can get in your face, respectfully; and tell you that i need better explanations;
& i can realistically can expect that you are going to make a serious
attempt at explaining things to me.
But i have seen your default mode of procedure Mark; & i would not have
this new confidence
if i had not done this extra brain & keyboard work in these attempts at
blasting through that thick skin of yours in my attempts at touching
your soul.
-M: Kinda trippy, but I like your style.
Learn these algorithms: closeness, betweeness, and degree. Also learn
what a markov-chain is.
Prepare to tell me the difference between a 2nd and 3rd order Markov
algorithm.
Use Google like I did to learn all of this.
C: I found the entire debate a large waste of time and energy.
-M: It allowed me to test their worthiness.
:)
C: This gives each of us as individuals, immense “leverage” in producing positive social change. The jury can penalize those who seek to abuse the process by making unfounded malicious prosecutions. This process is unfashionable because the corrupted education & media monopolies glamorize the alternative dysfunctional methods, & because they paint our few knowledgeable activists like radical right-wing whackos.-M: And this disinformation WORKS because the people are mostly LEMMINGS. Fuck’em. Lets do what is best for the lemmings whether they like it or not.C: I am glad we are speaking plainly, Mark. I occasionally indulge in using the f word myself. I think it is the single most powerful word in our vocabulary. I merely prefer to save it for use in very desperate situations.
-M: This is a desperate situation because peoples’ woo-woo-egalitarianism is causing PARALYSIS.
C:[…] If & when your SD2 program comes on line; i promise i will share all data with you,or any reputable others in this forum; & i will bust ass in my attempts to see any specific advantages which SD2 has over CLD2; & if i find them, i will drop CLD2 & enthusiastically use SD2.
M: Sporty! :)
C: We are in a spiritual war-zone here, sir. A musket is better that no defensive weaponry at all.
And we have a spiritual-duty to wage this battle with what tools the
universe has provided us with;
NOW.
M: :)
C:..but i believe his political strategies were less than optimal, & i am not fond of loincloths.-M: The enemy uses him to paint a picture of an ‘ideal’ revolutionary.EF Schumacher (“Small is Beautiful” bullshit) inherited this trip.Satish Kumar http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/satish/now leads the Schumacher Society, Resurgence magazine, and SchumacherCollege.C: Interesting link.
-M: Prince Charles has commented positively about Kumar.I wonder if Kumar knows that he is being USED.
C: I am not really familiar with that situation, but from the class circles which you describe,i would estimate about 90 % chance Kamur has full knowledge of the bad karma
-M: Lord Northampton, who is second highest in British Freemasonry, is a Buddhist. Also Masonry is institutionally close to Golden Dawn, which uses Yogic models.
Maybe they don’t think they are evil. Maybe they justify their ways to themselves, and think that they are protecting the lemmings from themselves. Maybe they think that they have good karma.
M: I met this fuck at a Science and Spirit meeting that he had beeninvited to. He spoke about his ‘return to nature’ 70’s bullshit to asmall group of primarily scientists. I don’t think that they wereimpressed. And, despite his ascetic Jain and Indian background, I sawhim drinking red wine and acting like a fuck’n British Aristocrat(stupid fake smile and nod -“yes, yes, indeed.”) – enough to make anationalistic American like me FUME. No wonder his Dartington HallTrust is packed with Imperialist blood money.http://www.dartingtonhall.org.uk/
C: Well said.
-M: Why can’t Americans and Indians face it?:We are CULTURALLY SUPERIOR to British Imperialists.
C: “Patience”, young sir. This is the dawn of the age of aquarius. We need to keep our karma clean at every juncture.
-M: LOL!
C: We observe the tools around us which the universe had s provided us with to accomplish our needed work in this time & place. We take what tools are available to us, we mold & forge & fashion them into implements for with which to wage this spiritual battle, & with crystal clear karma we go fucking ballistic at the enemies of all honest people on this planet.
-M: I like you.
C: The arabs have a saying, which i like, similar to: “If a man dies in a holy war, he goes straight to heaven”. If our karma is clean when we move, & if we die during those moves; we need not concern ourselves with any other considerations; what-so-ever. Our day will come, young sir.
“Patience”.
M: :)
M: This reminds me of seeing my grandmother watch the wedding of P.Charlesand L.Di. She had a stupid glazed eyed smile while watching the TV – I knew therewas something VERY wrong with this even though I was only 9. “Gramma, we are Norwegian-American republicans – we are productive and benevolent. This makes us SUPERIOR.”
I didn’t say this, but I wish I would have.
C: I have many sad memories also. The battle is ahead of us, young sir. Our minds & hearts must be constantly preparing for that future battle. Sadness over the past is an indulgence which a good solder can not afford.
M: :)
such as george bush’s modern ‘skull & bones’ society. Franklin was alsoinvolved in those secret-societies, as were washington & numerous other founders.
-M: Booga wooga. These are just social forums. They aren’t inherently evil, even when established by the enemy.
C: I phrased my concern poorly. The members of those secret societies have track-records of operating in concert to oppress the common people. The secret societies are only guilty of wrong-doing through indirect implications by the documented oppressive activities of their members.
-M: Assuming correlation (I contend this), this still does not equate to causality. You position seems painfully inductive, nor are you identifying a generative mechanism for this collusion.
C: I know how “Due Process of Law” works. The Proof is there, for those with eyes to see.[…]
-M: They are just fronts, and people have the right to organize secretly if they want to.
[…]
-M: Yes, and like I said ‘People collude primarilly based on common economic interests, or by common ancestory(families)’, so current wage slavery and globalistic imperialism is organized under ruling families.
C: Well, i do think there are other aspects involved. But basically, “Yes”; especially on the families organizing point. And on that ‘family organizing imperialism’ point; here is a mind-blower for you, if you have not already seen it:http://theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_satanic_bloodlines.htm http://www.whale.to/b/sp/bloodlines.html “Let Justice be done, tho the heavens them-selves may fall”. Chuck …
-M: They don’t have to be satanic or shape-shifting-reptilians(Icke), simply being humans with entrenched power is trouble enough.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
Please elaborate.-M: Because it appears to be in-degree (lemming) based. :-(M: SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business,C: So may CLD2. Is there a Reason you fail to mention my proposed model?
I have put a lot of work into this program.
If there is something seriously wrong with it,
i will try to fix it.
But i can not even respond intelligently
when you have used so few words
to so ambiguously describe your critique.
The lemmings have no money with which to pay us.-M: Yes it is,because the lemmings are motivated more by greed than altruism.M:.. if so, winning the hearts and minds of peoplewill occur without direct effort on our part.C: I agree that once the process is running,that not much effort will be needed for it to gain immense popularity.But i do not consider attempting to market our ideasin the capitalistic profit-oriented business communityto be the preferred environment for gaining that popularity.
Also; it is hard to be motivated by altruism
when you are fighting hunger-pangs in your stomach.
This is another point not worthy of long debate,
at least at his beginning stage.
I suggest we discontinue it, & save it for later.
“I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enoughC: I admit i could be wrong there, but i prefer to focus on working with the common people.-M: Just because you are for the common peopledoesn’t mean that they are for you and each other.
If we do not attempt to provide the common people with
what we personally know that they truly need,
then we are being incompetent natural-aristocrat/elitists,
and we do not deserve to be entrusted withe positions of leadership
which we are presently exercising, by default.
The lemmings will thank us
when they become sufficiently educated
to realize what we have done for them.
We are saving them from the massive-suicide cliff-jump; whether they like it or not.
Give them what they want, which is perceived self-interest.
You previously said (basically) that
they are hungry for political power,
and that they will gobble it up, if given the chance.
That is good enough for me.
charles …
oregon …
shantiMark, Seattle WA USA
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
M: SD2/AD may prove to be effective for business,
C: So may CLD2. Is there a Reason you fail to mention my proposed model?
-M: Because it appears to be in-degree (lemming) based. :-(
C: Please elaborate. This issue is very important to me., I have put a lot of work into this program.If there is something seriously wrong with it, i will try to fix it. But i can not even respond intelligently
-M: I did say that democracy is composed of three components:
And I did say that the only issue now is one of centrality algorithms. Apparently others here don’t have to respond to my points.
Your DD system has the indegree(counting) algorithm which is
arbitrarily first-order.
If you don’t understand what I just said, research to your heart’s
content:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/links
M:.. if so, winning the hearts and minds of peoplewill occur without direct effort on our part.
C: I agree that once the process is running,that not much effort will be needed for it to gain immense popularity.But i do not consider attempting to market our ideasin the capitalistic profit-oriented business communityto be the preferred environment for gaining that popularity.
-M: Yes it is, because the lemmings are motivated more by greed than altruism.
C: The lemmings have no money with which to pay us.-M: Then they have little power. Perhaps we should go elsewhere.
C: And as you previously said, they are hungry for personal empowerment.
Also; it is hard to be motivated by altruism when you are fighting hunger-pangs in your stomach.
-M: Agreed, another reason why we should use the business community to furthur our voting systems.
C: This is another point not worthy of long debate, at least at his beginning stage.
I suggest we discontinue it, & save it for later.
-M: No, this line is one of effectiveness – which is very relevant.
C: I admit i could be wrong there, but i prefer to focus on working with the common people.
-M: Just because you are for the common people doesn’t mean that they are for you and each other.
C: "I know no safe depositary of
the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves;
and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion,
the remedy is not to take it from them,
but to inform their discretion by education.
This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:278
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0350.htm
If we do not attempt to provide the common people with what we personally know that they truly need,
-M: EXACTLY! What WE know that they need, and NOT what they THINK that they need.
C:..then we are being incompetent natural-aristocrat/elitists,
and we do not deserve to be entrusted withe positions of leadership which we are presently exercising, by default.
-M: Rock on.
C: The lemmings will thank us when they become sufficiently educated
to realize what we have done for them. We are saving them from the
massive-suicide cliff-jump;
whether they like it or not.
M: Charles, I think you are getting it. :)
M: Give them what they want, which is perceived self-interest.
C: You previously said (basically) that they are hungry for political power,
and that they will gobble it up, if given the chance. That is good enough for me.
-M: OK, another option is an SD2 based political forum(this has already
been discussed.)
So maybe a two front option:
shanti
Mark, Seattle
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group.
To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer