Josf

Time 1:40 or so... After giving many volunteers to the British criminals to be slaughtered, captured, tortured, turned, or murdered by those British criminals the name of Washington, only is the story books, is then somehow the one an only solution to inspire volunteers to join HIS army? Sullivan was vindicated in a court marshal. I wonder if those records are available to the general public.

Time: 1:40:25 or so... The name Robert Morris is mentioned. That is the individual who personified the criminal central banker, or fraudulent banking organized crime leader, or whichever labels work to accurately account for the facts. I've looked into some of the available information on this subject matter and the idea that America was defenseless without a idol worship meme operating appears to be a patent absurdity, or a very well managed revising of history, so as to make it look like poor, poor, defenseless America, with no one willing to stick it out and fight for Liberty, UNLESS in comes riding a knight in shinning armor, to gather the poor, defenseless sheep, and instill courage into them, for the glorious battle required in saving all from tyranny. In fact there were many families in many towns across the land who were known to spontaneously, organically, form into a posse when needed, or form into a militia when needed, and even form into regulators when needed, as proven by the example that became known as Shays's Rebellion. How can it be true, from the light of the examples known as Shays's Rebellion, and the Whiskey Rebellion, that this sociopath was needed to inspire so called rebels on the one hand, and to crush those rebels on the other hand? The lie makes no sense in the light of reason. Many free minded people were fighting in various forms ranging from loose militia groups composed strictly of volunteers, alongside more formal militia groups carried over from the routine assembled defensive armies formed during the reign of the British tyranny, involving some forms of conscription, whereby those bands of rabble, rebels, regulators turned against the British tyranny well enough in any contact having nothing to do with the new found IDOL named Washington. Some of the information available is contained in some of the surviving exchanges between military personnel UNDER the existing Federal Government, known as The United States in Congress Assembled, which included 10 Presidents, including Richard Henry Lee, whereby the vacancy of leadership would most certainly be filled (free market) with a higher quality and lower cost replacement had there not been some group of some power making sure that the Washington Myth was constructed and maintained from the onset. Look into the revolt among the criminal general for a small taste of this obvious working example of meritocracy within the forming American military. Look into what became known (victors write the history) as the Newburg Conspiracy. Keeping in mind that the existence of inculpatory evidence proving the accurate accounting of who intentionally does what, when, where, and why is likely to be found only in a common law trial by jury case had there been one, and absent one those inculpatory pieces of evidence would not be preserved if the criminals had anything to do with picking and choosing which records are available to the general public and which records are censored. Which records support the idea that people must have a tyrant to guide them? Which records support the idea that people, left to their own free market choices, will cooperate voluntarily in their own defense? Who picks the records that are subject to censorship, based upon "National Security," and opposing the formation of a Nation State, at all, is the people such as those claimed to be Rebels in 3 cases involving George Washington. 1. Revolutionary War 2. Shays's Rebellion 3. The Whiskey Rebellion. In the first case the so called general is now claimed to have been a cause of the war, as he may have actually been following orders to make sure the French and British would go to war; and then make sure that instead of credit flowing into America, there was nothing but crushing debt taken out of America, fomenting yet again another war, and it just so happens that the worst possible "general" is given the command of everyone in America? In the second case Washington had vowed to retire from politics and that is a well known vow of honor, to which the dishonorable man broke his promise. The key point here is that there was no Nation State by which an all powerful tyrant can conscript an army from all the independent states, to then march that army into one independent state to crush a rebellion against extortion payments demanded by criminals running the so called government. In the third case that is exactly what happened in Pennsylvania since the former voluntary, free market, federation was usurped in between Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion, and coincidentally the same criminal psychopath is eager to make sure his land holdings are secure. Was it not true also, that Washington earned a subsidized profit selling whiskey?

Discussion (rather than argument for the sake of argument) and even debate is possible. The idea can be agreed upon, shared, whereby the idea is to improve awareness of the accurate accounts, measures, views, perspectives, of life. I was listening to an account, a viewpoint, which was a collection of viewpoints offered during one presentation of those collected viewpoints, concerning George Washington, here on this Forum, and suddenly the man in question is given command of the entire continental army intending to defend against the invading criminal army of the so called British. That is a very difficult thing to perceive happening reasonably. Here is this narcissistic psychopath whose claim to fame is the worst possible military record, a known criminal within the ranks of the otherwise honorable military, and somehow this pathological liar is afforded absolute power over the defenders in America as the defenders face another pathological liar across the pond? Did I miss something?

Time 1:20:15 How does this individual become, suddenly, the commander in chief of the Continental Army? Murray Rothbard, in his work titled Generalisimo Washington, offers an agreeable negative viewpoint of the man. Who could have prevented the commission of such an obvious sociopath into such a vital position as "commander in chief" and who stood to gain the most from allowing the error to follow through to fruition? I have no idea as to what is or is not going to sway the powers that be to allow me to connect at this connection point among interested individuals. If I were to link to an outside source, for example, would that constitute the end of my probationary period? The information concerning the so called "leader of the free world" commanding the American (defensive) Army in such a way as to nearly destroy the entire Army is supported in outside links that may, or many not, pass muster, pass censorship, pass judgment, due to the controversial nature of the information contained in the outside link. In the outside link it is declared factually (I have not seen the data supporting the declaration) that agents working for the aggressors were in high places so as to ensure favorable outcome of the so called Revolutionary War. The obvious individual agents worthy of note are George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams: all of which are now known as Federalist Party members, or 2 members and 1 loose cannon. The idea is not that difficult to understand. Assemble as many defenders as possible into one group, and then lead them to slaughter, so as to effectively diminish the total power of defense commanded by the defenders. A look into something called Hospital Ships in that time period uncovers the base distinction between the two sides as the people in the two sides are inspired to fight offensively and defensively. George Washington is clearly on the offensive, destructive, aggressive, side, NOT the defensive side. The offensive side demands fealty, oath of allegiance, to the idea of blind obedience to any order, no matter how immoral, and said blind obedience is blind to the point at which there will be no questioning said criminal orders, and failure to obey is punishable with torture followed by murder of those failing to obey. That is an oath of allegiance that affords the oath keeper a stake in the accumulation of power taken from the targeted, productive, population, including any false promises, such as the false promise of land, or fraudulent money payments, or a command over a portion of those enslaved by this side's governing (lack of) principles. That is a oath offered to the kidnapped victims whose crime was to be misled by the criminal Washington, as those not slaughtered on the spot, by the criminal British, where those sent to these Hospital Ships, which were "prisoner ships," which were death camps, which constituted the punishment for failing to obey the criminal British orders to pay an excise tax, or value added tax, or extortion payment based upon the accurately accounted for ownership of anything of value, and the oath offered was an oath to the criminal organization to serve it, without question, to obey it, any order from it, whereby "it" is a legal fiction, a phantom entity, that only exists in the minds of criminals, and their victims, and their armies. A similar oath was demanded from those who fought the last battle of the Revolutionary War in Massachussets, whereby that battle was lost, the Revolution lost that battle, as the oath demanded by the criminal victors, was an oath to obey criminal orders without question, which included specific orders demanding silence from the people who lost the battle for their individual command of their individual judgment. Do not teach children, do not open up a tavern to spread your ideas, do not attend jury duty, your ideas are destructive to absolute despotism; otherwise you can stay, be free to produce more things that constitute our permission to contact you and demand extortion payments from you.

I understand principles based upon voluntary association, non-aggression, and non-deception, concerning free, mutually beneficial, which means mutually defensive, association. An example is provided for in the concept Open Source on one side and Intellectual Property Rights on the other end of a scale. People find cause to act in their defense against unwanted connections to undesirable information initiated involuntarily by people who spam, and people who deceive, and people whose intention - with malice aforethought - is to injure targeted, innocent, victims. So gates are put up, closing in the community of people thusly defended by those gates. Membership. Proof of membership. Presumption of guilt before proof of innocence. Prejudice, and collective punishment. I understand how that works to aid, abet, lend moral support to, and lend material support to criminals. I think I am also clear of mind to be aware of genuine, thoughtful, application of measures that work efficiently at reaching the goal of effective defense against whatever is deemed worthy of defending against by any individual, or any group of individuals associated voluntarily, and the methods, and processes employed, expediently, reach the goal effectively, without harming any innocent people directly or indirectly. One is one thing, the other is the other thing, and confusing the two is one of the things that work to cover-up the willful intentions to harm people as well as the unintended consequence whereby the innocent are blamed for the intended harm done by the guilty. Help in unraveling the confusion is valuable to some, help in spinning the accurate accounts into confusing webs of deception is valuable to other's. My goal here, which can be trusted as true, genuine, or not, is to reach for, and effectively identify, accurately, the methods and procedures that work best at defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, in time and place, and at the lowest cost to anyone; and the way to move in that direction is demonstrably free people defended through free market government suppliers forced to provide higher quality and lower cost, in competition with other suppliers, to meet the demand for that specific service, product, good.

Voluntary mutual defense association demanded and supplied competitively in free markets. That was the idea, expressed in words, and in actions, during the time period between 1776 and 1787, and anyone opting out, is someone encouraged, or even helped, in doing so, so long as the best cases are looked at, rather than the opposing end of the scale. Example 1 can be Quakers asked to help defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminal, mercenary, and slave army of aggressive war for profit known as The British, Red Coats, Monarchy, Divine Right of Kings, Central Banking Cabal, Roman Cult, Jesuit, Mason, military industrial complex, whatnot. Example 2 can be explained by the people in Rhode Island declaring the end of slavery, as well as the 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled, one named Richard Henry Lee, speaking out against the evil, criminal, kidnapping, abusing, and trading of people for profit: aforementioned slavery. Those examples provide the so called anarchistic side, or the moral side, or the voluntary side, or the defensive side of the scale. On the other side, as with all human contact, there are those whose actual thoughts and actual actions are, in one word, criminal. Example 1 can be George Washington and the dictatorial enforcement of any order that must be obeyed without question whereby failure to obey without question, any order, no matter how criminal, or how immoral, is cause to act in a manner that destroys the individual who fails to obey without question, and said punishment of the disobedient is so severe, so torturous, and so murderous, so evil, as to deter any other thoughts by anyone, anywhere, of thinking, let alone acting, disobediently. Example 2 can be Alexander Hamilton and the fraudulent usurpation of the working voluntary mutual defense association, turning the voluntary nature of human contact, covertly, in the opposite direction, in order to then produce and maintain the exclusive power to issue fraudulent money to everyone stupid enough to fall into that trap. My intention was to add to this, and provide examples of events demonstrating the principles explained earlier, but as my attempt to cut some of my work here, and then paste some of my work here was not possible, there is something in the code that does not allow for pasting text in this text window, since that has happened, then that suggests to me that my work is not welcome, even before my work is offered. So be it.

I may not last long here, as I have not lasted long in the following list: 1. John Birch Society 2. Untied We Stand (Ross Perot) 3. Fully Informed Jury Association Forum 4. Congressional Ballot 4th District California 5. National Rifle Association 6. Real News Network Forum 7. Daily Paul Liberty Forum 8. Anarchism.net Forum 9. Mises Institute Forum 10. National Liberty Alliance In most cases above the powers that were deleted, removed, ended, requested my leave, or otherwise expressed the clear and unmistakable message of involuntary association. So I see no problem, just ask, and I can thankfully pack up and move on. As to the definitions of the terms currently in use with one meaning one day, and yet another meaning another day, such as government or anarchism, it may help clue anyone else in on where my FIXED meanings of words are anchored firmly. The meaning of government is either defined by individuals acting alone in defense of innocent victims from guilty criminals or the meaning of government is defined by individuals forming voluntary mutual defense associations whereby individuals gain access to the power available with economic employment of division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale, and again the limit of where government stops and crime starts is demonstrated in time and place as innocent victims are defended from guilty criminals. The meaning of anarchism is unfortunately much more difficult to accurately identify in any case, any place, at any time. One might define the meaning of anarchism to be a synonym for effective, voluntary, defense, while another might define the meaning of anarchism as a synonym for perpetrating crimes, with malice aforethought, on anyone at any time, innocent or not. I would link example of my previous history where my activity remains to be published, however I have yet to figure out how to link to other web pages. I can offer words that reinforce my understanding concerning the difficulties associated with the employment of a contentious word, such as anarchism. The author is Stephen Pearl Andrews, who is said to be one of the founding American Anarchists, second in line only to Josiah Warren, and the reference has to do with another prominent figure in American Anarchism, whose name is Benjamin Tucker; with another contact in the name of Proudhon. Well, I tried the cut and paste of the text, and since that is not possible until I figure out how to do a simple cut and paste of text, that explanation can either wait, or be stuffed down the memory hole. I would like to find likeminded individuals, whereby the agreement is to do something about the criminals perpetrating crimes such as mass torture and mass murder under the color of law, or so called "government," whereby those agreeing to do something also agree to refuse to be the criminals perpetrating crimes under the color of law, and to that end I think I have some information worthy of digging up, and posting, and exchanging, voluntarily, toward that mutual defense association concept.