Libertopia Panel - Meet The A Team

[zonsb]

Understand/comprehend the word unnecessary. The vestiges/remnants of the bicameral mind are unnecessary. The most dangerous/destructive superstition is unnecessary.

Understand statist systems and it's facilitators is predicated on violence. it produces ever greater violence from within and seeks/facilitates to come forth from people. It wants -- no, make that needs -- violence because it has lost the debate of ideas.

With understanding comes peace of mind. History also show what is necessary for humans to prosper. Increased understanding of the laws of nature to facilitate new realms value creation.

There's a wedge driving out the unnecessary and a voluntary society filling the void. To fill the void requires imagination and speculation of that which doesn't yet exist. It's one thing to help rip out a person's identity with the unnecessary most dangerous superstition. It's a necessary thing for them to fill the void. How can I help the person get to where he wants to go? Self-governing, pure freedom of expression facilitated by economic/financial freedom of self-issued credit. Because there is no going back. Not for sane people anyways.

Libertopia Panel - Meet The A Team 10-23-2011
STEFAN MOLYNEUX, LARKEN ROSE, MARC STEVENS, BUTLER SHAFFER

[eye2i2hear]

[total side-bar -or- threadjack, if so be the case for you; as i understand grasp it, it's intended on my part as a prompted share... discussion optional]

(10-27-2011 06:09 AM)zonsb Wrote:  Understand/comprehend the word unnecessary.

I like the inclusion of "/comprehend" along side the word "understand". I also appreciate the extra sacrifice of personal time it took to go that extra step (type those extra strokes).

I suppose it's a (yet another) peculiarity of mine (gauging by how often/typically it seems to go non-countered/unquestioned), butt this is a classic example of how buggy AEnglish (originally "Angloish" for yet another) can be; buggy in the computing coding sense, but also [if the distinction is actually warranted?!] in the emotional sense.

For the compound is: to under + stand. One historical record (aka a dictionary) has this:

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) Wrote:Understand \Un`der*stand"\ v. t. [imp.
& p. p. Understood, and Archaic Understanded; p. pr. &
vb. n. Understanding.] [OE. understanden, AS. understandan,
literally, to stand under; cf. AS. forstandan to understand,
G. verstehen. The development of sense is not clear. See
Under, and Stand.]

I recollect back in my paytridiot daze (Patriot days), someone espousing that Legaleze [Code] meant and accepted that quite literally; per when a Judge asks "Do you understand?" --to mean do you under stand, per stand under akin to stand down etc. [it echoes yet other daze/days of long ago, recalling me ole mom and dad hovering over me, after some too-typical male-child goof, seeing either a waving switch or leather belt accompanied with the word: DO YOU UNDERSTAND?! --and of course, I stood down/under!]
Thus, it's possible to hear "Authority" in the term?
un'derBar.

Ever since then I tend to catch myself mentally noting (comprehending?) that word per it's literal sense, and so still wonder about it. I'm seeking always to actually no longer use it and get in the practice of using one of its 'synonyms' instead (e.g. comprehend, grasp, etc).

Quote:Understand statist systems and it's facilitators ...

So could this be heard as a command (rather than an exhortation)? It seems this is precisely what Submitizens of the boobU.S. electus species embrace and hearald, no?

Quote:With understanding comes peace of mind.

Thus also saith Submitizens of the boobU.S. electus species. Just do as you're told. And indeed, for most it does hold peace of mind (War Is Peace); tho delusion inherently does that (has that as it's purpose)? Red pill/blue pill, Neo?

If only peace of mind (in the Statist/delusion set) actually was peace in/to the literal sense. Comprehension, insight, and knowledge just no longer allow delusion, nor much real world peace (for) Neo (one's true self) in The Matrix EvolveSolution.


Lastly, one other historical record (in light of considering what we're saying/communicating --and recalling the word "anarchy" here) [some emphasis mine]:

The Online Etymology Dictionary Wrote:understand.
O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-).

That is the suggestion in Barnhart, but other sources regard the "among, between, before, in the presence of" sense of O.E. prefix and preposition under as other meanings of the same word. "Among" seems to be the sense in many O.E. compounds that resemble understand, e.g. underniman "to receive," undersecan "to investigate," underginnan "to begin." It also seems to be the sense still in expressions such as under such circumstances.

Perhaps the ultimate sense is "be close to," cf. Gk. epistamai "I know how, I know," lit. "I stand upon." Similar formations are found in O.Fris. (understonda), M.Dan. (understande), while other Germanic languages use compounds meaning "stand before" (cf. Ger. verstehen, represented in O.E. by forstanden). For this concept, most I.E. languages use figurative extensions of compounds that lit. mean "put together," or "separate," or "take, grasp" (see comprehend). O.E. oferstandan, M.E. overstonden, lit. "over-stand" seem to have been used only in literal senses.

under.
O.E. under, from P.Gmc. *under- (cf. O.Fris. under, Du. onder, O.H.G. untar, Ger. unter, O.N. undir, Goth. undar), from PIE *ndhero- "lower" (cf. Skt. adhah "below;" Avestan athara- "lower;" L. infernus "lower," infra "below"). Notion of "subordination" was present in O.E. Also used in O.E. as a preposition meaning "between, among,"

(w)underbar~


--NonMorphEus2/NeoNonSmith/NonSubliminali

---

Understand "understand"...?

[zonsb]

(10-27-2011 10:18 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  I recollect back in my paytridiot daze (Patriot days), someone espousing that Legaleze [Code] meant and accepted that quite literally; per when a Judge asks "Do you understand?" --to mean do you under stand, per stand under akin to stand down etc.

From my freeman-on-the-land and commercial redemption research/studies when a judge reads aloud the charge and proceeds to ask, "do you understand", it's implied "do you stand under the charge?" A responsive, "yes," is game over. The judge will ask, "how do you plead?" If the response is "not guilty," the implication is that I just contradicted myself because I previously said I stand under the charge. As a formality the dog-&-pony show trial moves forward.

A way to respond to the question of "Do you understand?", is: "I comprehend and I do not stand under the charge..." continued/followed with a question so as to seek information rather than give testimony.

It's obvious to me not to play by their imaginary rules and use their real rules against them as Marc teaches.

Thanks for grasping the "minutia" at play with understand/comprehend.

--

[NonEntity]

(10-27-2011 02:39 PM)zonsb Wrote:  A way to respond to the question of "Do you understand?", is: "I comprehend and I do not stand under the charge..." continued/followed with a question so as to seek information rather than give testimony.

I recognize that you stated "a way to respond," and I will counter with Occam's Razor and ask why do you not simply say "No," instead of appearing to desire to engage in the game playing? It would appear that you are missing the gist of Marc's wisdom of never taking a stand. "I do not stand" is a stand.

(Please note that the above post is merely an observation, regardless of how much it may superficially appear similar to a discussion. No discussive intent is to be inferred from this textual material.)

- NonBediscussive

[Kel]

NonEntity Wrote:(Please note that the above post is merely an observation, regardless of how much it may superficially appear similar to a discussion. No discussive intent is to be inferred from this textual material.)

non·en·ti·ty [non-en-ti-tee]
noun, plural -ties
1.a person or thing of no importance.
2.something that does not exist or exists only in imagination.
3.nonexistence.
Source




-DonE

[NonEntity]

(10-27-2011 06:05 PM)Kel Wrote:  1.a person or thing of no importance.
2.something that does not exist or exists only in imagination.

Observing imaginational fictional friction. (Imaginative friction has a coefficient of zero, he observes.)

(Not for discussion!)

- NonBeDiscussin'

comment from Scientific American article Wrote:I read the article in the Dyslexie font and found it much simpler to read. I had to laugh a little with pleasure at how smooth it felt as I quickly read through it. Now, I've never been diagnosed with dyslexia, but reading has always been one of my weakest skills. I had been an avid reader as a kid and young adult, but reading has always been a little cumbersome and uncomfortable for anything beyond fiction. It was a frustrating experience with more technical material.

So, I wonder. Is this Dyslexie font easier for everyone? Does it improve comprehension for all readers or only those with dyslexia?

[Kel]

Projection?



-NonE-Prime

[NonEntity]

(10-27-2011 06:24 PM)Kel Wrote:  Projection?

-NonE-Prime

Nope. Not even standard vomit.
Material for others to observe. Theye know who theye2 are.

- NonBeDiscussin'


{edit} Observe! The Scientific American article presented in the Dyslexie font (PDF)

[zonsb]

zonsb Wrote:It's obvious to me not to play by their imaginary rules and use their real rules against them as Marc teaches.

Perhaps reading comprehension is in short supply. I trust the reader will grasp why I may ignore a certain member's question.

That said, the following is a continuation of my previous post. I was going to tack it on up yonder but I see there have been other posts since; so I post it down under here.

I post the following information in hope that it will assist the reader gain a greater depth of knowledge pertaining to the mechanics of human livestock farming from the farmer's "perspective". And the farm owners' "perspective".

Quote:Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.

Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.

Quote:The few who understand the system, [check money and credits] will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests.

Rothschild Brothers of London communique to associates in New York, June 25th 1863 [According to Wikiquote it's miss-attributed and a forgery. If true, attribute goes to J. F. Rutherford's Vindication, Book II, Chapter 6 (1932)] The source is of little importance with regard to comprehending the truth of the statement -- from my studies and research it rings true. In other words, it doesn't matter to me who the messenger was/is. Because...

I partially grasped the accounting trail used by the State operating under receivership used for its human livestock farming. Fittingly, the Department of Agriculture tags fungible commodity producers/humans with Social Security numbers. On the reverse of a SS card is an 8 digit number printed in red, proceeded by a letter. The letter designates one of the twelve Federal Reserve banks. An individual SS account is used to determine the value underpinning the issuance of FRNs. A range of FRN serial numbers is attached to the fungible commodity producer account (FCPA) over the life of the account.

Generally, U.S. incorporated global corporations such as might be Fortune 500 companies have access to the accounts through the Depository Trust Company (takes deposits of stocks and bonds that are traded on U.S. markets, including bonded FCPAs). It may explain why their CFOs (Chief Financial Officer) have salaries, bonuses and benefits in the ten's-of millions of dollars. They are more than mere glorified accountants.

With much greater detail than given above, having connected the dots, so to speak, some months later I watched: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix . My appreciation of the video was further down the rabbit hole than parasitically taxing the human livestock. To see the cold, calculating accounting mechanism is disturbing. That's perhaps a profound understatement in light of, know your "enemy". I.e., know the farm owners.

Quote:

Statism is an ex-post facto justification for human ownership.
Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on livestock management practices.

Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix


--