Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 51
view profile
History
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?Page 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
First off, thanks to all for what has by and large been a very productive discussion. I knew when I started this thread that one or more of my basic presumptions might be open to question, but am pleased that so many of you agreed with my most fundamental assumption - that most people are fundamentally good. In a way, your numbers confirmed that premise.

So here's my own incomplete stab at answering my own question to toss into the fray....

I believe that most humans share a great number of traits and values, but that those very similarities often lead to conflict with each other.

One of those traits is indeed that fundamental goodness. Another is a tendency to order our values into what I describe as concentric circles. Those values in the circle closest to us trump those in circles not as close. Thus, for example, my love and impulse to protect my immediate family and loved ones might overide my pacifist values should I deem someone I care deeply about to be directly threatened.

Another trait many of us share is a difficulty accepting perceived differences in others without feeling that accepting those differences might somehow call into question our own choices and characteristics. Even though many might recognize that our diversity is a strength of our species, at a gut level we still are prone to assume that however we've figured out the world is 'right', or at least more right than any other interpretation. To truly embrace the value of multiple parallel paths to a common goal comes very hard to most of us.

One more common trait is our competitive spirit, which can both be very beneficial and incredibly destructive depending on how it is expressed. It's beneficial when it drives us to continually seek better options, better technology, a higher quality of life. It's also good when we engage in healthy competition, whether to build a better mousetrap, run a faster race, or respectfully debate the issues of the day.

But that same competitive spirit over and over in our history has led to destructive conflicts from shouting matches to wars and everything in between. It's led us to commit unspeakable acts of violence once we've convinced ourselves that the victims of those acts are NOT fundamentally good and therefore undeserving of the love and respect we reserve for those on 'our' side.

So how do we get from fundamentally good to committing unquestionably bad acts? Or even just to passionately differing with others who at their core share many of the same values we do?

I think it all comes back to those values we hold most dear, our competitive spirit, and our capacity for passion.

I honestly think if we compared our own most precious values with those of people we perceive to be most fundamentally different from us we'd be surprised at how closely we actually align with them. Most of us share that same fundamental urge to protect and care for those closest to us. For most of us that includes assuring a safe future for them and ourselves, a future with minimal potential threats.

So whenever we sense, rightly or wrongly, that our own inner circle is under threat, we respond defensively with postures and actions designed to minimize those threats and send a clear message to any who might threaten us that we are ready to defend ourselves. By doing so we may inspire others to feel threatened, and they respond the same way we did, and the whole process escalates from there. Sometimes reason prevails, sometimes not.

So is it all inevitable? I honestly don't know.

I'd never suggest we stop caring or jettison our healthy competitive urges or abandon our passion. But I would suggest that our very ability to engage in this discussion is evidence of our ability to utilize another shared trait - our ability to reason and consider the consequences of our choices - that provides the seed of potential healthy evolution into a society that places greater emphasis on nurturing our better qualities and minimizing the so far unavoidable negative byproducts of otherwise desirable traits.

I'm sure many generations have felt this way, but it sure seems to me that we're at an important crossroads. In many respects we've advanced incredibly quickly to a higher quality of life than we know of any other species enjoying. In many other respects we've placed ourselves on the precipice of rapid decline if we don't manage the immediate future wisely enough.

I'm not placing any bets which way we'll go in the years I have left, but I'm at least hopeful that our better traits will prevail, and we'll passionately embrace a better future for all of us.

So there's one more take in what has turned out to be a very interesting discussion.

Dave
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 52
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 1/30/2010 12:28:21 AM

In many other respects we've placed ourselves on the precipice of rapid decline if we don't manage the immediate future wisely enough.

The time to manage our future and find a better way is NOW. Even as we speak the warships are gathering in the gulf. an attack on Iran? Quite possibly. Why? Maybe Saudi Arabia doesn't want Iran being the preeminant Muslim state. Maybe Israel wants to set the Christians & muslims against each other. Maybe The US is mad about Iran dropping the US dollar as petrocurrency. Maybe The world's bankers are mad that they can't get an interest charging central bank in Iran. Maybe all those things; maybe something else, but they appear to be gearing up to attack Iran, a country that hasn't gone to war since Saddam Hussein tried to take it out for/with American aid & WMDs. Like anyone, all they want is to be left alone to live their lives in peace, but our govenments for whatever reason, choose to posture and possibly aggress.

Can we stand by and allow this? Why? There are good people in Iran and good people here. Why should governments be able to start a war and kill people, just because they feel like it? They claim to represent us, yet don't even bother to tell us when they're gearing up for another war. Did we really ask for that? NOw might be a good time for good people to let their government know how they feel. If they were really our representatives they'd not only listen, they'd listen with fear and respect to THE PEOPLE!

If you think Iran is really a threat, then go back to your TV. It's obviously the only thing you pay any attention to.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 53
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 1/30/2010 8:19:24 AM
@ Mar
OK...You can watch for two hours...any more'n that an' ya get a spankin'! (I can lower it to half an hour if you'd like)
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 54
view profile
History
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 1/31/2010 12:40:31 PM
Haven't you heard that reasonable people will disagree?

Add to that that most people do not engage in critical thinking. This does not make them bad, but it does mean that their thinking is flawed.

Check out this short course on critical thinking. Then ask yourself honestly what percentage of the population actually understands the concepts. Ask yourself what percentage of the posts in these forums are well thought out or the conversations you hear at work. Woefully few.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 55
view profile
History
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 1/31/2010 1:26:38 PM
I find it strange that some who are almost eager to say that they believe in the inherent goodness of people are just as eager to believe in the inherent badness of the powerful.

Maybe Saudi Arabia doesn't want Iran being the preeminant Muslim state. Maybe Israel wants to set the Christians & muslims against each other. Maybe The US is mad about Iran dropping the US dollar as petrocurrency. Maybe The world's bankers are mad that they can't get an interest charging central bank in Iran. Maybe all those things; maybe something else, but they appear to be gearing up to attack Iran

Do you really think that the US (or England, or Canada, or Australia) are lackeys who must jump at every whim of Israel or Saudi Arabia? As to the dollar... the war in Iraq did wonders for the US economy. Come to think of it... most of the world's economy is in the tank... those evil world banking masterminds aren't very masterful, are they?

It's just possible that if (and so far it's nothing but speculation) there is an invasion planned, it is exactly for the reasons that have been given. That Iran's leaders are to radical to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

a country that hasn't gone to war since Saddam Hussein tried to take it out for/with American aid & WMDs.

I seen in another thread just recently (I think it's gone now) approximate numbers as to how much military aid Iraq has recieved (purchased) from the US. $200 million. If my memory serves me, mostly helicopters and transport planes... no WMDs. This number is a pittance in relation to what they recieved from Russia, China and France. Of course, if you were to stick purely to the facts, it would be much more difficult to generate the level of outrage you seem to think is needed in your quest to paint America as the only government in the world who does bad things.

There are good people in Iran and good people here.

There were millions of good people in Germany in 1939 too... was WWII fought needlessly?

If you think Iran is really a threat

Is Iran building (or otherwise aquiring) nuclear weapons?........ I dunno.

If they are developing nukes, should they be considered a threat?........ Absolutely. A country that has nuclear arms wants to be viewed as a threat... that's the whole point. How much of a threat is impossible for ME to determine... and it's probably not much easier for the top brass in Washington to predict the future either.

If everyone just sits on their hands, and Iran does get nukes... and then it proceeds to steamroll over all of it's neighbors... I can guarantee what will happen. The whole world will be shocked and dismayed at their behaviour... and they'll be looking to the US to go in and clean up the mess.

Now I'm not necassarily advocating that there should be an invasion into Iran... I'm just opposed to the kneejerk type of thinking that the US is always in the wrong. If you have any honesty in your thinking, you have to realize this is not always the case.

If you think Iran is really a threat, then go back to your TV. It's obviously the only thing you pay any attention to.

And again with you telling people how to think. If we don't agree with you we're mindless couch potatoes? And who do you suggest we should be paying attention to... you?... our wannabe leader?

Whatsamatter? One thread discussing war wasn't enough for you?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 56
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 1/31/2010 2:57:48 PM

Do you really think that the US (or England, or Canada, or Australia) are lackeys who must jump at every whim of Israel or Saudi Arabia?

No. Israel and Saudi arabia are just lackeys too.

the war in Iraq did wonders for the US economy

So I see.

most of the world's economy is in the tank... those evil world banking masterminds aren't very masterful, are they?

What do you mean? They have all the wealth. What do you think impoverished the countries? They contracted the money supply to cause a depression.

That Iran's leaders are to radical to be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Well, let's look at the facts on that one shall we?
Fact: The ruling Mullahs consider nukes un-islamic and wouldn't have them on a bet. They feel it would offend Allah.
Fact: Iran has shown no evidence of building nukes "on the sly" and the intelligence reports of your own government confirm that.
Fact: Iran has not launched a war of aggression since 1739 under a monarch with a nasty disposition.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200502140006
Fact: Ahmadinejad did NOT say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
Fact: Iran has been offering to negotiate for ages. It is our side that won't talk to them.
Fact: Iran is a signatory of the NPT (Israel is not)
Fact: Iran has no nukes (Israel does)
Fact: The IAEA has consistenly given Iran a clean bill of health as far as inspections go. Any concerns they had were relatively minor and promptly investigated.
http://www.rferl.org/content/IAEA_Says_No_New_Concerns_Regarding_Iran_Inspections/1870579.html
Fact: Western signatories of the NPT (to include most all of Europe, the US and probably Canada & Australia) have FAILED to live up to their NPT obligations to Iran. (So I guess we know who is and isn't honorable)
I could probably go on, but that likely isn't necessary, is it?

This number is a pittance in relation to what they recieved from Russia, China and France.

It is also a mere pittance compared to the 3 billion dollars in (mostly military) aid that Israel receives annually from the US for the last 20 or so years now. Has it been upped? Why would the US do that when the NPT prohibits them from supplying aid to nuclear countries that haven't signed the NPT. Doing so clearly puts your country in violation of international law in the most egregious way, by supporting the unlawful acquisition of nuclear weapons. Isn't that what you're supposedly mad at Iran for? What a joke!

Of course, if you were to stick purely to the facts, it would be much more difficult to generate the level of outrage you seem to think is needed in your quest to paint America as the only government in the world who does bad things.

I AM sticking to the facts, am I not?

was WWII fought needlessly?

Yes.

Is Iran building (or otherwise aquiring) nuclear weapons?........ I dunno.

I have a pretty good idea they aren't and a lot of evidence to back my assertion.

If everyone just sits on their hands, and Iran does get nukes...

Then probably nothing bad will happen except that Saudi Arabia will lose its spot as top Muslim nation and Israel will be forced to negotiate a peace treaty with it that will likely include giving the land back to the Palesinians so they can have a Palestinian state sharing the same "right to exist" that Israel currently demands while denying the same to Palestine.

they'll be looking to the US to go in and clean up the mess.

Where do you get this stuff? Nobody wants you sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. (except maybe Israel, who would be overjoyed to have you do their fighting for them so they wouldn't have to sacrifice any of their own.)

I'm just opposed to the kneejerk type of thinking that the US is always in the wrong.

Then start doing the right thing instead of the wrong one.

If you have any honesty in your thinking, you have to realize this is not always the case.

I'll be the first to admit that Americans are good people, but like every good people, you have a lousy government that commits treason against the very things you stand for. They then lie to you through their teeth to tell you how wonderful they are and you, not wanting to think the government is run by crooks fall for the line and salute the flag. That flag represents the REAL America, the people of America. If you stopped waving it for just a minute or two, you'd see that your government has wiped sh¡t on it. You don't notice and then wonder why nobody likes America anymore. Hell We LOVE America, we LOVE the American people and some of us even understand that you guys have been suckered by a government that is only a sick parody of the one you started with.

And again with you telling people how to think. If we don't agree with you we're mindless couch potatoes? And who do you suggest we should be paying attention to... you?... our wannabe leader?

I don't wanna be a leader, but somebody's gotta tell it straight. It isn't just american TV, it's TV itself. It dulls the mind and allows you to be hit with 30 suggestions a second that come too fast for the mind to critically figure out. It is a tool of propaganda both of Madison Avenue and government. It is mind control pure and simple. If you spent a month away from a TV you'd never wanna go back to it. You'd find yourself reading more and better book; you'd feel your critical thinking activating as if you were emerging from a fog. I'm not putting a gun to anyone's head. I'm just giving sound advice. TV rots brains, period.

Whatsamatter? One thread discussing war wasn't enough for you?

I probably should have posted in the political forum, but it's hidden and not many people go there.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 57
view profile
History
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 1/31/2010 5:05:37 PM
First off... you've made a mistake in thinking I'm American. I live about 1000 miles to the northwest of you. I realize my profile is hidden (you can see it if you're logged in to both the dating and forum sides of POF) but I thought you'd pick up from previous conversations that I'm Canadian.... remember me talking about "my tax dollars"?

Secondly, as I stated before, I'm not advocating an invasion of Iran. I DO think that the possibility of Iran aquiring nukes is worrying... am I worrying needlessly... possibly. I do expect our governments to use diplomacy and sanctions to negate that possibility.

What do you mean? They have all the wealth. What do you think impoverished the countries? They contracted the money supply to cause a depression.

To what end? How do banks profit in a depression?

Fact: Iran has shown no evidence of building nukes "on the sly" and the intelligence reports of your own government confirm that.

I have absolute certainty that you are not privy to intelligence reports from my government let alone the US government.

From your own article:http://www.rferl.org/content/IAEA_Says_No_New_Concerns_Regarding_Iran_Inspections/1870579.html


The nuclear site, which Iran revealed in September three years after diplomats said Western spies first detected it, added to Western fears of covert Iranian efforts to develop atom bombs. Iran says it is enriching uranium only for electricity.
..............
Western diplomats and analysts say the site's capacity appears too small to fuel a nuclear power station but enough to yield fissile material for one or two nuclear warheads a year.


So they have built a uranium enrichment site "on the sly".

Fact: Iran has been offering to negotiate for ages. It is our side that won't talk to them.

From your own article, it appears Iran is not willing to negotiate... they're willing to talk... just not willing to make concessions.

Russia, France, and the United States, which would help modernize the reactor's safety equipment and instrumentation under the deal, see it as a way to reduce Iran's LEU stockpile below the threshold needed to produce material for a bomb.

But since the October 19-21 talks, Iran has made clear it is loath to ship its own LEU abroad because of its strategic value, and would prefer buying the reactor fuel it needs from foreign suppliers. Iran has called for more talks.



Fact: Ahmadinejad did NOT say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

From the other article you provided:http://www.newstatesman.com/200502140006

When western politicians talk of terrorism, what they are really referring to is Iranian support for militant groups opposed to Israel, and certainly with respect to Hezbollah, the evidence is very clear. Moreover, Iran does not help itself by perpetually denouncing Israel's right to exist, although even here the notion that the Islamic Republic of Iran would be willing to launch a nuclear strike against Israel and thereby destroy Jerusalem (the third holiest city for Muslims), strikes me as more than somewhat ridiculous.



Fact: Western signatories of the NPT (to include most all of Europe, the US and probably Canada & Australia) have FAILED to live up to their NPT obligations to Iran. (So I guess we know who is and isn't honorable)

When Iran failed to report that they were building a uranium enrichment site they were violating the NPT...

I AM sticking to the facts, am I not?

No... you said the US provided Iraq with WMDs...


was WWII fought needlessly?

Yes.

If you could give me a very condensed version of how Hitler could be stopped in 1939 (which is what I asked), without the use of a time machine, and without war?

Then probably nothing bad will happen except that Saudi Arabia will lose its spot as top Muslim nation and Israel will be forced to negotiate a peace treaty with it that will likely include giving the land back to the Palesinians so they can have a Palestinian state sharing the same "right to exist" that Israel currently demands while denying the same to Palestine.

It's possible that you're right... of course the possibility exists that you're wrong too.

Nobody wants you sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Again... it's not my nose we're referring to... but I completely disagree with you on the world's expectations of the US in being a "peacekeeper".

^^^^Go ahead... knock yourself out with my choice of words.


There's a political forum? Where is it hidden?

Try here:

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingForum98.aspx
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 58
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/1/2010 7:01:34 AM

How do banks profit in a depression?

For the most part the depression results from the taking of the profits. They either foreclose on a country (as they are trying to do in Iceland right now and as the did in the US in 1934) and or arrange for massive tax increases in the affected countries to increase their cut of the economic pie. Of course the money is really worthless except for the perceived wealth, but it is a convenient illusion, as nearly everybody subscribes to it and works in debt slavery. Where they benefit is in the increase in capital (ownership) as the "money" is not loaned unsecured. 

The banker therefore acts like a protection racket, holding the sword of damocles over the heads of a population. It needs liquidity to keep the wheels of industry turning and the banker is happy to lend that liquidity as "insurance" against disaster. When money is plentiful, you have a boom. Then, when it's time for a fleecing, he removes some money, which causes a chain reaction and the wheels of "capitalism" come to a grinding halt. Money is really meaningless to them. It is only a game of capital acquisition and feudalistic control, as the creditor is always in the position of "lord" and the debtor (a nation) is in the position of the serf.

So they have built a uranium enrichment site "on the sly".

They conformed perfectly to the terms of the NPT, under which they were required to announce the new plant at least six months before production was to begin. They did so (and if I'm not mistaken, about a year before production was to start).

it appears Iran is not willing to negotiate... they're willing to talk... just not willing to make concessions.

Why should they have to make concessions to exercise their right by treaty? As I said before, it is OUR side that isn't living up to its treaty obligations, not theirs. Any talks could only force concessions from our side, as they could (under international law) file suit.

Iran does not help itself by perpetually denouncing Israel's right to exist

It is the denial by Israel of Palestine's right to exist that is the issue. While I feel certain Iran would acknowledge the right of Israel to exist along the lines of what was granted by the UN, the creation of Israel didn't follow the UN plan, moreover the Palestinians are treated by Israeli in pretty much the same manner as Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals & Communists were treated by nazi germany. If this were 1938, would we wanna grant Germany's right to exist? Of course we would, but not Nazi Germany, the regime would have to go. This is no different than Iran's perspective. They would grant Israel the right to exist, I'm sure, but not the Zionist regime currently in charge of it.

That was the the real remark Ahmedinejad made. He said the zionist regime would be washed away by the pages of history (intimating that such regimes never last)

When Iran failed to report that they were building a uranium enrichment site they were violating the NPT...

As I noted above, that is untrue.


I AM sticking to the facts, am I not?

No... you said the US provided Iraq with WMDs...

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

If you could give me a very condensed version of how Hitler could be stopped in 1939 (which is what I asked), without the use of a time machine, and without war?

1939 was too late. He could have been stopped much sooner by cutting off his funding by international banking interests in the twenties and thirties. In particular, the funding of his election by Warburg interests seems to have played a key role and I feel certain that the thesis that Saloman Rothschild was in fact Hitler's Grandfather is true.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6826
http://www.thehiddenevil.com/nazis.asp

"There exists irrefutable documentary evidence of a further role of. international bankers and industrialists in the financing of the Nazi Party and the Volkspartie for the March 1933 German election. A total of three million Reichmarks was subscribed by prominent firms and businessmen, suitably "washed" through an account at the Delbruck Schickler Bank, and then passed into the hands of Rudolf Hess for use by Hitler and the NSDAP. This transfer of funds was followed by the Reichstag fire, abrogation of constitutional rights, and consolidation of Nazi power. Access to the Reichstag by the arsonists was obtained through a tunnel from a house where Putzi Hanfstaengel was staying; the Reichstag fire itself was used by Hitler as a pretext to abolish constitutional rights. In brief, within a few weeks of the major funding of Hitler there was a linked sequence of major events: the financial contribution from prominent bankers and industrialists to the 1933 election, burning of the Reichstag, abrogation of constitutional rights, and subsequent seizure of power by the Nazi Party."
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_07.htm

It is my position that the banking interests were the initial problem and if they had been regulated at the outset by law, they never would have been able to foster Hitler's rise to power.

It's possible that you're right... of course the possibility exists that you're wrong too.

It's possible your next door neighbor is planning to kill you too (such things do happen), but with no evidence to suggest he's even mad at you, would it be right of you to shoot him first, just in case?

I completely disagree with you on the world's expectations of the US in being a "peacekeeper".

Being a Canadian, I would have thought you'd be concerned. If Canada decides to cut the oil supply to the US, for whatever reason, do you think they'd just say "OK, we'll get it somewhere else."; or do you think they might just annex Canada the Same Way Hitler annexed Austria?
I think they had the right Idea fighting the British in 1812, and I would have supported them from up here myself, but when they invaded, they went too far and I would have been right there with Brock & Tecumseh. In my opinion, their cause was just...until they crossed over the line.

I think we ought to end the discussion at this point. As you pointed out earlier, this isn't the appropriate forum (my bad). Though to put things back on topic, it might be worthwile exploring why two men from Canada should disagree so strongly on an issue like this. It appears to stem from what each of us perceives as legitimate information. In my view, we are fed manipulative propaganda on a daily basis to colour our views in shades that match the nation's political agenda. I therefore believe what is presented is NOT the truth and hunt the web for information that refutes what we are told. (I usually find it too). As always, when there are competing agendas & propaganda, the balanced view is always in-between the extremes. (but it's more fun to stand at each end & throw rocks at each other. lol)
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 59
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/1/2010 7:35:08 AM
Actually, I think this debate between 427cammer and Justdukky inadvertently demonstrates **exactly** the phenomenon that this thread is ultimately about. If I might hazard a few uninformed comments:

1. JustDukky, if you will permit me, your neo-Marxist analysis of the role of bankers suffers from the same problem that just about all neo-Marxist analysis does. You attribute far too much competence and foresight to the bankers. The kind of grand-scale conspiratorial actions you are talking about require a level of intelligence and coordination that is just absent at higher levels of the economy.

2. The Iranians are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That's a racing certainty. International jurists can easily argue the quibbles of who is observing the terms of whichever treaty. They want them because the Pakistanis have them and the Israelis have them and everyone knows it. It is an issue of prestige as much as anything else. If you look around the Muslim world, the blood curdling anti-Israel rhetoric tends to come from countries that have more than a few buffer states between themselves and Israel. Public condemnation of Israel is an easy tool for the corrupt and kleptocratic elites of various Muslim-dominated countries' elites to distract their own populations from the ongoing rip-offs, corruption and coercion those elites are engaged in.

3. The argument of comparing even the most extreme Zionists to Nazis is rhetorical nonsense of the lowest order and you know it. The Nazis launched an intentional genocide to wipe the peoples you are referring to from the face of the Earth. I strongly doubt the claim that the Iranians would ever concede Israel's right to exist, without a prior regime change in Iran. That is just totally inconsistent with everything the current regime's leaders have ever said in public.

4. The Reichstag fire was set by a semi-retarded Dutch communist named Van der Lube, the Nazis just seized upon it opportunistically, because they were effective political tacticians.

5. The business about Rothschild being Hitler's grandfather is nonsense. If you want to know how the odious Third Reich was actually financed, credit for that goes to a non-Nazi, Hjalmar Schacht, who basically invented a fictitious off-balance sheet entity to hide massive deficit financing. Just look up "MEFO bills", there's no need to invent nonsense conspiracies when you have documented proof of how it was done, already publicly available.

6. Canada never would cut the oil supply to the U.S. The two countries are too economically intertwined for that ever to be envisioned as a possibility. We would not even have the physical infrastructure set up to send that oil somewhere else, and the economic dislocation that would result would be cutting off our own noses to spite our faces.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 60
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/1/2010 12:07:47 PM
@ sly
OK...Here we go again...


your neo-Marxist analysis of the role of bankers suffers from the same problem that just about all neo-Marxist analysis does.

What justifies your assertion that my "analysis" was "neo-Marxist"? That was essentially politically convenient labelling, but erroneous and whether deliberate or accidental serves to set up predispositions that can polarize a discussion. In truth I can't be categorized in ANY particular political philosophy. I accept some Marxism as valid, but not all of it. If I must have a political "label", it would be best to label me an "egalitarian". Still not a perfect match, but much closer than "neo-Marxist."


The kind of grand-scale conspiratorial actions you are talking about require a level of intelligence and coordination that is just absent at higher levels of the economy.

You aren't looking high enough then. I ask you; who owns most of the world's capital? Why do most western nations do their borrowing at interest from outside entities instead of creating their own interest-free money?


The Iranians are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That's a racing certainty.

Talk is cheap....What evidence can you present besides inflammatory accusations from unnamed sources and propagandistic innuendo from various national "vested" political interests?
Frankly, I wish they were trying to build or acquire nukes. They might be the only country with a chance of standing up to Israel:
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/03/samson-ultimate-suicide-bomber_09.html


Public condemnation of Israel is an easy tool for the corrupt and kleptocratic elites of various Muslim-dominated countries' elites to distract their own populations from the ongoing rip-offs, corruption and coercion those elites are engaged in.

Nevertheless, such condemnation is legitimate and ought to be heard. Are you even familiar with the plight of the Palestinian people, or do you only listen to the media, which more often than not misrepresents the truth about Palestine & the Palestinian people?


The argument of comparing even the most extreme Zionists to Nazis is rhetorical nonsense of the lowest order and you know it.

If you knew the history of Israel, you might reconsider that position. Don't take my word for it, let's see what the most extreme zionists have to say:
http://www.masada2000.org/
Of course that is the extreme view of zionism. How do a lot of Jews really feel about it? Let's ask them:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
http://www.nkusa.org/
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/
What is interesting is the belief among these Jewish groups that Israel has no "right to exist", or at least ought not to.
In point of fact, many of the present day palestinians have claim to that land that goes back for many centuries. Many of them are undoubtedly lineal descendents of the jews of the last israel, that just switched to Islam over the centuries. They may in fact be "God's chosen people" as mentioned in the Bible & Torah, by blood at least, if not by religion. Of today's jewish inhabitants, about 90% are Ashkenazi jews from Russia. The Ashekenazi are not descended from the jews of the first Israel. They belonged to warlike Khazaria, whose King adopted the Jewish faith and mandated it for his subjects some thousand years ago.:
http://www.khazaria.com/
Why should these people claim a right of return to a land they never inhabited? Why should they be allowed to oust the descendents of the original jews of Israel? At least Germany had a legitimate historic claim to the land it occupied prior to WWII.


The Reichstag fire was set by a semi-retarded Dutch communist named Van der Lube, the Nazis just seized upon it opportunistically, because they were effective political tacticians.

That's the "official story" sure, but it rings kinda hollow:
"...most historians believe that Nazis were involved either directly or through instigation—what would now be called a false flag operation..."
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/03/the-reichstag-fire-and-the-enabling-act/
“The exact sequence of events will never be known, but Nazi storm troopers under the direction of Hermann Göring were also involved in torching the place. They had befriended the arsonist and may have known or even encouraged him to burn the Reichstag that night. The storm troopers, led by SA leader Karl Ernst, used the underground tunnel that connected Göring’s residence with the cellar in the Reichstag. They entered the building, scattered gasoline and incendiaries, then hurried back through the tunnel.”
http://www.truthmove.org/content/false-flag-operations/


The business about Rothschild being Hitler's grandfather is nonsense.

Do you even know the story? I suggest you look it up. The evidence is circumstantial, but highly suggestive nevertheless. It IS a reasonable hypothesis given the facts and course of events.


he odious Third Reich was actually financed, credit for that goes to a non-Nazi, Hjalmar Schacht, who basically invented a fictitious off-balance sheet entity to hide massive deficit financing.

Did you examine HIS banking connections? I did.:
"On Sept. 30, 1933, the financial editor of the London Daily Herald wrote about “Mr. Montagu Norman’s decision to give the Nazis the backing of the Bank of England.”  Norman’s biographer, John Hargrave, writes, “It is quite certain that Norman did all he could to assist Hitlerism to gain and maintain political power, operating on the financial plane from his stronghold in Threadneedle Street.”"
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/mullins/worldord_05.html


Canada never would cut the oil supply to the U.S.

I'm glad you feel so confident. What if we decided that working the oil sands was too damaging to the environment and depleted too much in the way of increasingly valuable fresh water resources? What if it was no longer economically feasible to extract the oil? all it takes in a drop in the world prices, such as happened last year. It could happen, you know.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 61
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/1/2010 12:59:26 PM
1. Fine, I cheerfully accept your refusal of the label "neo-Marxist". If you accept "some Marxism" as valid, then you have met the criteria I was using to label some position "neo-Marxist". Put the emphasis on the neo if you like.

2. Let me ask you: who owns most of the world's capital? The fact of the matter is that it is only the actual owners who are aware of that. A probable answer is that sovereign wealth funds, such as those of Singapore, Saudi Arabia and so forth, probably hold massive amounts of it but their holdings are not transparent so you will never know. The bankers you are railing against are mere servants.

3. Most Western nations borrow money at interest from outside sources rather than simply printing money because printing money, economically speaking, is effectively a tax on anyone holding their currency. Triggering runaway inflation by printing money eventually destroys a country economically, as the country tries to print its way out of debt by devaluing its existing debt, such as Weimar Germany did in the 1930's.

4. You will note I did not quote any sources with regard to the Iranian nuclear programme. I do not think they would have a serious ability to "stand up" to Israel even if they did have a nuke. Quite apart from the military imbalance which a technologically crude nuclear weapon would do little to remedy, the Iranians have no real, as opposed to rhetorical, interest in conflict with Israel. It is just too convenient a target to demonize and blame, and they can gain political capital in the Arab street by supporting Hezbollah in giving the Israelis a bloody nose.

5. I am actually quite familiar with the Palestinian situation and I do not buy self-serving Israeli propaganda either. While "Palestinian" is itself a politically loaded designation, the non-Jews living in Gaza and the West Bank are being oppressed.

6. I am quite familiar with the history of Israel, and the propagandistic misrepresentations of it by *both* sides of the Zionist/Palestinian debate. Quoting extremists of any variety is unimpressive. The Naturei Karta types you are quoting come to their belief that Israel has no right to exist out of their own Jewish religious convictions.

7. The claim that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars has been thoroughly mooted, explored, tested and eventually rejected by most serious scholars, irrespective of religious convictions. I'm not saying it was not a serious postulate at one point in time, serious scholars considered it. Genetic testing has confirmed the linkages between Ashkenazim, Sephardic Jews and other sects. This is not to state that there is was not considerable intermarriage between various sects of Jews and the local non-Jewish populations, or that the Jews were not genetically heterogenous from the outset of their existence.

8. The statement that Israel is 90% Ashkenazi is just false.

9. There is no such thing as an ipso facto "legitimate" irredentist claim to territory formerly occupied by the ancestors of a previous group. Virtually every chunk of inhabitable territory on this planet has been fought over, taken and re-taken by various groups over centuries and millennia. You will note that this same argument applies to Zionism, with equal force. Oh, and I do not see what "legitimate historic claim" the Germans would have had to what is presently the Czech Republic?

10. Sure, many Palestinians might be lineal descendants of Jews, who successively converted to paganism and Christianity under the Romans and Byzantines, then to Islam under the Islamic conquest of the area. This changes nothing: they merely happen to be the group with the most recent irredentist claim to the territory. I do not concede the legitimacy of any such claims. To suggest that people who have supposedly abandoned Judaism would have an irredentist claim to an area based on being descendants of Jews, because Judaism supposedly grounds their claim to that area is a bit strange.

11. I do not think the evidence for Nazi false flag participation in the torching of the Reichstag is convincing. They did plenty of false flag operations that are well established, like their pretext for invading Poland. You need to treat any source with a grain of salt and look for disconfirming evidence as well.

12. As for Hitler supposedly having a Jewish grandfather, believe me that story was thorougly investigated by political opponents of his for whom it would have been a godsend. The evidence for it just does not hold up.

They got all kinds of support from various sources, including various corporations that still exist and many international banking consortiums. Their connection with U.S. senator Prescott Bush (yes, father to one President and grandfather to another) is well documented: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

13. As for us deciding that the oil sands are an ecological catastrophe in the making, that would require sanity on the part of our leadership. That's not happening anytime soon. Sorry.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 62
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/1/2010 5:00:44 PM

who owns most of the world's capital? The fact of the matter is that it is only the actual owners who are aware of that.

True, however most of the world's capital is tied up in housing & buildings, most of which is mortgaged and therefore held by banks as collateral, so it is valid to say that banks hold most of the world's capital based on housing alone. The next logical question is who owns the banks? We therefore have to look at the shareholders of the banks as the owners. That's a lotta banks to check out, and could take a long time. In fact it did take a long time and it would be insanity to provide you with all the information i've accumulated over the years to finally figure it out a few years back. I did find a guy who basically puts in a nutshell what I learned. This is what he had to say:

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=440588

Rothschild is also "Guardian of the Vatican Treasure", Which I'm sure you realize is one of if not the largest treasure on earth, So the Rothschild money interest controls it in trust. (That may be in the URL, I only read the first few paragraphs.)

Most Western nations borrow money at interest from outside sources rather than simply printing money because printing money, economically speaking, is effectively a tax on anyone holding their currency.

False. 5% of Canada's money is printed by the Bank of Canada. It is printed interest free and it is backed by the people of Canada. 95% of our money is in the form of bank loans at interest to private banks, who profit from the interest that we pay on the loans (the Canadian government doesn't even borrow from the Bank of Canada anymore. Until Trudeau came on the scene, about fifty percent or more of our borrowing WAS from the people of Canada. (I remind you this was in the "good old days" of balanced budgets and considerable economic growth.) Since Pearson, the PMs have successively privatized Canada's debt, taking the wealth that Canadians produced and snuck it out of the country through the private banks. Anything Trudeau did (great statesman - lousy economist) pales by comparison to Mulroneys malfeasance, as he is the one largely responsible for the national debt we have today, for which Canadians are paying the interest (via income tax) on some $2.5 trillion, most of which was siphoned out of the country by crooked government.
Why can't money be "borrowed" from the People of Canada, as represented by the Bank of Canada, that way, it is effectively interest free in that if interest is charged it goes into the public purse as an asset instead of the BIS as interest that must siphon the wealth of Canada outside the country? Why don't we operate on a Social credit system and eliminate pressures of debt & inflation altogether by tying the credit issued to the GDP? Why does our government instead prefer to screw the Canadian people out of their earnings by giving a "cut" to the BIS on all of Canada's production, thus lowering the overall standard of living?

the Iranians have no real, as opposed to rhetorical, interest in conflict with Israel. It is just too convenient a target to demonize and blame

As if Israel needed any help to be demonized. Congratulations should go to Iran for having the guts to say what everyone else is afraid to.

I am actually quite familiar with the Palestinian situation and I do not buy self-serving Israeli propaganda either. While "Palestinian" is itself a politically loaded designation, the non-Jews living in Gaza and the West Bank are being oppressed.

Thank you. Then you know what I'm saying. I should mention at this point (before any accusations of anti-semitism) that the problem is not Judaism, it is zionism, a fascist political movement using Judaism as a "cover" to hide behind. What I'm saying is probably redundant to anyone who followed the links I left earlier, but for those who haven't, there are MANY Jews who despise political zionism for the atheistic and racist philosophy that it is. (I mention atheism not to denigrate my own belief, but to show that zionist philosophy is at its core largely racist and NOT religious. The most ludicrous part of it is that 90% of zionists are Ashkenazi and therefore not "racial" Jews at all, so if they aren't "racial" jews and they don't believe the Torah, what in hell are they??

The claim that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazars has been thoroughly mooted, explored, tested and eventually rejected by most serious scholars, irrespective of religious convictions. I'm not saying it was not a serious postulate at one point in time, serious scholars considered it. Genetic testing has confirmed the linkages between Ashkenazim, Sephardic Jews and other sects.

Sources please. I don't dispute your allegations, but I wasn't aware of this. what reading I have done on the subject is at odds with your assertion, so I need your sources to verify for myself the veracity of your assertions. Cite please (and thank you).

The statement that Israel is 90% Ashkenazi is just false.

I recognize the burden of proof as being on me, so I'll try to dig up my sources to cite later....Never mind. Having read "The Thirteenth Tribe" many years ago, I was thinking of that as my primary souce I hoped to back up with info on the web, however, most of the web info iprobably traces back to the book and a few older theories that I now see have been disproved by genetic testing. I withdraw the assertion.
I would like to note, howver that in reading of the genetic similarities of the Jews and the Palestinians, I find it rather heartbreaking to think that tha Palestinians seem to be reviled now as "arabs, when their DNA so clearly shows that they are semites and so closely related to the Jews themselves. I remember a rather heartbreaking interview in Israle with an anti-zionist Jew who remembered his mother telling him that the Jewish and muslim women used to get along so well that they babysat one another's children! He said they got along quite well together until the major influx of foreign jews created a divisive animosity between them.

I do not see what "legitimate historic claim" the Germans would have had to what is presently the Czech Republic?

After World War I, Austria-Hungary broke apart. Late in October 1918, an independent Czechoslovak state, consisting of the lands of the Bohemian kingdom and areas belonging to the Kingdom of Hungary, was proclaimed. The German deputies of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia in the Imperial Parliament (Reichsrat) referred to the Fourteen Points of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and the therein granted right of self-determination, and attempted to negotiate the union of the German-speaking territories with the new Republic of German Austria, which itself aimed at joining Weimar Germany.
However Sudetenland was incorporated into a newly created Czechoslovakia, a multi-ethnic state of several nations: Czechs, Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians and others. On 20 September 1918, the Prague Government asked the United States's consent for the annexation of the Sudetenland. President Woodrow Wilson sent ambassador Archibald Coolidge into the newly created state Czechoslovakia. After Coolidge became witness of Czech police brutality against peaceful Sudetengerman demonstrators (54 killed, among them women and children [1]), Coolidge suggested the possibility of ceding certain German-speaking parts of Bohemia to Germany (Cheb) and Austria (South Moravia and South Bohemia). He also insisted that the German inhabited regions of West and North Bohemia remain within Czechoslovakia. However, the American delegation at the Paris talks, with Allen Dulles as the American's chief diplomat who emphasized preserving the unity of the Czech lands, decided not to follow Coolidge's proposal.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#Changes_after_World_War_I

To suggest that people who have supposedly abandoned Judaism would have an irredentist claim to an area based on being descendants of Jews, because Judaism supposedly grounds their claim to that area is a bit strange.

I agree. It would be the equivalent of English immigrants to Canada marching into the northwest territories smashing their igloos and "herding" the Inuit,( with an ancestral and existing claim to the land they were born on) onto a small "reserve" and telling them all the land we took was for Canadians only.
Israel had NO RIGHT to do what it did. I would also contend that the UN did not have the lawful authority to impose a foreign government on the native people living in the territory of Palestine. Consequently, the "stroke of a pen" that created Israel was nothing short of unlawful conquest. Mind you Israel didn't wait for that. They were expelling Palestinians even before the nation was created. They STILL aren't allowed back!
The reason this situation riles me so much is that it is analogous to my own situation. I freely choose not to belong to the corporation called Canada. I'm am therefore not under the jurisdiction of it's government. This being the land of my birth gives me legitimate claim to live here without the unlawful imposition of a foreign government on me. Based on the reasoning used for the State of Israel, The UN could simply say I'm under Canadian jurisdiction now and if I don't want to be a Canadian, IU have to leave the land of my birth (and abandon any claim I have to land). That would be a clear and unequivocal violation of the law in my case. Why isn't it so for the Palestinians as well?

do not think the evidence for Nazi false flag participation in the torching of the Reichstag is convincing.

Notwithstanding the fact that most historians would disagree with you, you are entitled to your opinion.

As for Hitler supposedly having a Jewish grandfather, believe me that story was thorougly investigated by political opponents of his for whom it would have been a godsend. The evidence for it just does not hold up.

It explains a lot of Hitlers behaviour as an endeavor to destroy any such evidence, which explains the inability of his opponents to find any. What evidence that exists today is all circumstantial and couldn't really be considered sufficient in a court of law, but it does explain a lot, so I choose to accept it as a working hypothesis.

hat would require sanity on the part of our leadership. That's not happening anytime soon. Sorry.

Don't apologize on their behalf. Why do you think I'm telling them to piss up a rope?
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 63
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/2/2010 11:27:26 AM
1. The source that you are citing on the issue of the world's capital does not have the first clue what he is talking about. Anyone who describes a simple financial conctract like a derivative as "complex" and neglects to explain it, does not have the basic knowledge of financial instruments required to actually trace ownership of the world's capital. His explanation of the B.I.S. is B.S., pure and simple. What he is saying is not what the B.I.S. does, because he does not have an elementary understanding of financial instruments and how they work.

As for the Rothschilds, I prefer to blame them for their actual malfeasance rather than giving credence to invented stories being peddled by someone whose actual knowledge of finance makes a first-year B-school student look like an oracle.

2. Your claim about Canada's finances ignores the elementary distinction between fiat money and a loan. It's just not accurate. Increases in the quantum of fiat money due to a government's decision to print more money just do not have the same economic effect as private lending by banks. That is just obvious. There has been a massive increase of credit and borrowing over the last few decades and yet countries around the world are most emphatically not in the state of Weimar Germany's hyperinflation.

3. As for balanced budgets, numerous recent Federal governments actually produced surpluses. That is just documented fact. I have no comment on the allegation that the Mulroney government siphoned money out of the country, because you have no basis for it. Again, blame Mulroney for his actual malfeasance, like taking bribes, cheating on his taxes and overbilling at Ogilvy Renault, rather than invented things he did not do.

4. As for social credit, we do not have it because all efforts to put it into place to date have been unconstitutional. Various prairie-province governments tried to put it into place, only to have it struck down by the courts (and ultimately, the House of Lords, which was our court of ultimate appeal at the time) because it is quite obviously unconstitutional for a provincial government to purport to regulate banking, as per section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Basic Canadian legal and constitutional history, that one.

5. No one is "afraid" to criticize Israel except for American politicians who need to win votes in New York to have a chance of being elected.

Israel is the designated rhetorical whipping-boy for virtually every Muslim-majority country west of India. It is much easier for tyrannical, undemocratic and corrupt governments to blame everything on the Israelis rather than actually introducing equitable institutions in their own countries. Jobless youths being surveilled and occasionally tortured by secret police apparatchiks in Arab countries for having the courage to protest corruption in their own governments is not Israel's fault.

6. Zionism is not fascism. That's just an elementary confusion if it is sincere, or anti-Zionist propaganda if it is insincere. It is not even similar to fascism, and if you think that, you do not understand either ideology. Just because you find an ideology odious does not make it fascistic. Condemn things for what they are, not what they are not.

It is not "atheistic", it is actually agnostic in a religious sense, in that one can be a Zionist irrespective of whether one is a practicing Jew or not. The Naturei Karta types believe that Jewish dominion over the historical territory of Israel is irreligious because the Mosiach has not yet arrived. That is quite distinct from believing that it would be irreligious for Jews to live in that territory. Not every Jew shares their interpretation of Halakha, Jewish religious law-- as is fairly obvious. Q.E.D.

It is not "racist" because Jews are not a 'race'. Unless you are going to tell me that a clearly African Falasha and an obviously European Ashkenazi are members of the same "race". You are quite obviously undermining your own argument on this subject by claiming that large numbers of "Palestinians" are descended from Jews. By your own argument, if Jews were a "race" those Palestinians would be 'racially' Jewish and therefore Zionism would constitute discrimination by one race against itself, and thus ipso facto not "racist". Interestingly, the various Jewish populations are quite similar, genetically, to the Arab populations you are referring to. But that would not establish that those Arabs used to be Jewish at some point, merely that they had one or more common ancestors, which is actually consistent with the Biblical account. And before you get all excited, I’m an atheist.

It is equally impossible to make the claim that 90% of Zionists are Ashkenazi. Zionism is a belief system and it is impossible to map belief systems onto ethnicities in the manner which you are suggesting. Someone can be a Zionist, stop being a Zionist and then start being a Zionist again, without altering their ethnicity. Moreover, you have no idea even approximatively, how many Zionists there actually are, or how many Ashkenazim, for that matter. You are just making that claim in the full knowledge that you have no basis for it whatsoever.

As for the issue of genetic studies of Jewish people thoroughly discrediting Renan and Koestler’s claim that the Ashkenazi are Khazar in origin, feel free to read any of the studies referenced here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews#Genetic_studies) or hundreds of others. The Thirteenth Tribe was in all likelihood a deliberate fabrication on Koestler’s part, because he was an intelligent man and knew what he was doing. It is pro-Zionist propaganda masquerading as historiography. Check your sources before relying on them.

The non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine are not ‘really’ Arab in a genetic sense either. They self-identify as “Arab” because their ancestors chose to do so after the mass conversions that followed the Muslim conquests of the region. It’s a religo-political and cultural belief system associated with Islam, really. Prior to the Muslim conquests the majority of people in the region would have thought of themselves as being culturally Greek or Roman. And Arabs, technically, are all “semites” because Arabic is a semitic language.

7. The Sudetenland and the present Czech Republic are obviously not the same thing. But if it was the Sudetenland you were referring to, your point would be accurate. However, the mere historical presence of people of German ethnicity in an area does not establish grounds for an irredentist claim by present-day Germans. Even Hitler thought the German attempt to conquer the USSR was grabbing “new” territory, notwithstanding the longstanding presence of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans in the USSR.

8. You are misrepresenting the history of the Inuit and various related peoples in the Canadian north, by the way. And they never lived in igloos; that is tourist-pamphlet nonsense they still laugh at today. An igloo is a temporary emergency hunting shelter that not all of the various groups made or used.

9. If you contend that the U.N. did not have lawful authority to do what it did, you have to cite recognized sources of international law to establish that. Something is not ipso facto illegal because you disapprove of it.

The fallacy in your reasoning with respect to Canada is equally evident.

You can legally renounce your citizenship, but then you lose the Charter-protected right to reside in Canada which you have by virtue of being a citizen, not by virtue of being born here. The fact that being born here makes you a citizen does not mean your right to stay here is dependent on being born here. The Dominion of Canada (or more precisely, The Crown) is a legal person but not a corporation. Renouncing your citizenship does not exempt you from the jurisdiction of the Canadian government any more than being a Canadian citizen would exempt you from the jurisdiction of the U.S. government if you went down there.

Besides, Israel has plenty of citizens of “Palestinian-Arab” descent who call themselves Arabs. Obviously you have never been there.

10. Most historians do not actually think the Reichstag fire was a false-flag job. Again, that is just not accurate. You need to rely on a wider range of sources instead of just adopting the ones that happen to rely on unproven theories you like.

11. As for Hitler’s grandfather, you are smart enough to know that absence of evidence is not proof. Exactly the same behavior is better explained as an effort to suppress politically motivated fabrications.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 64
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/2/2010 12:40:59 PM
@ sly

Before I begin, I'd just like to say I'm really enjoying this. It's a real pleasure to argue with someone as obviously intelligent and articulate as yourself. I sincerely hope you can disprove my thesis about the world being run by a consortium (gang) of central bankers. Best of luck to you in that regard. I hope you win the argument, because I really don't want to believe what I've learned.

What he is saying is not what the B.I.S. does

What does the BIS do, and who owns the BIS? Who owns the central banks that comprise the BIS? What capital assets (value) does the BIS hold? What is the value of the debt it holds?

our claim about Canada's finances ignores the elementary distinction between fiat money and a loan.

False. I made the distinction clearly when I mentioned the interest free cash actually printed by the bank of Canada and the money created by bank loans.

There has been a massive increase of credit and borrowing over the last few decades and yet countries around the world are most emphatically not in the state of Weimar Germany's hyperinflation.

...yet. What is the government going to do when the foreign debt exceeds our ability to pay and the nation's money supply (through loans) dries up? I bet their solution might look a lot like Weimar Germany's.

I have no comment on the allegation that the Mulroney government siphoned money out of the country, because you have no basis for it

The difference in our national debt between the time he took office and the time he left is evidence enough.

As for social credit, we do not have it because all efforts to put it into place to date have been unconstitutional.

That is because the federal government would not put it in...I wonder why? If it was so appealing to the provincial governments, and proven to be more mathematically sound in economic terms, doesn't it strike you as a little odd that it was never implemented at the federal level?

Israel is the designated rhetorical whipping-boy for virtually every Muslim-majority country west of India.

In the interest of brevity and focus. I'm going to drop my issues with Israel (perhaps we could take it up another time?) and focus on economic and governance issues. (though before I drop #7 entirely, I'll just mention that I knew the Sudetenland wasn't part of the current Czech Republic, and thought you were only going to try to "trap" me with it. I still thought it worthy of mention, as most people seem to think that Chamberlain's act of "appeasement" occurred in a vacuum of justification. I wanted to point out that it did not.)

hey never lived in igloos; that is tourist-pamphlet nonsense they still laugh at today. An igloo is a temporary emergency hunting shelter that not all of the various groups made or used.

Yeah, yeah...I know, but part of our audience is American and they think we ALL live in igloos up here. (well...some of them anyway)

If you contend that the U.N. did not have lawful authority to do what it did, you have to cite recognized sources of international law to establish that.

I cite unwritten natural law.

Something is not ipso facto illegal because you disapprove of it.

I said nothing about illegality, I said it was unlawful. As a lawyer, I'm sure you're acquainted with the difference.

You can legally renounce your citizenship

That is not my assertion. My assertion is that I never knowingly signed on as a citizen. Therefore any contract's I may have signed with Canada are null and void, as they don't meet the requirements for a lawfully binding contract.

The fact that being born here makes you a citizen does not mean your right to stay here is dependent on being born here.

That is entirely contingent on what you mean by "here". Are you referring to the land commonly called Canada, or the Crown Corporation known as Canada?

The Dominion of Canada (or more precisely, The Crown) is a legal person but not a corporation.

Non sequitur. If it is a "person" (and obviously not a living, breathing being) AND it is not a corporation, then what may it possibly be?

Renouncing your citizenship does not exempt you from the jurisdiction of the Canadian government

Non sequitur. If I renounce my citizenship and move to Tanganyika to live I'm still under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada?

As for Hitler’s grandfather, you are smart enough to know that absence of evidence is not proof.

Did I ever claim it as any more than a probably valid working hypothesis?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 65
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/2/2010 3:28:56 PM
Just a little tidbit that may come in handy later with respect to my argument:

he odious Third Reich was actually financed, credit for that goes to a non-Nazi, Hjalmar Schacht, who basically invented a fictitious off-balance sheet entity to hide massive deficit financing.

From Wikipedia:
"Schacht was responsible for organizing the financing of Germany's purchasing policy within the country, and was summarily dismissed by General von Lumm when it was discovered that he had used his previous employer, the Dresdner Bank, to channel the note remittances for nearly 500 million francs of Belgian national bonds destined to pay for the requisitions.[3]
Subsequent to Schacht's dismissal from the public service, he resumed a brief stint at the Dresdner Bank, before moving on to various positions within rival establishments. In 1923, Schacht applied and was rejected for the position of head of the Reichsbank, largely as a result of his dismissal from von Lumm's service[3].
Despite the small blemish on his record..."

Small blemish on his record??...Is that what they called fraud back in those days?
Sounds like Schacht was a bit of a sneaky crook. Was he punished for his criminal actions?
Where did he end up?
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 66
view profile
History
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/2/2010 6:40:13 PM
My, how entertaining.

I never thought this thread would be resurrected, much less by what amounts to a split screen. On one screen rages a perfect example of the phenomenon I described in the opening post. On the other screen is some comic relief that leaves me wondering who gets to spank who next.

Meanwhile, someone had the audacity to stay on topic and make a reasonable post:


Dave, at the core of most of us is the desire to be right. If someone has to be right, then naturally others are wrong, hence conflict is born.

Embracing that there is NO right or wrong answer is one way of reducing the amount of conflict in the world but can we as a species give up our need to be "right"?

Can you?


The flaw in your reasoning is assuming that any perspective differing from a 'right' perspective must therefore be 'wrong'.

To answer your question, I have no intention of giving up my need to be right. But I feel no need to force others to see the world just as I do.

If I say I'm hungry and you say you're full, which of us is wrong?

Or to give an example that only appears to answer my own OP question, people from your country keep attacking my country, so to protect my loved ones I enlist in the military and join an attack on your country. But you personally never attacked anyone and now I'm attacking your house so you defend your loved ones by fighting back. Who's wrong now?

The reason the second example exists is because for some reason we as a species are consistently willing to let confrontations escalate to that level rather than recognizing the need to sort out whatever differences got it all started before they get to that point.

So the essence of my original question remains: why do we as a species persist in choosing conflict over resolution? Or acknowledging that it's quite reasonable to accept that multiple 'rights' can co-exist? It's wrong to believe that half of us are always wrong while the other half is always right, right?

As has been implied elsewhere, wouldn't a little playful spanking be a much better way to sort things out? I certainly prefer the logical progression that might lead to over my second example.

Dave
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 67
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 4:29:05 AM
@wvaterfall

why do we as a species persist in choosing conflict over resolution? Or acknowledging that it's quite reasonable to accept that multiple 'rights' can co-exist? It's wrong to believe that half of us are always wrong while the other half is always right, right?

Everyone has a different life experience and embraces a different perspective as a result. It is only natural then, that everyone wants others to see things their way. Acknowledgement of multiple "rights" is nothing more (or less) than respecting the other perspective. It must be borne in mind that an argument is only two views of the same old reality. It's probably more important to listen than to speak (but definitely much less fun). Conflict usually starts with a closing off of the ears so more energy can be devoted to flapping the tongue... or firing off the nukes.

It's a lot of fun arguing with lawyers, because they are masters in the art of sophistry and debate (which probably explains why so many go into politics - it pays better than chasing ambulances and they no longer have to deconstruct the legalese in the bills they pass). Sly is a bit of an exception though...He seems exceedingly logical for somebody in law; I may yet be able to turn him to "the dark side."
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 68
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 9:02:52 AM
This will be my last response to JustDukky as the two of us are threadjacking.

1. Explaining the B.I.S. and what is wrong with it really is beyond the scope of a simple posting. The thing was really started as a mechanism for enforcing the Versailles treaty that ended WWI, and almost got abolished at Bretton Woods as a result of allegations that it assisted the Nazis, which is unsurprising, given its location in Switzerland and the fact that virtually every Swiss bank was complicit in that kind of activity.

As for what it owns, if you assign credibility to wikipedia:
"Since 2004, the BIS has published its accounts in terms of Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, replacing the Gold Franc as the bank's unit of account. As of March 31, 2007, the bank had total assets of U.S. $409.15 billion, given a dollar/SDR exchange rate of 1.51 for March 30, 2007. Included in that total were 150 tons of fine gold."

2. As for the distinction between printing fiat money and making bank loans, the logic of your explanation ignores the distinction. If I say X is not Y, but the account that follows just obviously conflates X and Y, I am not making the distinction, I am pointing it out then ignoring it.

3. "What is the government going to do when the foreign debt exceeds our ability to pay and the nation's money supply (through loans) dries up?" Look, I'm not trying to convince people that I can engage in crystal ball prognostication. I'll leave that to stockbrokers fishing for the gullible. You're assuming that is ever going to happen, when you do not have the evidence that it will...or that it will not.

4. The rise in the national debt under Mulroney is very, very simple to explain in ways that have nothing to do with fictional capital outflows orchestrated by mysterious conspiracies. Voters have favorite lies they like to hear over and over, one of which being that the government can tax you less and deliver the same level of services. It is also very convenient for conservative governments to run deficits. It gives them pretexts to cut government programs that they dislike, such as the ones that hand tax dollars over to political groups that they hate, which are roughly co-extensive with "people that do not wear ties at work".

5. Social credit is economic hokum. First, it was never seriously intended to work. Social credit, in Canada at least, was always a scheme hatched by western populist politicians to tell western farmers that they had a magical economic formula that would effect a very thinly disguised wealth transfer from banks to farmers.

You cannot alter climactic fundamentals with accounting. Agricultural yields are largely unpredictable at a macro level, beyond certain boundaries, which is why the Farmer's Almanac continues to be a best seller.

This means that crop farmers eventually come under the thrall of credit granting institutions that make secured loans, i.e. extend mortgage loans.

The logical conclusion of that cycle is large-scale industrialized agriculture, i.e. Archer Daniels Midland, in which the credit granting institution controls the farms and extracts massive amounts of government subsidy through the efforts of an army of lobbyists.

Again, why bother inventing conspiracies that do not exist when the obvious is going on every day if you just bother to look it up?

6. Chamberlain's appeasement was wildly popular at the time and he is condemned for it largely in hindsight. The U.K. electorate at the time was focused on "anything to avoid a repeat of the Great War", an attitude that more or less guaranteed exactly what they wanted to avoid, when faced by a calculating and overconfident despot.

7. Unwritten natural law is a fantasy. If you are Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, your brand of fantasy is labelled legal theory. I prefer to call fictions, "fictions".

8. There is at present no legally meaningful distinction between unlawfulness and illegality.

You are possibly referring to an archaism that was formerly necessary in indictments for crimes that were malum prohibitum (wrongs created by statute) as against malum in se (wrongs under the common law). This archaism is no longer necessary in indictments in Canada because all of our criminal law is codified. It is no longer necessary in the rest of the common law world because the reach of enacted statutes has meant that there is no need to resort to the rhetorical fiction of common law crimes. The civil law world never had the distinction.

9. What I wrote about renunciation of citizenship and its effects is not an attempt to characterize your assertions. It was an exercise in explaining the actual law, which contradicts your assertions because you did not bother to look up the law of citizenship. You do not 'sign contracts' to become a citizen, that is not how the process works. You can sign contracts with the Federal government but citizenship is just not contractual.

I cannot believe I am debating a position that 30 seconds on Google would explain away: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce-how.asp

10. Canada is not a Crown corporation. Again, you just do not understand what a corporation is, what a Crown corporation is, or what the Dominion of Canada is.

Just read section 92(11) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which clearly assigns to the provincial governments the authority to enact laws governing the creation of corporations. http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=Constitution+Act%2C+1867&language=en&searchTitle=Federal&path=/en/ca/const/const1867.html

Canada is not a corporation. Much of its current territory *used to be* owned by a coporation, the HBC, but it is not now and has not been since 1763 ,with the noted exception of British Columbia, where the legal situation is totally different. I am not going to get into the minutiae of the law of aboriginal title and citizenship here. Anyone who is remotely interested in it should just read the Calder decision, http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1973/1973canlii4/1973canlii4.html, or anything by Peter Wardell Hogg on the Constitution of Canada

3. "Non sequitur. If it is a "person" (and obviously not a living, breathing being) AND it is not a corporation, then what may it possibly be?"

This is getting embarrassing.

First of all, a non sequitur is an incorrect inference, not an inaccurate statement of law. What I stated was neither.

Second, the Dominion of Canada is a sovereign state. If you *really* want to be technical about it, it is simultaneously (1) a constitutional monarchy, (2) a liberal democracy with a bicameral legislature on the Westminster model with a constitution "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom", (3) the "Crown in Right", which is one of the reasons why Elizabeth Windsor refers to herself as "we" in public.

4. You just do not understand the concepts of jurisdiction and citizenship.

To be pedantic, you cannot "move to Tanganyika" because that entity no longer exists and has not since 1964.

And whether you renounced your citizenship or not, merely being *in* the geographic confines of Tanzania, which is what that place is actually called now, would put you under the jurisdiction of the Tanzanian goverment. If you were still a Canadian citizen you would remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government for certain provisions of the criminal code which ban sexual abuse of children no matter where in the world you are.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 69
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 10:02:29 AM

This will be my last response to JustDukky as the two of us are threadjacking.


This is true...


Voters have favorite lies they like to hear over and over, one of which being that the government can tax you less and deliver the same level of services. It is also very convenient for conservative governments to run deficits.


OMG, stop it. Stop speaking the truth.


It gives them pretexts to cut government programs that they dislike, such as the ones that hand tax dollars over to political groups that they hate, which are roughly co-extensive with "people that do not wear ties at work".


You mean politicians play favourites? OMG...


You cannot alter climactic fundamentals with accounting.


No...but isn't it funny how people try? (A nod, at your profession.)


Unwritten natural law is a fantasy. If you are Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas, your brand of fantasy is labelled legal theory. I prefer to call fictions, "fictions".


So when does a "legal theory", become a productive claim, rather than fictitious?


There is at present no legally meaningful distinction between unlawfulness and illegality.


True. So it is okay, if I stomp on your foot? I guess one could construe it, as harassment...but I bet I could find a legal loophole, to remove me, of all accountability.


If you were still a Canadian citizen you would remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government for certain provisions of the criminal code which ban sexual abuse of children no matter where in the world you are.


And the polka-dotted onions that I eat, are still a product of Texas...

Go figure.
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 70
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 11:19:03 AM
Watch me loophole. This one is in answer to mtnwldflower so I can continue threadjacking.

1. "No...but isn't it funny how people try? (A nod, at your profession.)"

Half of our workload is generated by irrational activity on the part of government, like the knee-jerk Conservative get-tough-on-crime-by-passing-new-laws nonsense. You would expect anyone of voting age that we'll collectively trust with permission to drive a motor vehicle, to make the rather obvious inference that the issue is actually enforcing the laws you have, rather than inventing new ones. But the confidence trick of claiming to be "tough on crime" works pretty consistently.

No one wants to hear that prisons are criminogenic either, mysteriously. I mean, come on, let's "punish" someone by forcing them to spend all of their time with other criminals for several years. Because they will not have their attitudes reinforced by the attitudes shared by almost everyone around them. Then let them out, but make sure there is a permanent stigma attached to them so they cannot get productive jobs. That's a great way of ensuring there will be less crime and less need for more prisons. Hey, while we're at it, let's hire some government bureaucrats to monitor them and regularly send them back to the joint if they show up late for meetings with the bureaucrats, get caught in bars or the like.

2. "So when does a "legal theory", become a productive claim, rather than fictitious?"

When it's underlying fundamental postulates are not completely false in light of actual legal history and where our laws actually came from. At a minimum.

Granted, I'm overstating the case against Lockean contractarianism a bit, but it simply never was true that We The People came together and consensually contracted to put government in place. That's a fiction, it's just not an accurate account of how the presently existing governments came into being.

3. "True. So it is okay, if I stomp on your foot? I guess one could construe it, as harassment...but I bet I could find a legal loophole, to remove me, of all accountability."

Actually it would be battery. Unless a defense applied. Defenses are not loopholes, they exist for good reasons. Most criticisms that people have of judicial decisions tend to miss the mark because the critics have not bothered to read them, and are attacking what they think the decision was, rather than what it actually was. Journalists are among the worst culprits in this, and among the few exceptions. Generally the politicians do it knowingly, if only because the DOJ lawyers are there to explain the decisions to them, if the politicians aren't lawyers themselves.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 71
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 11:26:37 AM
@ sly

I'm sorry to hear you won't be pursuing the debate. This was getting interesting. Of course you're right though; we DID hijack the thread. For that I apologize to all.

Explaining the B.I.S. and what is wrong with it really is beyond the scope of a simple posting.

The main thing wrong with it is that it is entirely unaccountable to ANYONE, including the UN. How do we have any assurance whatsoever that their published figures are accurate and not a complete fraud on their part? As I mentioned earlier, Schacht's record wasn't exactly pristine in the fraud department, yet he was one of the men instrumental in setting up the BIS. Not exactly the sort of guy you'd want being unaccountable for his financial transactions is he?

if you assign credibility to wikipedia:...

I don't.

As for the distinction between printing fiat money and making bank loans, the logic of your explanation ignores the distinction. If I say X is not Y, but the account that follows just obviously conflates X and Y, I am not making the distinction, I am pointing it out then ignoring it.

X and Y are conflated because they are BOTH considered money. They are only different manifestations of it. Do you deny that approximately 5% of Canada's "money" is in the form of printed bills and the rest in the form of credit & loans? If not then when speaking of money, why imply that conflating the two is an incorrect perspective?

You're assuming that is ever going to happen, when you do not have the evidence that it will...or that it will not.

It is a "what if" scenario to be sure; nevertheless it HAS happened (Is happening under Mobutu), so it isn't entirely unrealistic to think that it can't happen here. What do you suppose is causing the current global economic slump but a contraction in the money supply owing to banks (at least to a degree) hoarding assets instead of loaning them out?

The rise in the national debt under Mulroney is very, very simple to explain in ways that have nothing to do with fictional capital outflows orchestrated by mysterious conspiracies.

The outflow is a RESULT of the debt buildup. I did not say the buildup itself was the result of a conspiracy.

Social credit is economic hokum. First, it was never seriously intended to work. Social credit, in Canada at least, was always a scheme hatched by western populist politicians

Now YOU are erroneously conflating a political **stardization of the concept with the economic theory. Canadian Socreds didn't implement it. They couldn't, unless it was the sole "money" being used in the economy.

why bother inventing conspiracies that do not exist when the obvious is going on every day if you just bother to look it up?

I have looked it up and it became blatantly obvious that a massive conspiracy exists. The conspiracy is the system itself, because it was set up by the crooks who run the economy of most of the globe based on neo-feudalistic principles. Guess who are the lords and who are the serfs.

Unwritten natural law is a fantasy.

I expected better from someone with a Masters in law. Didn't you study the theory or philosophy of law? Would you care to refute my claim that natural law forms the very basis for law? Where do you think the authority of law comes from if not natural law?

There is at present no legally meaningful distinction between unlawfulness and illegality.

Yet there is a huge LAWFUL distinction between the two. Most (if not all of what is unlawful is also illegal, but most of what is illegal is not unlawful. Would you care to dispute me on that?

This archaism is no longer necessary in indictments in Canada because all of our criminal law is codified. It is no longer necessary in the rest of the common law world because the reach of enacted statutes has meant that there is no need to resort to the rhetorical fiction of common law crimes. The civil law world never had the distinction.

What about those who don't fall under the jurisdiction of statutory law?

citizenship is just not contractual.

Oh? Under natural law, all men are born free and equal. By what authority may a government impose obligations of citizenship without a contract?

Canada is not a Crown corporation. Again, you just do not understand what a corporation is, what a Crown corporation is, or what the Dominion of Canada is.
Canada is not a Crown corporation. Again, you just do not understand what a corporation is, what a Crown corporation is, or what the Dominion of Canada is.
I understand perfectly...and whereas the government of Canada is a de facto government it is therefore not legitimate and I choose not to come under its jurisdiction.

You just do not understand the concepts of jurisdiction and citizenship.

Clearly it is you who don't properly understand.

merely being *in* the geographic confines of Tanzania, which is what that place is actually called now, would put you under the jurisdiction of the Tanzanian goverment.
merely being *in* the geographic confines of Tanzania, which is what that place is actually called now, would put you under the jurisdiction of the Tanzanian goverment.
Only if they could prove it, or if I committed a crime under natural law.

If you were still a Canadian citizen you would remain under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government for certain provisions of the criminal code

Yes and no, since crimes committed outside their jurisdiction against someone who is not a Canadian citizen, would only become punishable by Canada if I re-entered Canadian jurisdiction, otherwise I would be under the jurisdiction of the country of the individual against whom the crime was committed, unless there was a contractual agreement (extradition treaty) between the countries as to whose jurisdiction I might be prosecuted under.

Abuse of children would be a crime under natural law, so it ought to be a major offense wherever you go.

Thankfully, drinking beer is only an offense in some countries!...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 72
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 2:10:55 PM
@ fish

you use both to bolster your claims and substantiate your arguments. honestly, you would be taken a lot more seriously if your positions didn't change like the shifting sands. but i know your rebuttal to this as well

I find in general the writing in Wikipedia for non-contentious issues is generally (not always) pretty valid. "Charged" (especially political) issues, where contributors might have a particular axe to grind tend to be lacking in citations, and even where citations might be made, they can sometimes be erroneous but slipped past the screening/editing process (at least for some period of time) before eventually being spotted and/or revised/removed. I may cite the wiki from time to time, but make no claim for the veracity of the information. I consider it up to the opponent as to whether or not he wants to do the due diligence to refute any claim supported by a wiki URL.

I'm amused by the claim that I used a "mainstream" news source. Any source I might use that isn't mainstream, is (or can be) subject to attack as a result of being from a "lefty", "enviro nut", "dissident", "conspiracy", etc. "obviously biased" site. If I do use a mainstream site, now I'm under attack because It's not a biased "oddball" source? What's left that I can cite? With respect to the news item in question, I had a choice of any number of a variety of sources I could have cited, and looking back, realize I should have trapped my opponents by quoting from an oddball site, which they would have attacked me for, only to be deluged with a response from about ten different sources of all stripes. Yeah...what was I thinking...Damn!
 slybandit
Joined: 7/10/2006
Msg: 73
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 2:25:41 PM
I have been specifically petitioned to continue posting, so I'm rescinding my withdrawal from the debate.

1. The unaccountability of the B.I.S. can be very simply re-descibed as insulation of the B.I.S. from political pressures.

Most of the government that you actually live under is de facto unaccountable to anyone, in any event. In practice, no politicians fire anyone in the civil service. The near-total immunity of the judiciary from virtually any pressures (well, other than occasional murder and blackmail by criminals) is a celebrated feature of virtually every Western country.

2. I find it strange that you assign no credibility to wikipedia yet have previously cited it in the course of this exchange. Why impeach your own sources?

3. Bank loans just are not money. I understand how fractional reserve lending works. Fiat currency has a legal definition and bank deposits and loans are not currency. Conflating them is the wrong thing to do because the economic impact of the volume of available credit in the economy and the volume of currency in circulation is completely different.

4. No, the various Canadian socred parties *couldn't* implement social credit because it was and is unconstitutional for provinces to purport to regulate banking. The point is that the socred parties *knew* it was unconstitutional for them to try. They had lawyers available and the Judges told them over and over that it was unconstitutional for provincial governments to purport to regulate in the field of banking. Their attempts were insincere political posturing done for electoral gains from an electorate ignorant of the plain terms of the Constitution Act, 1867.

5. The current global economic slump has a wide range of causes, too many to get into here, ranging from oil price shocks to de-regulation of lending practices.

6. Actually, technically, the only Lords in this country are Justices of the Court, and most of them have actually told us to knock off calling them that because it's a bit archaic.

7. I'm not entirely certain that Mobutu is completely sane.

8. Not only did I study the philosophy of law and legal theory-- extensively-- I consistently aced those courses.

The fact that some people *think* that natural law forms the basis of the authority of law does not mean that they are right. Although a belief in natural law is not a necessary consequence of theism, the two beliefs tend in practice to map pretty consistently onto the same set of people. I do not believe theism is correct. Billions of people disagree with me, but truth is not determined by plebiscite.

IMHO, the legal thinker who comes the closest to an actual description of the source of the authority of law is a former bankruptcy lawyer and law professor named Lynn M. LoPucki who usually teaches at UCLA but is currently on loan to Harvard. This is because he has actually done **empirical observation** of how the law actually works and generated a theory to fit reality, instead of theorizing in the absence of real information. The authority of the law is a collectively held mental construct that exists as a result of the history of our shared culture, very roughly speaking.

9. As for the supposed distinction between unlawfulness and illegality, you are presently arguing with Black's Law Dictionary. They are synonyms. You are just wrong, look it up. If you think there is a distinction you are just misinformed.

10. "What about those who don't fall under the jurisdiction of statutory law?" You are talking about an empty set. Or maybe engaging in wish-fulfillment fantasies.

11. "Oh? Under natural law, all men are born free and equal. By what authority may a government impose obligations of citizenship without a contract?"

Back on this stalking horse again.

A contract exists when the conditions for contract formation are met. Offer, acceptance, in common law countries an exchange of consideration, an intent to be bound by the negotiated terms and to create legal relations.

Those conditions exist because they are stipulated in existing law.

They do not pre-exist the creation of state law. Contracts cannot logically pre-exist the rules which determine how they are formed, and it is very strange to speak of a "contract" existing without the existence of any means of enforcement. Contracts and agreements are two different things.

Natural law is a just-so story, a contractarian fantasy about a supposed meeting when everyone got together, had a discussion and formed a government. That's just B.S., it has never happened, it's just historically false.

Virtually every existing government was created through organized violence and intially maintained in existence by fear.

The reality is that when most of the currently existing governments were formed, by no means were all men "free and equal" in actual fact. Certainly the women weren't. Or the men with the wrong skin hue or religion.

12. You cannot just "choose" not to be under the jurisdiction of a government. That's nonsense, the rhetorical pose of holding your breath until you turn blue if the government won't go away.

Canada is not a de facto government, its a de jure government.

And I invite you to try that argument in Tax Court of Canada. The government will win without the crown counsel having to say anything at all. And they'll give you an additional fine for being frivolous and wasting their time.

13. "Clearly it is you who don't properly understand."
This is degenerating into "I know you are but what am I."

Please, just read the Citizenship Act for yourself because I'm tired of arguing against a position that is just obviously wrong because you feel like being pointlessly stubborn: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-29/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-29.html It is just obvious that citizenship is not contractual.

14. "Only if they could prove it, or if I committed a crime under natural law." Nonsense. Virtually every legal system has a concept of judicial notice. You do not have to "prove" someone's presence in the country if they are standing there. You just point at them.

15. Your comment in respect of jurisdiction is conflating the distinction between a crime and the practical means of effecting punishment for a crime. It also fails to allow for the existence of concurrent overlapping jurisdiction.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 74
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/3/2010 5:21:37 PM
Welcome back! and now to the business at hand...

The unaccountability of the B.I.S. can be very simply re-descibed as insulation of the B.I.S. from political pressures.

...and from any accountability to anyone except the board of the BIS, who are able to do what they want with impunity, as they are above any regulation but their own....Sounds more like the Capone mob than a bunch of respectable businessmen if you ask me.

Most of the government that you actually live under is de facto unaccountable to anyone

I don't live "under" any government but my own. I'm a self-governing man.

I find it strange that you assign no credibility to wikipedia yet have previously cited it in the course of this exchange. Why impeach your own sources?

I answered this in another post on this thread to fishmuskie. Rather than retype it, I'll refer you to that one.

Bank loans just are not money.

Neither is fiat currency. It isn't money redeemable for a valuable commodity, so it holds no value in an of itself. It is legal tender for the discharge of debt, which is not the same as payment, so when people "buy" something they really aren't paying for it, they are simply turning over the government's promise to pay.
I have a question for you. If the government pays, how is it not the government's property? It is logical that the one who pays for goods is the one who owns them, so when a person discharges the debt incurred from the goods he purchases, are the goods not then owned by the buyer...the government?

Fiat currency has a legal definition and bank deposits and loans are not currency.

No they aren't currency...but they are considered a part of the money supply. They are essentially the same thing in that they are both promises of payment.

Conflating them is the wrong thing to do because the economic impact of the volume of available credit in the economy and the volume of currency in circulation is completely different.

So why not make currency out of the total credit of the nation and scrap the loans at interest? The money supply could still be controlled via a central ledger tied to the GDP and there would be no interest charged (that reduces consumption by taking it away from the consumer) in the economy so some parasitic banker can take his cut of a nation's production.

t was and is unconstitutional for provinces to purport to regulate banking.

well isn't that funny. Why do you suppose that is? Don't just say it's unconstitutional. Tell me WHY it's unconstitutional. What is the logical justification for it?

The current global economic slump has a wide range of causes

It all boils down to a contraction of the money supply from credit drying up.

Actually, technically, the only Lords in this country are Justices of the Court, and most of them have actually told us to knock off calling them that because it's a bit archaic.

It's not just archaic, it's feudalistic, something I stand against. No just society can have titles or rank to stratify its members into different classes. All men are equal under natural law.

I'm not entirely certain that Mobutu is completely sane.

I don't know either (and he must be running out of room to print all those zeros!)

Not only did I study the philosophy of law and legal theory-- extensively-- I consistently aced those courses.

That's what I'm counting on.

Although a belief in natural law is not a necessary consequence of theism, the two beliefs tend in practice to map pretty consistently onto the same set of people.

I'm an atheist, yet I believe in natural law, so I don't map into that set very well.

truth is not determined by plebiscite.

Correct.

The authority of the law is a collectively held mental construct that exists as a result of the history of our shared culture, very roughly speaking.

Doesn't the authority of law come from the apparently universal, rational and innate desire for justice?

As for the supposed distinction between unlawfulness and illegality, you are presently arguing with Black's Law Dictionary.

Frankly I don't care who I'm arguing with. What gives Blacks Law dictionary any authority over me that I'm obliged to accept its definitions?

If you think there is a distinction you are just misinformed.

Can you prove there isn't a distinction? I'll accept your offer of no distinction on the condition you can prove it.

You are talking about an empty set. Or maybe engaging in wish-fulfillment fantasies.

I'm not subject to statutory law. Am I an element of an empty set?


By what authority may a government impose obligations of citizenship without a contract?
Virtually every existing government was created through organized violence and intially maintained in existence by fear.

So we live under a tyranny?

The reality is that when most of the currently existing governments were formed, by no means were all men "free and equal" in actual fact. Certainly the women weren't. Or the men with the wrong skin hue or religion.

So the existence of injustice justifies unjust tyrannical laws?

You cannot just "choose" not to be under the jurisdiction of a government.

Why not? Doesn't a government derive its authority from the consent of its people? What if the people don't consent to be governed? (I remind you that consent is given by individuals, not by majorities, as no man may justly impose his will on an equal) What becomes of the government's authority?

Canada is not a de facto government, its a de jure government.

False. Until a couple of months ago tyhe Governor General listed herself as Canada's De Facto head of state. Moreover, Victoria repealed section 2 of the BNA act, which effectively denied the rule of Canada to her heirs & successors. Canada hasn't had a legitimate queen since Victoria died. I can't show you the Old Governor General's site because the wayback machine generates a server error, but I assure you the de facto reference was there until a couple of months ago; I read it myself. I did manage to dig this up though (from another website). Make of it what you will:
"The De Facto Government of Canada
I thought it would be important to drive home the point about Canada being a De Facto Government and what it really means. It is not something we should take lightly and everyone should be concerned. It simply means that an unannounced coup has taken place and people who run the Government are the key manipulators behind a great deal of destruction and misery created in the world. The use of fraudulent bank loans and concentration of resources and wealth are primarily what Canada is about. People are mostly unaware of the fact that a De Facto Government such as Canada is an occupation and war against the people who live on the land.
 
The Governor General's Web site states this:
 
http://www.gg.ca/gg/rr/index_e.asp
Canada is a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. This means Canadians recognize The Queen as our Head of State. Canada's Governor General carries out Her Majesty's duties in Canada on a daily basis and is Canada's de facto Head of State.
 
 
 
Okay lets look at the definitions of Usurping:
USURP’, v. t. s. as z. [Fr. usurper ; L. usurpo.]
    To seize and hold in possession by force or without right; as usurp a throne; to usurp the prerogative of the crown; to usurp power. To usurp the right of a patron, is to oust or dispossess him.
    Vice sometimes usurps the place of virtue. Denham.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.
 
USURPA’TION, n. [supra.]
    The act of seizing or occupying and enjoying the property of another, without right; as the usurpation of a throne; the usurpation of supreme power. Usurpation, in a peculiar sense, denotes the absolute ouster and dispossession of the patron of a church, by presenting a clerk to a vacant benefice, who is thereupon admitted and instituted. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.
 
USURP’ER, n.
    One who seizes or occupies the property of another, without right; as the usurper of a throne; of power; or of rights of a patron. Shak. Dryden. Cyc.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. II, page 105.
 
USURPATION. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to another; an interruption or the disturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomi.
There are two kinds of usurpation: first, when a stranger, without right, presents to a church and his clerk is admitted; and, second, when a subject uses a franchise of the king without lawful authority. Co. Litt. 277 b.
In Governmental Law. The tyrannical assumption of the government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 3, page 3380.
 
USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. Toul. Droit. Civ, n. 32.
One who intrudes himself into an office which is vacant, and ousts the incumbent without any color of title whatever; his acts are void in every respect; McCraw v. Williams, 33 Gratt. (Va.) 513; Hooper v. Goodwin, 48 Me. 80.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 3, page 3380.
 
usurpation (ü-zêr-pä’shon). The absolute ouster or dispossession of a patron by a stranger who has no right to do so presented a clerk to a benefice who was thereupon admitted to the living and instituted therein. See. 3 Bl. Comm. 242.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 1324.
 
usurper (ü-zêr-pêr). A person who assumes possession of an office, who performs the duties, and who neither lawful title nor color of right. See Hamlin v. Kassafer, 15 Ore. 456, 3 Am. St. Rep. 176, 179, 15 Pac. Rep. 778.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 1324.
 
USURPATION. The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to another; an interruption or the disturbing a man in his right and possession. Tomlins.
The unlawful seizure or assumption of sovereign power; the assumption of the government or supreme power by force or illegally, in derogation of the constitution and of the rights of the lawful ruler.
“Usurpation” for which writ of prohibition may be granted involves attempted exercise of power not possessed by inferior office. Ex parte Wilkinson, 220 Ala. 529, 126 So. 102, 104.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 1713.
 
USURPER. One who assumes the right of government by force, contrary to and in violation of the constitution of the country. Toul. Droit. Civ, n. 32.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 1713.
 
u|surp (yöö zurp’, -surp’) vt. [[ME usurpen < MFr usurper < L usurpare < usus, a use + rapere, to seize: see rape]] to take or assume (power, a position, property, rights, etc.) and hold in possession by force or without right – vi. to practice or commit usurpation (on or upon) – usurp’er n. – usurp’ing|ly adv.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988) page 1470.
 
 
u|surpation (yöö zer pä’shen, -ser-) n. [[ME usurpacion < L usuparetio]] the act of usurping; esp., the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988) page 1470.
 
Okay lets look at some definitions of de facto:
 
De facto. [L.] actually; in fact; existing; as a king de facto, distinguished from a king de jure, or by right.
American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster 1828, Vol. I, page 56.
 
DE FACTO. Actually; in fact; in deed. A term used to denote a thing actually done.
A government de facto signifies one completely, through only temporarily, established in the place of the lawful government; Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625, Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204, 94 Am. Dec. 677, See De Jure Austin, Jur. Lect. vi. p. 336.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Third Revision (8th Edition)(1914), Volume 1, page 761.
 
de facto (dë fak’tö). In fact, as distinguished from “de jure,” by right.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 344.
 
de facto government. A government wherein all the attributes of sovereignty have, by usurpation, been transferred from those who had been legally invested with them to others, who, sustained by a power above the forms of law, claim to act and do act in their stead. 30 Am Jur 181.
Law Dictionary, James A. Ballentine, Second Edition, 1948, page 345.
 
De facto. In fact; actually; indeed; in reality. Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248, 30 S.W.2d 255, 257, 71 A.L.R. 830.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
 
De facto government. One that maintains itself by a display of force against the will of the rightful legal government and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof. Wortham v. Walker, 133 Tex. 255, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition (1951) page 504.
 
de facto (dë fak’tö, da-, de-). [[L]] existing or being such in actual fact though not by legal establishment, official recognition, etc. [de facto government]: cf. de jure.
Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Ed. (1988), page 360.
 
As you can see it is a totally unlawful act and one of which the use of force on the people who have the true right and standing to create a Government of their own. The simple truth is that the people of Canada are under an Occupation of a foreign power too them and most either don’t care or don’t know. For those of us that do know it is the first steps towards gaining your freedom back from these people who pretend to be representatives of the people."

http://www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.htm

And I invite you to try that argument in Tax Court of Canada. The government will win without the crown counsel having to say anything at all. And they'll give you an additional fine for being frivolous and wasting their time.

How do they expect to get me into court? Can they drag me in there kicking and screaming? What happens if I don't contract with the court?

This is degenerating into "I know you are but what am I."

Nyaaa nyaa!....pppbbbbt!!

Please, just read the Citizenship Act for yourself because I'm tired of arguing against a position that is just obviously wrong because you feel like being pointlessly stubborn: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-29/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-29.html It is just obvious that citizenship is not contractual.

Then Canada is a tyranny? I thought we were supposed to be a free and just society.

Virtually every legal system has a concept of judicial notice. You do not have to "prove" someone's presence in the country if they are standing there. You just point at them.

I haven't gone anywhere. I live in the country (if by country you mean the land commonly called Canada) and I claim the government of Canada has no legitimate jurisdiction over me (IF Canada is not a tyranny). Obviously I don't pay "income tax" on my wages. Can I be arrested and imprisoned for it? How? Can a policeman simply walk up to me, forcibly arrest me and stuff me in jail without so much as saying boo? When did I ever consent to having a deduction from my earnings? When did I consent to be liable to pay income tax? (Think about that for a moment...Remember what I said earlier about the validity of contracts.)

Your comment in respect of jurisdiction is conflating the distinction between a crime and the practical means of effecting punishment for a crime. It also fails to allow for the existence of concurrent overlapping jurisdiction.

If you are referring to the crime of child abuse in a foreign country and with respect to overlapping jurisdictions AND with the recollection (erroneous?) that double jeopardy ought to apply in such a situation, are you saying a man could be convicted and sentenced "there", then come back to Canada, be tried, convicted and sentenced yet again? Isn't that what extradition treaties are (at least partly) designed to prevent?

Whew...I need a beer!...

Oh yeah...Have one on me...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 75
How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?
Posted: 2/4/2010 8:34:49 AM

Wouldn't you have to have religon/God in the first place to define what good and evil are?

Not really. Everybody rational has pretty well agreed that (for instance) murder is wrong and therefore an evil act by consensus. Since everyone agrees on it and since everyone has a right to live (to "own the property of his life), that right is usurped unfairly by a murderer and every rational man agrees it is unjust and tries to balance the (now unevenly weighted) scales of justice. It is considered only fair that since the murder hasn't respected the right of another to live, he has violated the social contract with the society in which he lives and in fairness has abrogated his own right to life.

Things which cannot be agreed by consensus can't be classed as good or evil by a society as there is no consensus as to what it is. Abortion is a good case in point. Is it "good" because (for instance) a woman ought not be required to have the child of a rapist who made her pregnant, or is it "evil" because the fetus is a living being whose life begins at conception (as some believe) and the killing of the fetus woul be (in the minds of many) murder in and of itself. Society winds up in two roughty equal factions. One faction considers abortion "evil", while the other (equally adamantly) considers it "good", so which is it?

so good and evil are only labels of concepts which an individual may assign to acts or events and are entirely subjective. They only appear objective when there is a unanimous consensus of rational minds. Religion and God and an absolute divine law, based on the historical opinion of some old scribes and priests only muddies the issue, most especially in that if it is claimed that a supreme being has declared an absolute and objective law, the burden of proof of the existence of same falls upon the priest/scribe making the claim.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > How do fundamentally good people find themselves passionately opposed to each other?