Posts
Lately there have been stories regarding the rich Afghan deposits of minerals. A reason for the war is tacitly suggested in this story.
This is careful perception management. The quickly catching on fact is that the Afghanistan war is a drug war that provides approximately 0.7 trillion per year in street value heroine. The land itself supposedly contains 1 trillion in minerals. Its never been extracted before and its been known about - simple reason - there are no sea ports or easy way of getting the minerals out of Afghanistan.
The organizations that rule the world operate at the sovereign level. No higher authority exists than the sovereign and sovereigns operate under natural law rather than civilized law. A wolf is a sovereign in the forest, it takes the lives of mice so that it can eat. This is nature. Countries going to war over resources is also nature.
The notion that we are fighting the Afghans to get their natural resources is much more palatable than the emerging truth: Our armies fight and kill there to get opium from which to help destroy western civilization- heroine goes into Europe. This is not a justification for war.
This perception management converts an unpalatable drug war war to a palatable one. Our leaders will not be perceived as drug lords but honest politicians looking out for our own interests.
The Afghanistan war is about drugs and drugs give profits which provides a means for black operations. The black operations are used to get IMF control over countries, so our banks can print their money and do to them what they have been doing to us. Not "our" banks, but the super wealthy class that is ruining our country with UN mandates, Agenda 21, etc all on behalf of the law merchant.
Perception management at the highest level cannot tolerate the emerging general knowledge that our armies are thugs for dope dealers.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
In Hades
"...on our way we can spend our time talking about them [laws], for I am told the distance from Cnosus to the cave and temple of Zeus is considerable, and doubtless there are shady places under lofty trees, which will protect us from the scorching sun. Being no longer young, we may often stop to rest beneath them, and get over the journey without difficulty, beguiling the time with conversation"
-Plato's Laws[Jowett]
In the popular mainstream media and education enforced sovereign model of government the Republic Of Plato seems irrelevant. If government is viewed in the correct manner in law, the Republic fits the real sovereign (the Law Merchant) that actually operates above government in the way a hand fits into a glove. The law merchant is everywhere, the director of action but seldom seen. The world is a lawful place, not a just one, and the true nature of the law is carefully hidden.
The Republic is a dialogue of things universal, but explained in the concept of Plato's' view of government which happens to fit very closely to our own. The book is a study of justice and everything else is tertiary and there to elucidate the concept of justice.
Some philosophers say that you should read many different philosophy books, others say that you need only study Plato and Aristotle and that others are mere footnotes. Others say The Republic of Plato towers over the rest, some people read it all their lives as if it were a bible.
Translating a book like The Republic Of Plato is a job for serious philosophers, I am only an amateur. My summary thus only includes sketches of the the first two books (chapters). By only summarizing the beginning, my errors should not accumulate as to have the opposite of intended meanings later in the book if I attempted a full summary. Nothings substitutes reading the text, especially multiple interpretations. I have the Cornford and Bloom editions. My summary scratches the surface and is independent of translation. The text of this book is the shadows and one must look toward the light by carefully reading and considering concepts.
It can easily be argued that civilizations exist to protect members from barbarians, nature and to ease economic loads, this explanation is provided by Rousseau. Rousseau explains that man must give up a part of his nature to live in society. Plato believes that society in which men are interdependent and specialized is both natural and advantageous.
Justice results from the culmination of moral virtues according to Plato. These moral virtues, according to Plato consist of tempered courage and wisdom providing justice which leads to happiness. People with the greatest of moral virtue should be held in the highest regard and in positions of leadership in Plato's idealized timocracy.
Plato fundamentally believed the government should promote moral virtue within its citizenry to obtain justice, and therefore happiness. He saw the need for government to regulate and control thought to maintain moral virtue in the city, a good form of what we call fascism. (Fascism, like propaganda can be used for both good or evil ends. Fascism is essentially ideas planted by government into the minds of the young who then make the required demands on government while sounding like a grass roots movement and a genuine demand for change. Mussolini said that fascism results from corporatism, not that fascism and corporatism are synonymous. The phoney environmentalist movement is a perfect example of fascism, as was Hitlers Youth.)
Many people believe that Plato's prescriptive authoritarian power would naturally become corrupt and not obtain its goal of an ideal virtuous society. This process of a society converting from Plato's timocracy to a democracy, followed by despotism is well explained in the later writings of the book. Plato did not believe that his idealized timocracy could be maintained for a long period. The purpose of the book was to discourse on the subject of justice rather than to provide the reader with a prescription for an ideal society.
The book was a dialog shared mainly between Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus and told by Socrates in the first person with Plato as the author. Plato was a student of Socrates. The political environment of this dialog is that of the tyranny of thirty, which the characters talking with Socrates are a part. Socrates is under implicit threat in these discussions. This tyranny is in place after Sparta won the Polyponnesian war with Athens. Its been said that The Republic Of Plato is the true apology of Socrates[Bloom].
The book is written in dialogue format with Socrates directing the discussion about justice shortly after he was ordered to appear. Socrates takes control of the discussion after being forced to participate showing that wisdom can overcome strength.
The book starts off with establishment characters talking with Socrates. Celaphus believes that justice is honesty in word and deed. Socrates discredits this argument giving an example of honesty in word and deed serving evil. Celephus gives us the rich mans version of justice.
Polemarchus states that justice is helping friends and harming enemies. Socrates argues that harming even the unjust leads to further injustice (Socrates believes that seriously harming a man is to make him more unjust). Polemarchus gives us the rulers version of what constitutes justice.
Thrasymachus, also a statist, says that justice is the interest of the stronger and lashes out at Socrates for being critical but not having a definition of justice to share. He states that justice is in the interest of the stronger and that everywhere the state is the strongest and acting against the state is called unjust. Socrates points out that the state is not infallible and doesn't always look out for its own interest - it makes errors, therefore acting justly in the eyes of the state may be an injustice.
Thrasymachus goes on to explain that injustice is more profitable than justice for rulers. He argues that the ruler is nothing more than a shepherd leading his flock of sheep treating them well but with the idea exploitation in mind. He argues that the small time criminal is often labeled as a villain, but the state ruler who practices tyranny has respect necessary to rule. Personal happiness is obtained by these rulers because they receive more than their share.
Injustice is only the fear of the weak, fear of being wronged but is more profitable than justice for those rulers that have skills to avoid detection or strength to avoid prosecution according to Thrasymachus.
Thrasymachus says that the just man is an unhappy ruler, his private affairs suffer because his principles prevent him from accessing the public funds. His friendships suffer for not giving them favor. Injustice has all the opposite advantages for rulers. “You can see the most successful in the most consummate forms of injustice which rewards wrongdoing with the most supreme form of happiness and welfare”[Cornford]
Socrates counters this argument in the context of how we judge a good craftsmen or a good doctor. The quality of the work is judged from the subject of the work, such as a thing created or the well being of the patient rather than the craftsman or doctors own personal happiness. In particular, Socrates uses the example of a ships pilot who must look out for the well being of ship and crew.
Thrasymachus concedes.
The entire book is devoted to the concept of justice and no serious reader would accept that Socrates has successfully refuted the views of the others thus far. What Socrates does do, however, is show that his intelligence can overcome the strength of his persecutors.
In the second book we are introduced to Glaucon and Adeimantus, who give more sophisticated arguments and discussions regarding the concept of justice.
In the second book Glaucon says that Thrasymachus should not have given up and that he would like Socrates to explain why fundamentally justice is preferable to injustice. Although he believes the statement, he wishes to more carefully analyze his beliefs by taking the role of the opposition and listening to Socrates argument in favour of justice.
Glaucon explains that the benefit of justice has only benefits of reputation and appearances. He is looking for the deeper understanding. To revive Thrasymachus argument, he reminds the others of folklore where a man finds a ring with which he can make himself invisible or visible in turning the ring around his finger. He asks the others to consider carefully what would happen if the a ring such as this one was given to both a perfectly just man and a perfectly unjust man. He says that the just man would be foolish not to enter the dark side and enjoy its fruits and that he would be called a fool if he didn't in private while being called a hero in public by those that feared him. He could take anything he wanted, kill whomever he wanted and occupy any position that he wished. Other than for the sake of appearances, justice seems to offer no advantage over injustice and injustice has every advantage.
Socrates expresses frustration at his inability to offer a counter argument.
Adeimantus lowers the hammer on Socrates once again by explaining his idea on how a government could run. He explains that justice is desired because it is assumed to be ideal in the eyes of the gods, but the gods take sacrifices and gifts from the unjust and the unjust can give more to the gods as well as look after those close to them.
Adeimantus explains the use of injustice in government: “For, as to getting away with it, we'll organize secret societies and clubs and there are teachers of persuasion who offer the wisdom of the public assembly and the court. On this basis, in some things we'll persuade and in others use force; thus we will get the better and not pay the penalty.”[Bloom]. Cornford also uses the terms “secret societies”.
He later explains the only disadvantage of injustice: “But in Hades we'll pay the penalty for our injustices here, either we ourselves or our children's children.”[Cornford] He adds that this can be countered: “We can counter that objection by reckoning on the great efficacy of mystic rites and divinities of absolution, vouched for by the most advanced societies and by descendants of the gods who have appeared as poets or spokes man of heavenly inspiration”[Cornford].
Both Adiemantus and Glaucon believe in justice, and look for Socrates to explain the advantage of a just life over an unjust life that does not include appearances. Socrates is at a loss to overcome these arguments and decides that since the state is a reflection of individuals but is much bigger, the elusive principle of justice may become clearer by looking at the state.
The remainder of book two explains how stories should be told to the young that promote virtue and do not insult or degrade the gods.
History shows us that man was once governed by monarchies, these monarchies required trade with others. This trade required the use of ships to transport goods and money. Often times a ship with a large quantity of gold and silver aboard would be sunk or robbed by pirates. Bills of exchange were created so that these bills could be carried in lieu of money. A system of laws developed around this paper money system and a class known as the law merchant slowly came into existence.
Under the law merchant system a ship could be easily insured, its losses would only be paper losses. The paper bills of exchange created an environment where the law merchant gained power that was above that of individual monarchies and was therefore able to finance revolutions. These revolutions lead to the nation state that we have today. Freedom was promised to the people, only to be quickly taken away by the law merchant while its illusion remained. This system evolved slowly in time, starting with the idea of fiat currency first developed in Lydia approximately 3000 years ago.
Banks print money from nothing and lend it to governments as thought it was actual labor. This provides enormous power to the banks to recover earned wealth through interest payments made by taxpayers on loans given to governments. This is known as debt farming. The enormous profits of the banks are not required to be spent into the economy of those paying the taxes and debts become impossible to repay. The common man is stuck in the muck of the rich mans ethic, to repay his debts although it is impossible if a universal ethic is to be applied.
Many people believe that the politicians of today must act according to justice because they can be thrown out of office for mis-behaving, or worse, charged in a court of law for being traitors or thieves. People are at a loss to explain how politicians can seemingly act in a traitorous and thieving manner and constantly get away with it. Our nationalities are not sovereign, our politicians therefore take guidance from the true sovereign while, through silence, keep the true realities of how the system operates from the masses.
The courts, answerable to the sovereign essentially operate the same way. They operate under the appearance of common law but in reality operate under the law of admiralty. In Canada, technically, the Queen is the sovereign but her power was taken by the banks shortly after the Battle of Waterloo when Rothschild spread false information just after the battle and was able to buy up Britain's debt for pennies. (Many people believe the Rothschild's were simply agents for the Venetian bankers just as Morgan was an agent of the Rothschilds in the USA before he died). The term "Crown" now refers to the banks in the City Of London rather than the British royals themselves.
We are governed by a philosopher king, but a philosopher king who is a committee - the Committee of 300, The Builderbergs, etc- all representatives of the law merchant. Their goal is not to promote virtue among mankind, but to destroy it. The Republic of Plato illustrates the fundamental problems in putting natural man into an un-natural society while preserving justice. It illustrates the difficulty of this and suggests logical ideas that may be incorporated to overcome mans natural desires so that he may form just and therefore happy societies.
Everywhere our philosopher kings can be seen to be doing exactly the opposite. They give us courts that are characteristically and obviously unjust to demoralize, politicians that are obviously thieves, secret societies and self governing professionals who guard their own interests rather than that of the tacitly implied interests of the public, police that act as peace officers but function as thugs and pirates for the banks, music and culture that is designed to de-moralize and destroy, water that is poisoned with fluoride, air that is poisoned with chemtrails, education that is poisoned with nonsense (AGW and overpopulation), and no moral or ethical education required for a healthy society whatsoever.
Morality is reverting back to natural law, which is very different -perhaps opposite from that required to maintain a civilization. Members of the tribe in positions of authority believe that they are superiour to the pack and that the social contract and the concept of good and evil no longer apply to them. Consider the recent BP oil disaster. Will members of the BAR (politicians and lawyers) allow anyone to be prosecuted ?
The evolving technological society requires a much smaller number of slaves to serve the ruling true sovereign and it may be in the interest of the sovereign to reduce the number of slaves on the plantation.
Our civilization is being destroyed, our lack of virtue is preventing anyone from stopping it, and people that will soon be on their own knees and in their own excrement are perpetuating it. We are no longer homo-sapiens, but homo-economous. Homo-economous has no virtue. Homo-economous lives in a state of fear and is ruled by greed and ambition driven by that fear in short sightedness in the land of Hades, where according to Homer the dead walk underground (underground has no light and dead can be a metaphor for debt).
The primary driving myths that underly the attitudes as well as demasculate homo-sapien into homo-economous are that of over-population and that of an elite much more intelligent class than the rest of us.
Overpopulation is ridiculous dogma that can be debunked with a window set in an airplane ride or look from Google maps over the most heavily populated areas on the earth. From a pure mass and consumption viewpoint insects rule the planet. We see examples of super intelligent beings everywhere. Chess masters with supposed IQ's near 200, master computer programmers such as Bill Gates or Bill Joy, master mathematicians such as Andrew Wiles who recently proved Fermat's Last Theorem. We believe that these people are much better ordinary folks.
In the case of Wiles, we find that Wiles was the kind of ten year old that liked to read math books. He first discovered Fermat's theorem at the age of ten, presumably while his classmates were outdoors experimenting with the devil or throwing a ball around in a park. People like Joy and Gates were the social geeks in high school that spent their time in computer labs and the best chess players learned the game before they could catch a ball.
The myths of overpopulation and elitism are carefully constructed myths to keep us commoners from even attempting to take power back. We have given up, believing they are better, they should survive, and that the world is overpopulated and many of us must die. It is an incredibly far reaching and diabolical scheme that depends on fear and the belief of omnipotence of this “elite” class and impotance of ordinary folks.
The doctor or lawyer looks down upon the more common professionals believing himself to be superior, the more common professionals look down upon those in clerical work or the skilled trades, believing themselves to be superior, etc. Divide and conquer is a necessary strategy to be applied in the deconstruction of todays society and to reduce the number of slaves through internal strife and economic warfare.
But Socrates could overcome and mitigate the affect of strength through the application of wisdom and sophistry (courts). We have been lead to believe that we cannot apply this same technique.
The courts are what our civilization sits upon and many researchers, average, everyday kinds of people are winning. They are getting out from under their mortgages, keeping their houses, driving without licenses and not paying income tax. They are the wise men of today, they haven't given up and an increase in their numbers is what scares the elitists more than anything.
The courts are made from smoke and mirrors to confuse the common man and convince him to hire a lawyer to shovel through all of the deception. The fork tongued serpent seemingly speaks in one language while in reality speaks another. The lawyer has the common man believe that he works in his interest by "representing" him. In reality, the lawyer re-presents the common man who has inalienable rights to the court as one who does not. Most people do not understand that hiring a lawyer leads to them giving up their rights and thus makes them liable (Lie-Able – as in able to be lied to).
Look at web sites like http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/ and www.detaxcanada.org to begin your research. You will get what these people honestly believe to be truth, they are wrong sometimes and admit to not having everything figured out but they are an alternative to the slave system and you may learn something. You may participate and/or contribute. There are many pleasing surprises waiting for you and you may just get your ticket out of Hades.
-Plato's Laws[Jowett]
In the popular mainstream media and education enforced sovereign model of government the Republic Of Plato seems irrelevant. If government is viewed in the correct manner in law, the Republic fits the real sovereign (the Law Merchant) that actually operates above government in the way a hand fits into a glove. The law merchant is everywhere, the director of action but seldom seen. The world is a lawful place, not a just one, and the true nature of the law is carefully hidden.
The Republic is a dialogue of things universal, but explained in the concept of Plato's' view of government which happens to fit very closely to our own. The book is a study of justice and everything else is tertiary and there to elucidate the concept of justice.
Some philosophers say that you should read many different philosophy books, others say that you need only study Plato and Aristotle and that others are mere footnotes. Others say The Republic of Plato towers over the rest, some people read it all their lives as if it were a bible.
Translating a book like The Republic Of Plato is a job for serious philosophers, I am only an amateur. My summary thus only includes sketches of the the first two books (chapters). By only summarizing the beginning, my errors should not accumulate as to have the opposite of intended meanings later in the book if I attempted a full summary. Nothings substitutes reading the text, especially multiple interpretations. I have the Cornford and Bloom editions. My summary scratches the surface and is independent of translation. The text of this book is the shadows and one must look toward the light by carefully reading and considering concepts.
It can easily be argued that civilizations exist to protect members from barbarians, nature and to ease economic loads, this explanation is provided by Rousseau. Rousseau explains that man must give up a part of his nature to live in society. Plato believes that society in which men are interdependent and specialized is both natural and advantageous.
Justice results from the culmination of moral virtues according to Plato. These moral virtues, according to Plato consist of tempered courage and wisdom providing justice which leads to happiness. People with the greatest of moral virtue should be held in the highest regard and in positions of leadership in Plato's idealized timocracy.
Plato fundamentally believed the government should promote moral virtue within its citizenry to obtain justice, and therefore happiness. He saw the need for government to regulate and control thought to maintain moral virtue in the city, a good form of what we call fascism. (Fascism, like propaganda can be used for both good or evil ends. Fascism is essentially ideas planted by government into the minds of the young who then make the required demands on government while sounding like a grass roots movement and a genuine demand for change. Mussolini said that fascism results from corporatism, not that fascism and corporatism are synonymous. The phoney environmentalist movement is a perfect example of fascism, as was Hitlers Youth.)
Many people believe that Plato's prescriptive authoritarian power would naturally become corrupt and not obtain its goal of an ideal virtuous society. This process of a society converting from Plato's timocracy to a democracy, followed by despotism is well explained in the later writings of the book. Plato did not believe that his idealized timocracy could be maintained for a long period. The purpose of the book was to discourse on the subject of justice rather than to provide the reader with a prescription for an ideal society.
The book was a dialog shared mainly between Socrates, Thrasymachus, Glaucon and Adeimantus and told by Socrates in the first person with Plato as the author. Plato was a student of Socrates. The political environment of this dialog is that of the tyranny of thirty, which the characters talking with Socrates are a part. Socrates is under implicit threat in these discussions. This tyranny is in place after Sparta won the Polyponnesian war with Athens. Its been said that The Republic Of Plato is the true apology of Socrates[Bloom].
The book is written in dialogue format with Socrates directing the discussion about justice shortly after he was ordered to appear. Socrates takes control of the discussion after being forced to participate showing that wisdom can overcome strength.
The book starts off with establishment characters talking with Socrates. Celaphus believes that justice is honesty in word and deed. Socrates discredits this argument giving an example of honesty in word and deed serving evil. Celephus gives us the rich mans version of justice.
Polemarchus states that justice is helping friends and harming enemies. Socrates argues that harming even the unjust leads to further injustice (Socrates believes that seriously harming a man is to make him more unjust). Polemarchus gives us the rulers version of what constitutes justice.
Thrasymachus, also a statist, says that justice is the interest of the stronger and lashes out at Socrates for being critical but not having a definition of justice to share. He states that justice is in the interest of the stronger and that everywhere the state is the strongest and acting against the state is called unjust. Socrates points out that the state is not infallible and doesn't always look out for its own interest - it makes errors, therefore acting justly in the eyes of the state may be an injustice.
Thrasymachus goes on to explain that injustice is more profitable than justice for rulers. He argues that the ruler is nothing more than a shepherd leading his flock of sheep treating them well but with the idea exploitation in mind. He argues that the small time criminal is often labeled as a villain, but the state ruler who practices tyranny has respect necessary to rule. Personal happiness is obtained by these rulers because they receive more than their share.
Injustice is only the fear of the weak, fear of being wronged but is more profitable than justice for those rulers that have skills to avoid detection or strength to avoid prosecution according to Thrasymachus.
Thrasymachus says that the just man is an unhappy ruler, his private affairs suffer because his principles prevent him from accessing the public funds. His friendships suffer for not giving them favor. Injustice has all the opposite advantages for rulers. “You can see the most successful in the most consummate forms of injustice which rewards wrongdoing with the most supreme form of happiness and welfare”[Cornford]
Socrates counters this argument in the context of how we judge a good craftsmen or a good doctor. The quality of the work is judged from the subject of the work, such as a thing created or the well being of the patient rather than the craftsman or doctors own personal happiness. In particular, Socrates uses the example of a ships pilot who must look out for the well being of ship and crew.
Thrasymachus concedes.
The entire book is devoted to the concept of justice and no serious reader would accept that Socrates has successfully refuted the views of the others thus far. What Socrates does do, however, is show that his intelligence can overcome the strength of his persecutors.
In the second book we are introduced to Glaucon and Adeimantus, who give more sophisticated arguments and discussions regarding the concept of justice.
In the second book Glaucon says that Thrasymachus should not have given up and that he would like Socrates to explain why fundamentally justice is preferable to injustice. Although he believes the statement, he wishes to more carefully analyze his beliefs by taking the role of the opposition and listening to Socrates argument in favour of justice.
Glaucon explains that the benefit of justice has only benefits of reputation and appearances. He is looking for the deeper understanding. To revive Thrasymachus argument, he reminds the others of folklore where a man finds a ring with which he can make himself invisible or visible in turning the ring around his finger. He asks the others to consider carefully what would happen if the a ring such as this one was given to both a perfectly just man and a perfectly unjust man. He says that the just man would be foolish not to enter the dark side and enjoy its fruits and that he would be called a fool if he didn't in private while being called a hero in public by those that feared him. He could take anything he wanted, kill whomever he wanted and occupy any position that he wished. Other than for the sake of appearances, justice seems to offer no advantage over injustice and injustice has every advantage.
Socrates expresses frustration at his inability to offer a counter argument.
Adeimantus lowers the hammer on Socrates once again by explaining his idea on how a government could run. He explains that justice is desired because it is assumed to be ideal in the eyes of the gods, but the gods take sacrifices and gifts from the unjust and the unjust can give more to the gods as well as look after those close to them.
Adeimantus explains the use of injustice in government: “For, as to getting away with it, we'll organize secret societies and clubs and there are teachers of persuasion who offer the wisdom of the public assembly and the court. On this basis, in some things we'll persuade and in others use force; thus we will get the better and not pay the penalty.”[Bloom]. Cornford also uses the terms “secret societies”.
He later explains the only disadvantage of injustice: “But in Hades we'll pay the penalty for our injustices here, either we ourselves or our children's children.”[Cornford] He adds that this can be countered: “We can counter that objection by reckoning on the great efficacy of mystic rites and divinities of absolution, vouched for by the most advanced societies and by descendants of the gods who have appeared as poets or spokes man of heavenly inspiration”[Cornford].
Both Adiemantus and Glaucon believe in justice, and look for Socrates to explain the advantage of a just life over an unjust life that does not include appearances. Socrates is at a loss to overcome these arguments and decides that since the state is a reflection of individuals but is much bigger, the elusive principle of justice may become clearer by looking at the state.
The remainder of book two explains how stories should be told to the young that promote virtue and do not insult or degrade the gods.
History shows us that man was once governed by monarchies, these monarchies required trade with others. This trade required the use of ships to transport goods and money. Often times a ship with a large quantity of gold and silver aboard would be sunk or robbed by pirates. Bills of exchange were created so that these bills could be carried in lieu of money. A system of laws developed around this paper money system and a class known as the law merchant slowly came into existence.
Under the law merchant system a ship could be easily insured, its losses would only be paper losses. The paper bills of exchange created an environment where the law merchant gained power that was above that of individual monarchies and was therefore able to finance revolutions. These revolutions lead to the nation state that we have today. Freedom was promised to the people, only to be quickly taken away by the law merchant while its illusion remained. This system evolved slowly in time, starting with the idea of fiat currency first developed in Lydia approximately 3000 years ago.
Banks print money from nothing and lend it to governments as thought it was actual labor. This provides enormous power to the banks to recover earned wealth through interest payments made by taxpayers on loans given to governments. This is known as debt farming. The enormous profits of the banks are not required to be spent into the economy of those paying the taxes and debts become impossible to repay. The common man is stuck in the muck of the rich mans ethic, to repay his debts although it is impossible if a universal ethic is to be applied.
Many people believe that the politicians of today must act according to justice because they can be thrown out of office for mis-behaving, or worse, charged in a court of law for being traitors or thieves. People are at a loss to explain how politicians can seemingly act in a traitorous and thieving manner and constantly get away with it. Our nationalities are not sovereign, our politicians therefore take guidance from the true sovereign while, through silence, keep the true realities of how the system operates from the masses.
The courts, answerable to the sovereign essentially operate the same way. They operate under the appearance of common law but in reality operate under the law of admiralty. In Canada, technically, the Queen is the sovereign but her power was taken by the banks shortly after the Battle of Waterloo when Rothschild spread false information just after the battle and was able to buy up Britain's debt for pennies. (Many people believe the Rothschild's were simply agents for the Venetian bankers just as Morgan was an agent of the Rothschilds in the USA before he died). The term "Crown" now refers to the banks in the City Of London rather than the British royals themselves.
We are governed by a philosopher king, but a philosopher king who is a committee - the Committee of 300, The Builderbergs, etc- all representatives of the law merchant. Their goal is not to promote virtue among mankind, but to destroy it. The Republic of Plato illustrates the fundamental problems in putting natural man into an un-natural society while preserving justice. It illustrates the difficulty of this and suggests logical ideas that may be incorporated to overcome mans natural desires so that he may form just and therefore happy societies.
Everywhere our philosopher kings can be seen to be doing exactly the opposite. They give us courts that are characteristically and obviously unjust to demoralize, politicians that are obviously thieves, secret societies and self governing professionals who guard their own interests rather than that of the tacitly implied interests of the public, police that act as peace officers but function as thugs and pirates for the banks, music and culture that is designed to de-moralize and destroy, water that is poisoned with fluoride, air that is poisoned with chemtrails, education that is poisoned with nonsense (AGW and overpopulation), and no moral or ethical education required for a healthy society whatsoever.
Morality is reverting back to natural law, which is very different -perhaps opposite from that required to maintain a civilization. Members of the tribe in positions of authority believe that they are superiour to the pack and that the social contract and the concept of good and evil no longer apply to them. Consider the recent BP oil disaster. Will members of the BAR (politicians and lawyers) allow anyone to be prosecuted ?
The evolving technological society requires a much smaller number of slaves to serve the ruling true sovereign and it may be in the interest of the sovereign to reduce the number of slaves on the plantation.
Our civilization is being destroyed, our lack of virtue is preventing anyone from stopping it, and people that will soon be on their own knees and in their own excrement are perpetuating it. We are no longer homo-sapiens, but homo-economous. Homo-economous has no virtue. Homo-economous lives in a state of fear and is ruled by greed and ambition driven by that fear in short sightedness in the land of Hades, where according to Homer the dead walk underground (underground has no light and dead can be a metaphor for debt).
The primary driving myths that underly the attitudes as well as demasculate homo-sapien into homo-economous are that of over-population and that of an elite much more intelligent class than the rest of us.
Overpopulation is ridiculous dogma that can be debunked with a window set in an airplane ride or look from Google maps over the most heavily populated areas on the earth. From a pure mass and consumption viewpoint insects rule the planet. We see examples of super intelligent beings everywhere. Chess masters with supposed IQ's near 200, master computer programmers such as Bill Gates or Bill Joy, master mathematicians such as Andrew Wiles who recently proved Fermat's Last Theorem. We believe that these people are much better ordinary folks.
In the case of Wiles, we find that Wiles was the kind of ten year old that liked to read math books. He first discovered Fermat's theorem at the age of ten, presumably while his classmates were outdoors experimenting with the devil or throwing a ball around in a park. People like Joy and Gates were the social geeks in high school that spent their time in computer labs and the best chess players learned the game before they could catch a ball.
The myths of overpopulation and elitism are carefully constructed myths to keep us commoners from even attempting to take power back. We have given up, believing they are better, they should survive, and that the world is overpopulated and many of us must die. It is an incredibly far reaching and diabolical scheme that depends on fear and the belief of omnipotence of this “elite” class and impotance of ordinary folks.
The doctor or lawyer looks down upon the more common professionals believing himself to be superior, the more common professionals look down upon those in clerical work or the skilled trades, believing themselves to be superior, etc. Divide and conquer is a necessary strategy to be applied in the deconstruction of todays society and to reduce the number of slaves through internal strife and economic warfare.
But Socrates could overcome and mitigate the affect of strength through the application of wisdom and sophistry (courts). We have been lead to believe that we cannot apply this same technique.
The courts are what our civilization sits upon and many researchers, average, everyday kinds of people are winning. They are getting out from under their mortgages, keeping their houses, driving without licenses and not paying income tax. They are the wise men of today, they haven't given up and an increase in their numbers is what scares the elitists more than anything.
The courts are made from smoke and mirrors to confuse the common man and convince him to hire a lawyer to shovel through all of the deception. The fork tongued serpent seemingly speaks in one language while in reality speaks another. The lawyer has the common man believe that he works in his interest by "representing" him. In reality, the lawyer re-presents the common man who has inalienable rights to the court as one who does not. Most people do not understand that hiring a lawyer leads to them giving up their rights and thus makes them liable (Lie-Able – as in able to be lied to).
Look at web sites like http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/ and www.detaxcanada.org to begin your research. You will get what these people honestly believe to be truth, they are wrong sometimes and admit to not having everything figured out but they are an alternative to the slave system and you may learn something. You may participate and/or contribute. There are many pleasing surprises waiting for you and you may just get your ticket out of Hades.
Monday, June 7, 2010
A Quotable Lawyer
I found this quote and just had to repeat it. It says in few words a truth that more people need to learn about our "justice" system.
"We, as criminal defense lawyers, are forced to deal with some of the lowest people on earth, people who have no sense of right and wrong, people who will lie in court to get what they want, people who do not care who gets hurt in the process. It is our job - our sworn duty - as criminal defense lawyers, to protect our clients from those people."
—Cynthia Roseberry
"We, as criminal defense lawyers, are forced to deal with some of the lowest people on earth, people who have no sense of right and wrong, people who will lie in court to get what they want, people who do not care who gets hurt in the process. It is our job - our sworn duty - as criminal defense lawyers, to protect our clients from those people."
—Cynthia Roseberry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My Blog List
About Me
- Doug Plumb
- Author of "Power Outage", available on Smashwords. I am a 50 year old free market libertarian who has had the time to read and consider the nature of globalism and the big machine that is surrounding us. I have participated in politics by running at the Fed level and debated Agenda 21 and 9-11 truth in front of large audiences. My background is in engineering and software creation. My business has provided me with significant time and freedom to learn the truth about the world around us. My goal is to expose Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development and Cultural Marxism.