RSS

Fiat Currency Sorcery

12 Nov

“There’s no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch [inflate] the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which only one man in a million can diagnose.”—The Economic Consequences of Peace by John Maynard Keynes (A.D. 1920).

Keynes’ quote may sound improbable to most Ameri­cans, but I think it’s one of the two or three most profound and concise statements of secular truth I’ve seen.

To illustrate the validity of Keynes’ observation consider Paul Moritz Warburg—the purported “chief architect” of the Federal Reserve Act.  Shortly before his death in A.D. 1932, he was quoted in The Nation maga­zine as saying:

 

“I have studied finance, and economics, and international trade all my life, and now, after these recent events, I have come to the conclusion that I know nothing about any of them.”

If even the purported “chief architect” of the Federal Reserve Act didn’t understand money, perhaps Keynes was right—maybe it’s true that only “one man in a million” really understands money.

Still, most people would dismiss Keynes’ comment as gross exaggera­tion.  After all, if Keynes were right, America (with a current popula­tion of roughly 300 million) might have no more than 300 people in the entire country who truly understood money. That would only be an average of six people in each State.

Doesn’t sound possible, does it?

I believe Keynes’ estimate was about right—at least for his time. Today, thanks to the internet, there might be one man in 100,000 (maybe even one in 10,000) who truly understands the na­ture of money.  If so, there might be 30,000 American who truly understand “money”—but no more.

I can’t say that I’m one of those rare individuals who fully understands money. But the fact that I even try to understand guar­antees I’m part of a tiny minority who have some insight into the nature of money. If you would join that tiny minority, you’ll find the resultant understanding amazing, unbelievable and, initially, even threatening.

But if you would be free—if you would preserve your wealth—you must understand money.

 

•  Twenty years ago, a friend of mine with a degree in political science decided to test Keynes’ “one man in a million” observation. He experimented with several of the cartoon “$6 Bills” that were printed during the Clinton administration. (You probably saw them: They were green pieces of ordinary paper crudely formatted to re­semble regular dollar bills—except they had a picture of Bill Clinton (instead of Jefferson or Washington), some jokes about Monica and Hillary, and were denominated in the corners as “$6” bills rather than $1’s, $5’s or $10’s.)

To see if people understood anything about money, my friend reportedly passed several $6 bills at convenience stores. He’d walk into a 7-11, order a hot dog, slurpee, or a candy bar and hand the clerk a “$6 Bill”. Every clerk took the $6 without hesi­tation and even gave change.

The clerk’s only problem was trying to decide which section in the cash drawer should hold the $6 bill. It didn’t belong with the $1s … nor the $5s … nor the $10s …. Hmm.  Eventually, the busy clerk would lift the cash drawer and file the $6 underneath, with the checks, money orders and food stamps.

This experiment may seem funny, but it wasn’t fair. Virtually all of the convenience store clerks were Middle East immigrants who barely understood English and were working entry level jobs in their new country. They were overworked, unsophisticated and easily fooled.

Surely, you and I would not be so easily deceived. Any “real” American can instantly tell the difference between a $6 joke and “real” paper money—right?

Wrong.  The truth is that our understanding of money is only slightly superior to that of the immigrant clerks. No, we won’t fall for “$6 bills”. But what do most of us really know about money except magnitude? Even little kids know that a $5 bill is better than a $1 bill, and a $10 bill is better yet. But once we learned that difference, who learned more?

Who among us understands what a “bill” is—or a “note”? Who understands the difference between “tender” and “legal tender”—or “money,” “currency” and “credit”? Who understands the difference between paying and promising to pay?  Who understands the difference between “buy­ing” and “purchasing”? Who even imagines that “purchasing” a home, car or magazine with “debt instruments” may gain only the equitable right of pos­session, but not legal title to true ownership of the object being purchased?

According to Lord Keynes, only a few hundred Americans understand the nature of money sufficiently to answer the previous ques­tions and others more profound. I’d say there’s no more than 10,000.  I don’t claim to be one of those “chosen 10,000”, but I’m a student of money and if I don’t have all the answers, I do have some questions.  At first glance, my questions may seem silly.  But if you’ll consider them for a moment, you may find them puzzling, intriguing and even disturbing:

 

Is paper “currency” money?

•  When you offer one $5 bill for a $1 purchase and you receive four $1 bills as change, do you receive four times as much money as you offered or four times as much paper? Does this question prove that paper currency is not real money?

•  When government prints currency, do they pay for the paper, ink, and labor with the same currency that they printed? If not, what “money” do they use to pay for the currency they print?

•  Can government print any number it wants on the paper when printing currency?

•  Why are we forced to pay interest on the national debt when government could print one piece of paper with a number on it equal to the national debt and thereby pay it off?  Could the answer be that government wants us to live in the status of perpetual debtors?

•  Why does just one Federal Reserve bank shred over five tons of Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) daily instead of giving the currency to the starving people of the world who would not care that the currency was torn or soiled?  In fact, why doesn’t the Fed merely use all of the currency it shreds each day to pay off the National Debt?  Who, in their right mind, would shred or burn money?  Doesn’t the daily destruction of tons of our fiat currency prove that Federal Reserve Notes are not “money”?

 

On “printing”

•  Why does our government go to the trouble of issuing Treasury bonds to get paper currency from us when they can simply print all of the paper currency that they want?

•  If government doesn’t print all of the currency it wants, why don’t they? What restrains it?

•  If our government can print currency, can’t all governments print currency?

•  If all governments can print currency, why do all governments borrow currency?

 

On Taxing:

•  Why would any government need to collect taxes if all governments can print currency?

• Does the IRS aggressively pursue taxpayers to collect valuable taxes?  Or does the IRS merely “put on a show” to fool Americans into believing that our intrinsically-worthless currency is “real money” and therefore valuable?  Surely, government wouldn’t go to all the expense of harassing, fining and jailing Americans for failing to pay income tax if our currency was essentially worthless—or would they?

 

•  All of us sense that our “system” of government does not operate according to the principles established by Jefferson, Madison and Washington.  Individual rights?  Personal liberty? Private property owner­ship?  We pay some lip service to these concepts, but they seem to have become nostalgic relics of a former glory rather than controlling principles of our current government.

But if government isn’t operating according to the principles established by the 18th-century Founders, what controlling principles are now in effect?

Over the past twenty-two years, I’ve observed two general principles that seem to control government conduct:

First, the only thing our current system fears is public exposure. Government can and will do virtually anything so long as it doesn’t arouse widespread public exposure. In worst case scenarios (when they’re caught), government will deny, deny, deny, lie, lie, lie, influence the media and even hide or destroy evidence to conceal the truth from the general public.

However, for the first time in history, all governments’ penchant for secrecy is threatened by the internet.  You can bet that if our government could choose between taking away our guns and taking away (or at least controlling) the internet, they’d choose to restrict anti-government rhetoric (freedom of speech) on the internet.

The second principle that animates government is a fanatical defense of the existing fiat currency system against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Over the years, I’ve deduced this second principle from watching the fate of those who challenged the money system—they almost always go to jail. You can conspire to kill the President or blow up tall buildings and maybe the government will come to arrest you, or maybe they’ll ignore you, or maybe they’ll send undercover agents to ostensibly help you. In the end, Presi­dents (and skyscrapers) are as disposable as light bulbs.

But if you create your own “comptroller warrants,” open your own bank, counterfeit paper dollars, or issue private, silver “Liberty Dollars” that offers a real alternative to Federal Reserve Notes—the only question is how many years you’re going to spend in the slammer. Mess with the money system, and you will be arrested, indicted, convicted, and incarcer­ated—or, in the case of Iraq and Saddam Hussein (who, in A.D. 2000, dared to sell Iraqi oil for euros rather than dollars), be invaded and bombed for over eight years or hanged by the neck until dead.

Of course, here, in the U.S., you’ll get a trial. The judge will appear attentive as your lawyer presents your defense. But the appearance of “due process” will be window-dressing intended to conceal a certainty rec­ognized long before they kicked in your door: you committed the ultimate secular blasphemy of challenging the fiat monetary system, so you’re goin’ bye-bye.

I’ve seen this process take place several times, and judging by the system’s virulent assault on anyone who offers an alterna­tive to the existing monetary system, there’s no doubt that fiat currencyis our System’s “third rail”—touch it and die.  Judging by government’s determination to protect the money system at all costs, I’m convinced that fiat currency is our System’s “heart of darkness.”

 

•  Curiously, the essential ingredient for modern currency is “public confidence”.  As long as the public has faith in the value of a particular medium of exchange, we can use buckskins, corn cobs, Monopoly Money, or even the intrinsically-worthless Federal Reserve Notes as “money”.

But if public confidence (faith) in the value of our currency fails, that currency can instantly succumb to hyperinflation and become worthless.  Insofar as the value of our currency depends on our “confidence” in that currency, and insofar as “confidence” is merely another word for “faith,” then we can begin to wonder if today’s fiat currency is valued objectively or valued subjectively as a kind of “religion”.

In fact, our faith in the value of our fiat currency is “all in our minds”.  The entire world has been deceived into accepting fiat dollars as if they were “money” (gold and silver).  That deception is so great and so extensive that the cause seems reminiscent of “sorcery.”   Admittedly, that’s not the kind of “sorcery” that emanates from a man waving a magic wand, but it’s pretty close.  Who can deny that an entity able to deceive the whole world, belongs in the ranks of (secular) “sorcerers”?

Most Americans still believe in “Federal Reserve Notes”.  Do you?

If so, your economic future will depend on whether your FRNs are a basis for a “one true (secular) faith”.  But if you’ve been deceived into believing in a false currency, you could wind up in bankruptcy (a secular equivalent to “hell”).

 

•  The vast majority of people do not understand fiat currency.  In their ignorance, they only believe in fiat currency.    Thus, our modern fiat currency isn’t a science so much as a faith.

As Lord Keynes said in the opening quote, there are “hidden forces” at work in economics.  There are unexpected powers in currency. As you begin to appreciate these hidden (occult) forces, you’ll be astonished to find yourself wondering if economics, money, and especially fiat currency are such mysterious concepts that they sometimes resemble a kind of “sorcery”.

I realize that comparing fiat currency to “sorcery” seems ridiculous, right?

But even so, but I’m reminded of Revelation 18:23 which describes the End Times fall of “Babylon” as follows:  “For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived.”

We can debate if the Bible is true.  If it is true, we can debate who or what the End Times “Babylon” signifies.  But, for me, the phrase “merchants [who] were the great men of the earth” seems to describe the super-wealthy corporate executives of multi-national corporations and central banks.  For me, the “sorcery” that deceived all nations could be fiat currency.

More, I suspect that those “merchants” who practiced the End Times “sorcery” hinted at in the Bible may be the same people today who John Maynard Keynes described as the “one man in a million” currently able to understand money.

I may be stretching this “fiat currency/sorcery” metaphor beyond reasonable limits, but it still seems that by means of fiat currency (a false “money”) that can be “spun” (conjured?) out of thin air, the super-rich have purchased the “cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men,” (Rev. 18:13) without actually “paying” the resultant debts with real money (gold and silver).  Instead, they merely “discharged” those debts with fiat currency freshly spun off the government’s printing presses.

By the “sorcery” of fiat currency, the nations and peoples of the world have been deceived into selling their property and even themselves into bondage without even really being paid.  The super-rich have purchased much of the world without ever really paying.  They are “purchasing” the world with the illusion of “money” we call “fiat currency”.  If anyone could “purchase” the world with only illusions, would it be completely irrational to describe them as “sorcerers”?

I suspect that The Powers That Be intend to use fiat currency to purchase the entire world in order to achieve one-world government and a New World Order. If so, the New World Order will defend fiat currencies—the source of their “sorcery”—to the death.

 

•  In the final analysis, you may not be that one man in a million who understands the nature of money.  But I guarantee that one man is out there and he’s robbing those who don’t understand without ever needing a gun or burglar tools to break into their homes.  He’s robbing Americans with a kind of “sorcery” because we are generally as ignorant as children.  So long as you don’t make it your business to understand the nature of money, you will be robbed by the “sorcerers” who do.

 
66 Comments

Posted by on November 12, 2012 in Federal Reserve, Money, Values

 

Tags: , , ,

66 responses to “Fiat Currency Sorcery

  1. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 1:58 PM

    @Keynes’ quote may sound improbable to most Ameri­cans, but I think it’s one of the two or three most profound and concise statements of secular truth I’ve seen.

    MY FEELINGS EXACTLY !!! (stolen from Alfred Adask)

     
    • Mike

      November 12, 2012 at 5:57 PM

      From the book of James:

      James 5

      Amplified Bible (AMP)

      5 Come now, you rich [people], weep aloud and lament over the miseries (the woes) that are surely coming upon you.

      (When? Verse 5 indicates this is a prophecy concerning the Day of Judgement which is to come)

      2 Your abundant wealth has rotted and is ruined, and your [many] garments have become moth-eaten.

      (Abundant wealth probably indicates the super wealthy elites who will be present in that day)

      3 Your gold and silver are completely rusted through, and their rust will be testimony against you and it will devour your flesh as if it were fire. You have heaped together treasure for the last days.

      (GOLD and SILVER do not rust. Hmmm….. this is obviously referring to a debasing/destruction of their “money”. This destruction of their money is a testimony against them. Perhaps it testifies to the worthlessness of their sorceries/fiat monies. All of this wealth has been piled up, only to be lost when Christ returns to judge the earth.)

      4 [But] look! [Here are] the wages that you have withheld by fraud from the laborers who have reaped your fields, crying out [for vengeance]; and the cries of the harvesters have come to the ears of the Lord of hosts.

      (Gee… wages withheld by fraud. Has anyone ever heard of withholding taxes which are paid to the private Federal Reserve Bank? Be not deceived. God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.)

      5 [Here] on earth you have abandoned yourselves to soft (prodigal) living and to [the pleasures of] self-indulgence and self-gratification. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

      6 You have condemned and have murdered the righteous (innocent man), [while] he offers no resistance to you.

      7 So be patient, brethren, [as you wait] till the coming of the Lord.

      Hold on brothers. The judge is coming.

       
  2. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 2:07 PM

    @Every clerk took the $6 without hesi­tation and even gave change.
    But they are smart enough not to accept a “Morgan Silver dollar” for a fitty cent hot dog.

     
  3. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 2:14 PM

    @ counterfeit paper dollars (???)

    How do you counterfeit a counterfeit ??/

     
    • Adask

      November 12, 2012 at 2:50 PM

      I don’t see a “paper dollar” that’s redeemable in gold or silver as a “counterfeit”. However, I do see those “paper dollars” that are not redeemable in specie as a special subset of “paper dollars”. I see the unredeemable “paper dollars” as “counterfeit”.

       
      • Steve

        November 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM

        This is just a question…but federal reserve notes are a “promise to pay” if my research is correct. Then, if at the end of the fiscal year and our taxes are due…why can’t we turn in all the receipts we saved every time we used frns and reclaim our lost property? I am not sure of the I.R.S. Form, it is either 1040NR, or maybe 705/706…not sure and do not have any links at the moment. But I have read somewhere you can get the FRN’s you spent back so you can continue to keep commerce flowing. Could be wrong, would appreciate any input from anybody.

         
      • Adask

        November 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

        If I had to count every time over the past 20 years that I’ve seen some theory that there’s a legal way to cause the government give us “free money,” the count would occupy all of the fingers on one of my hands, and probably some of the fingers on my other hand. I’ve yet to see any of those theory pan out. My opinion is that the government of the United States will not allow “free money” to be distributed to the “great unwashed” until the Christ is once again walking among us. In the meantime, any strategy that’s supposed to provide you with “free money” will probably be a fraud purported by whoever you’re paying money to and who purports an explanation of the theory.

         
      • Don

        November 12, 2012 at 5:39 PM

        I see the unredeemable “paper dollars” as “counterfeit”.

        That’s what I meant,was trying to say. Guess I missed or overlooked something. I had some “redeemable in lawful money” frns at one time & tried to “redeem” them at a Federal Reserve Bank. They only offered to “give me “Legal Tender Paper” nothing else.

         
  4. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 2:21 PM

    @However, for the first time in history, all governments’ penchant for secrecy is threatened by the internet. You can bet that if our government could choose between taking away our guns and taking away (or at least controlling) the internet, they’d choose to restrict anti-government rhetoric (freedom of speech) on the internet.

    Here ya go >> http://www.realecontv.com/page/20608.html

     
  5. Anon4fun

    November 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM

    Adask: >>If it is true, we can debate who or what the End Times “Babylon” signifies.<<

    There is no need to debate this. The Bible tells us what Babylon is.

    Babylon is a great city.

    Revelation 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

    Specifically, Babylon is the city where Jesus was crucified.

    Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

    In other words, Babylon is Jerusalem.

     
    • Don

      November 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM

      @In other words, Babylon is Jerusalem.
      WA DC has an humongous monster in the Potomac river called an Octopus. Its tentacles & sucking valves reach all around the the entire U.S.of A.
      Jerusalem may be the seat of Babylon,but the tentacles of that “seat” reach around the entire Earth. The whole world is Babylon. One mass cycle of confusion. The author of confusion is Satan.

       
    • Anon4fun

      November 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM

      Don: “The whole world is Babylon.”

      The problem with this is, it contradicts the Bible, which repeatedly says Babylon is a city: a great city, a specific city.

      Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

      Revelation 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

      Revelation 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

      Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

      Revelation 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

      Revelation 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

      Revelation 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

      Revelation 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

      Also:

      Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

      Later in the same chapter, verse 18 clarifies who this woman is. “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city,” which can only be one city:

      Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

       
      • Doug

        November 13, 2012 at 8:14 AM

        Babble-on is what goes on around here … hahahaha !!!

         
      • Don

        November 14, 2012 at 2:21 AM

        @Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

        So, Egypt is a city, huh? I did not know that. And, for so many many years I thought Egypt was a Country/Nation.

        @Revelation 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell:

        So the great city is also the cities of the nations? NATIONS ? Wow !! Well since cities of the nations fell, I guess just the countrysides,are/will be left to fall.

        @Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

        woman is a city too,huh? I can buy that,but it sounds like Rome,to me.

        @Revelation 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

        How can it beBabylon mean Jerusalem, as you say, & yet called Babylon? Why does it say Babylon when it could have just as easily said, Jerusalem, IF it was Jerusalem

        @Revelation 18:16 And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

        Sounds like it’s speaking of,Rome,again.

        @Revelation 18:18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

        Good question! What city is like unto this great city! If whoever asked that question didn’t answer
        it, what makes you smart enought to have the answer.

        @Revelation 18:19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

        Also:

        @Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

        The writer wondered with great admiration but you,Anon4fun even know what he was wondering about.

        @Later in the same chapter, verse 18 clarifies who this woman is. “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city,” which can only be one city:

        Is that right? If so, which one of all the so called great cities is it?

        @Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

        I think Yeshua had a little something to do with that scripture,i.e.,fullfilling it,that is.

        Some of the so called “GREAT CITIES” that are about to FALL ARE: NEW YORK CITY, ALL CITIES ON THE EAST & WEST COAST, including North,South,East, & West VENUES. LONDON,
        ROME, just to mention a few, YES & Rio too. want some more?

         
      • Anon4fun

        November 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM

        Don: >>Some of the so called “GREAT CITIES” that are about to FALL ARE: NEW YORK CITY, ALL CITIES ON THE EAST & WEST COAST, including North,South,East, & West VENUES. LONDON, ROME, just to mention a few, YES & Rio too. want some more?<<

        Sure, name some more great cities, but leave out those that don't meet the "where also our Lord was crucified" criterion, since they are obviously not candidates for being the Babylon of Revelation.

         
  6. Don

    November 12, 2012 at 2:35 PM

    Alfred, You have been divinely protected from not being put in the loony bin,or just bein put away.
    אני אוהבת אותך

     
    • Adask

      November 12, 2012 at 2:53 PM

      I hope you’re right.

       
  7. shekinah419

    November 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM

    Reblogged this on servehiminthewaiting and commented:
    Add your thoughts here… (optional)

     
  8. Andy

    November 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM

    Very sagacious stuff here. Thank you, and may Father YHWH ha Elohiym grant you continued absolute protection.

    For some reason it reminds me of an esoteric song lyric from an equally esoteric 60’s band from the Lone Star State that I grew up with. {Yeah Texas has it all}

    Though they were speaking of higher planes:

    “One eyed men aren’t really reigning
    They just march in place until.
    Two eyed me with mystery training
    Finally feel the power fill
    Three eyed men are not complaining
    They can yo-yo where they will
    They slip inside this house as they pass by.”

    Most of us are one-eyed, and one could say the three-eyed men are the elite uber-rich and powerful New World Order principals.

     
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 7:07 PM

      Andy,
      @Most of us are one-eyed.
      I respectfully disagree. Most of us have no eyes,or ears either.But, PatriotOne, shoooo do.

       
  9. palani

    November 13, 2012 at 7:58 AM

    Fiat is not money. At least not in the common law system. It does appear to be a method of exchange though. Something like coupons that a grocery store causes to be printed to facilitate the exchange of products.

    Without substance common law falls flat. The reason for this is that private property is the cornerstone of common law. There is no private property in a plane where fiat money is in use or in a communist plane. As far as I can tell the communist plane and the commercial plane are identical with no substance available.

    There are two terms that must be understood for the commercial system to work. These terms are USE and USUFRUCT. A USE requires substance to exist so fiat money will not provide for a use of a thing. Meanwhile a USUFRUCT is the right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another. Buy a donut with fiat? Not possible in common law. Do you have a USE of the donut? No. Do you have a USUFRUCT in the donut? Probably so. Yet you don’t own the donut even as you consume it (with a complete USUFRUCT you have no right to alter the thing).

     
    • Don

      November 13, 2012 at 11:22 PM

      @Do you have a USE of the donut? No. Do you have a USUFRUCT in the donut? Probably so. Yet you don’t own the donut even as you consume it (with a complete USUFRUCT you have no right to alter the thing).

      What difference does it make,if you can eat/consume it,even if it is stolen? The digestive system does a pretty good job of “altering it” USUFRUCT or no USUFRUCT

       
      • palani

        November 14, 2012 at 7:41 AM

        “The digestive system does a pretty good job of “altering it” USUFRUCT or no USUFRUCT”

        Ergo the logical conclusion that the USUFRUCT must not be complete else you would have a duty to not alter it.

        “What difference does it make,”

        Your relationship to the donut is either by right, by USE or by USUFRUCT. Tort is also a possibility (you discovered it on the sidewalk) and prescription might be another possibility (you have possessed the donut for over 10 years and now consider your rights to supersede those of the donut manufacturer or original owner) . Don’t forget trover either (you buried the donut and someone else dug it up). There may be other relationships I have failed to consider.

         
      • Don

        November 14, 2012 at 7:03 PM

        Palani,
        Final word, USUFRUCT IT !!!

         
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 7:00 PM

      @Your relationship to the donut
      I am not related to the donut. It’s not even a far off distant 1,000th cousin.

       
    • Don

      November 14, 2012 at 7:10 PM

      palani
      November 13, 2012 at 7:58 AM
      @Fiat is not money.
      You got that right. Fiat is the name of an automobile. You didn’t know I knew that, did you?

       
      • palani

        November 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM

        Don
        Your relationship to the donut is the same as your relationship to the Fiat/fiat.

         
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 2:56 AM

      palani
      November 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM
      @Your relationship to the donut is the same as your relationship to the Fiat/fiat.

      Is that right? NO FIAT ! palani,you are fiat-ting me. You cannot FIAT a FIATER.

       
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 4:21 AM

      @Your relationship to the donut

      If you had said I had a relationship with NUTS, I would not disagree. BUT, remember, the tall OAK tree was once a NUT too. Now I am going to take my Melatonin.Sweet dreams. deb gave you a beautiful compliment, did you see it?

       
  10. William

    November 13, 2012 at 8:38 AM

    Alfred,

    I would not let Warburg that easy, he knew the misery that fractional banking brings on humanity. It is self serving to claim ignorance when deep down you know the millions of people you have injured and the hundreds of thousands that committed suicide as a consequence of your design.

    Warburg I hope deals with karma equal to his deeds.

     
  11. Anon4fun

    November 13, 2012 at 8:40 AM

    Andy: “Most of us are one-eyed, and one could say the three-eyed men are the elite uber-rich and powerful New World Order principals.”

    Jesus Christ used different terms:

    Matthew 15:12-14 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

     
    • Andy

      November 13, 2012 at 7:48 PM

      Agreed.
      Perhaps a better way of communicating my point is, FOR NOW, three-eyed men can yo-yo where they will. But come the day of reckoning…

       
  12. Don

    November 13, 2012 at 11:11 PM

    @Babble-on is what goes on around here … hahahaha !!!

    You’re the only one laughing,well,no, I take that back, Now there are 2 laughing, you & I.

     
  13. shofar

    November 14, 2012 at 1:27 AM

    Thank you Adask for that awesome & very insightful essay on money, counterfeit, & sorcery! There is so much food for thought in your essay, that it would take me a good while to digest. But it is very cogent! Things will get much clearer as the US falls into greater debt, & hyperinflation eventually set in to the destruction of the US$!

    That was quite a revelation that you quite aptly revealed; sorcery where all nations deceived Re18:23, is the world would accept the counterfeit US$ paper without any backing!

    I believe that the Babylon mentioned in Revelation is the city of New York, where the world’s most important stock & commodity exchanges resides! So one day soon, New York will be that Babylon, the great is fallen, is fallen..’ Re18:3,

    Please see my blog America’s Coming Fiscal Cliff of January 2013 found at http://drgoldsite.wordpress.com

    Thanks again,
    Drgold

     
    • Michael

      November 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM

      shofar, I read your article on superstorm sandy and I am in agreement with you. My wife and I were speaking about this just the other day. Unfortunately, most will not wake up. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” Most are deluded into believing the lie of global warming/mother nature because they have turned their backs on YHWH and the truth.

       
      • shofar

        December 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

        Hi Mike

        I appreciate your comments! More strong delusion is coming as the world continues in great convulsion!

         
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM

      shofar
      November 14, 2012 at 1:27 AM
      @So one day soon, New York will be that Babylon, the great is fallen, is fallen..’ Re18:3,

      Hello, shofar,
      So far, shofar, as far as I can see shofar, you are right I say this not only because I’m far sighted,shofar,but I say it from insight. There is a scripture that also describes an earthquake so violent that every mountain will move out of its place. I bet when this happens,all the enlightened intellectuals will then really see the lights & understand something. ALL the cities will fall, yes even SIN CITY.

       
  14. Don

    November 14, 2012 at 6:53 PM

    Anon4fun
    @November 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM

    “Babylon” itself means CONFUSION. IF this CONFUSION is only centered around & in ONE CITY, I don’t care HOW GREAT that CITY is,why are you even concerned about it? As if there is no confusion anywhere else in the WORLD? Come on Anon4fun. You are playing games with me. What I don’t understand is,why it is called GREAT? What is GREAT about it? But, I am not going to let my ignorance/stupidity on not understanding the “GREATNESS” of it keep me from trying to understand more important things. Even IF I knew why it is called THAT GREAT CITY,will that make any difference? As PatriotOne would say, BS.

     
  15. Don

    November 14, 2012 at 7:24 PM

    Anon4fun
    November 14, 2012 at 3:32 PM

    I take back part of what I said about ALL cities “falling.” On second thought, I think Las Vegas, NV. aka SIN CITY will still stand,& not fall.

     
  16. Anon4fun

    November 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM

    Don:

    I am certain you are not going to flake off and change the subject like an astroturfer caught with an untenable line of disinfo. I think too highly of your scholarship and sincerity to expect that.

    So, since we have already established from scripture that the Babylon of Revelation is a “great city,” and since you asked if you should continue listing great cities, and since I answered that you should, I await your reply. To make things easier, you can omit all great cities that do not meet the additional scriptural requirement of being “where also our Lord was crucified.”

    Please proceed.

     
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 3:19 AM

      Anon4fun
      @November 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM

      I am not being “notified” anymore of this as well as other “threads” coming in.This is just ONE of the “strange things” that are happening. I WAS being notified. Now, I am not.

      ok. “LIKE” unto.” Have you ever heard anyone say, well, it’s like this, & THEN give an example of what it is like? Cities are in & of themselves BAD. Remember DRAGNET, just the facts, mamn?
      I guarantee you there will be no CITIES in the Kingdom/Government of YHWH. Villages? I think so, yes. Do you agree that Satan is the Ruler of this PRESENT EVIL WORLD? Do you agree that SATAN IS THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION? Need I say more? WORLD !!! DAMN IT, NOT just any city. THE WHOLE DAMNABLE WORLD !! Like unto a great city. CONCRETE JUNGLE !!! Get the “PICTURE” NOW !!! IF NOT, let’s drop it. You believe what you want to.

       
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM

      Anon4fun
      November 14, 2012 at 7:51 PM

      I am certain you are not going to flake off and change the subject like an astroturfer caught with an untenable line of disinfo. I think too highly of your scholarship and sincerity to expect that.(stolen from Anon4fun)

      Hey Anon4fun, I am NOT a scholar !! YOU ARE !!

      So, what do you “SEE” or think NOW ? Here is something else to ponder. Remember “God” telling Adam, in essence, IN the DAY you eat thereof, you will surely die? Did Adam DIE the SAME day he ate thereof as we know & understand what a day is,i.e. 24 hours? NO !! Then we have a problem here don’t we? NO! NOT REALLY. Here is why. The Scripture ALSO says Adam lived 930 years & then he died. When you take into account the scripture in/of 2nd Peter 3:8, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” So, Adam DID DIE in the “DAY” he ate thereof. 930 years is not quite 1,000 is it? Here is the POINT. The Holy Scriptures have a “physical meaning & a spiritual meaning.” Anon4 fun, you are putting too much emphasis on the “physical” meaning. The obeying of “God’s LAW is the CRITICAL aspect. All this other speculation on cities & how great they are,as PatriotOne would say is BS COMPARED to “pleasing” “God” by AT LEAST trying to obey his law which is only having an “outgoing” concern for others.IF we ever reach that stage, more true information on what the scriptures mean will be “revealed.” This is what I am working on, trying to be obedient, but I have a LONG way to go. I mean a LONG WAY. I have hardly made more than a couple of steps in a mile long journey. I don’t know if I will make/finish the mile trip. This my problem. I HAVE NOT by any means overcome the degrading VILE human nature that WARS within me, but I still fight it even tho at times it, the “human nature” side wins. I just pick up the pieces & start over.

      Now it’s time for the deacons to come forth & pass the collection plate & REMEMBER, ALL frns belong to “God” SO BE GENEROUS in your frn gifts. ALL FRNS ARE MINE SAITH THE LORD :)
      ( last 2 statements are fuh-C-shus)

       
  17. Anon4fun

    November 15, 2012 at 3:34 PM

    Don: >>Remember “God” telling Adam, in essence, IN the DAY you eat thereof, you will surely die?<<

    It only says that in translation. What the original text says is more like, "In the day you eat thereof, in dying you shall die." This means Adam would lose his immortality, which happened the day he ate the fruit. The "spiritual death" explanation was made up by obfuscators who counted on their audience not having access to the original meaning. The same sort of obfuscators who work nonstop to cause confusion in legal theory, at the Federal Reserve, on television, etc., to separate you from your birthright and God.

     
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 4:05 PM

      You,Anon4fun say: “What the original text says is more like, “In the day you eat thereof, in dying you shall die.”

      More like? It’s more like you,Anon4fun,want it to say,be understood.ALL like is better than more like

      Oh ok. In dying you shall die. Wow ! In dying you shall die. Sooooo, the instant you were born the word was spread that your mother has just given birth to a dying child. Oh well, it could be looked at that way. I am not going to be led into a never ending debate to have to agree with you before the debate is over with. It’s obvious that your purpose is to have people understand it your way or no way. I have the unalienable right to understand things in the common sense way, as in common law understanding. I know you,Anon4fun, are a LEGAL Beegull. But I,Don, am not GULL-leh BULL about everything, just mostly everything. Not on this one though.

       
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 4:42 PM

      @The same sort of obfuscators who work nonstop to cause confusion in legal theory,

      Anon4fun, your above statement sounds like this exactly what you are doing. But apparently you think it is exactly what I am doing. Let the other commentators,IF ANY,decide if it is you or me. If more people say it is me who is the obfuscator, I promise not to to “obstruct” anymore. From the things that have been transpiring,”computer wise” somebody does not want me on this website anyway. Maybe it’s because He/She/They consider me too VAY-EEEEN, or maybe it’s for other reasons.

       
  18. Anon4fun

    November 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM

    Young’s Literal Translation has it as:

    “And of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it — dying thou dost die.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation

    I am not saying you are an obfuscator.

     
    • Don

      November 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM

      Anon4fun
      November 15, 2012 at 5:04 PM
      @Young’s Literal Translation has it as:

      Is this the ONLY translation you depend/rely/have faith in,etc.? Do you ever consider what “Strong’s Concordance says?

       
      • pop de adam

        November 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

        Don and Anon-

        I still haven’t figured out what the both of you are going on about, and I’ve checked back a few times and still have yet find what disagreement or goal of these exchanges are about.

        I like to think most people prefer truth, except when enjoying fictions as entertainment. There is truth and entertainment in scripture for many people. Everytime I come across conflicted scripture and verse I must wonder if it is a result of misinterpertation, faulty translation or possibly even mal-intentions. The books themselves are made by man, the stories and testaments contained are sourced elsewhere. To expect that the ideas and concepts contained are invulnerable to tinkering is niave. Someone will often attempt to insert their ideas selfishly into them, perhaps only incrementally. What would be the reason for this? Manipulation, causing others to take up causes and issues they might not normally consider. Manipulators are often those who cannot or will not expend their own full energies towards their goals, sometimes it is because they are cowards and not willing to accept the risks for their would be rewards.

        Using scripture as explanations and excuses is at least evasive at worst an appeal to authority which cannot hear reason and cannot consider the questions posed to it or by it.

        Because I said so, that’s why. Spoken by just about every parent ever.

        No, I don’t have kids

        -Pop

         
  19. Don

    November 15, 2012 at 6:22 PM

    @ It only says that in translation.

    Well let’s keep it in a foreign language that neither one of us can understand then. I have looked at ALL the translations at least all that I am aware of. Look! I am not proud & I am not knowinly vain.
    It is not a problem for me whatsoever to apologize. It is EASY for me to say I am wrong. For an example. I wish I knew how to personally communicate with PatriotOne because I made some comments to him I should not have. I thought what I was reading from him was his thoughts when in reality he was quoting what somebody else was saying. Therefore, what I said to him,PatriotOne was wrong.I just discovered this last night. Also, if you don’t get a response from me, when you send me a message it’s because I am not here, or asleep, OR my computer has gone haywire.It doesn’t make me ashamed to say I don’t know or I have no idea what that means. NO! NOT AT ALL!! I don’t have the answer to most things. But I am not stupid enough to have to be told that if I have just drank a cup of poison that while I’m dying what I have just drank is gonna kill me,or while it’s killing me I’m going to die. Even if you or anyone else says well Don, the reason you think that way & say that is because you are an IDIOT. Fine, if other people are so shallow they can’t catch that, I should not be concerned anyway,RIGHT,Alfred?

     
  20. Don

    November 15, 2012 at 7:43 PM

    Hello,pop,
    Tell me where I am wrong,trying to manipulate,& being selfish in my comments to Anon4fun,but be specific. Don’t beat around the bush.Just come right out & say it. Tell it like it is. I can take it. Lay it on me.

     
    • Adask

      November 15, 2012 at 9:41 PM

      Don, some of your comments are insightful and valuable. But most or your text is about personalities–either yours or someone else’s. You are self-indulgent in your “personal” approach.

      If you want to focus on personalities, it’s no big deal. Everyone does it to some extent. But you seem to overindulge. In doing so, I think you disrespect the audience. You disrespect the others who visit this blog by wasting their time by making sure everyone gets a glimpse of your personal personality and personal humor and personal cleverness.

      I don’t give a damn about anyone’s personality on this blog–including my own. The object of this blog is to get to the gist of an idea. The object is find an insight that is worth understanding. The object is to present those insights (if any) with as few words as is possible for the particular writer or commentator. None of us, including me, meets that objective perfectly.

      But some of us try and some of us don’t try. You don’t try.

      You’ve written to me by email and I responded at length, and your response to me was “I don’t want a sermon.” I’ve seen you use the “I don’t want a sermon” routine on others on this blog. You don’t want to hear from others, but you insist that we hear from you. And yet, in your comment above, you say “Tell it like it is. I can take it. Lay it on me.”

      I think the only part of the “I can take it/ Lay it on me,” comment that’s true is the “I” and the “me”. I don’t think you can “take it”. Instead, you seem to be one of the most defensive personalities I’ve ever encountered. I don’t know how other people on this blog feel, but for me, responding to your comments is like walking on eggs. It’s easier to not respond to any of your comments because I don’t dare say anything that you might misconstrue to be a personal criticism or worse, a personal attack. It’s easier to ignore you than it is to recognize you. Dealing with you is like dealing with an abused child. We can’t talk to you without triggering your fear of being attacked, embarrassed, injured or merely misunderstood.

      I think it may be hard for you to understand but this blog is not all about you and your personality. It’s not even all about me–and I put this thing together. It’s about ideas. And yet, in most of your comments, you aren’t going to show us your “idea” until we first witness, pay homage to, and adore your precious and unique “personality”. Oh, there might be sentence or two that presents an insightful idea buried in your prose. But, first, before we can get to the idea, we must read several sentences about the “wonder of Don”. The purpose of too many of your comments seems to be a self-indulgent peep show into your personality rather than your ideas.

      In order to command our respect, you are wasting our time with comments that focus mainly on you. Insofar as you waste our time, you defeat your own (apparent) object (to secure the respect of others on this blog). I suspect that you are driving us away from you by insisting everything be understood through the lens of your personality.

      I don’t enjoy writing this comment. I don’t enjoy it because I fully expect you to misunderstand this comment as a personal attack. I expect that you are so blinded by your own self-centered-ness, that you will not be able to see this comment as an honest attempt to help you. Instead, I expect you to contrive some clever crapola like “If you don’t reply, I’ll know your answer is Yes.”

      Stop showing us how smart Don is. Stop showing us how cleverly you can use English to screw with other people’s heads. Just feed us your ideas. Take a month, and see if you can write comments for 30 days that aren’t self-indulgent and intended to tell us about Don rather than a particular idea.

      If you can do that, by the end of the month, I suspect others who pay attention to this blog may find their respect for you growing. And I think that’s what you want: respect.

      Less is more. If you want more respect for Don, you must give us less Don and more ideas. Less personality. More intellect. Not cleverness. Intellect.

       
      • Don

        November 16, 2012 at 9:14 AM

        Re:My misunderstanding & personality conflicts,selfishness,etc.

        Your uplifting comments to me,myself,& I,gives me,myself,& I the opportunity to NOW at least TRY to explain what me,myself,& I FIRMLY believe is happening.& has happened. Let’s start with the E-mail you said I sent to you. I asked ONE question which you could have answered, yes or no. You did REPLY to my E-mail,rebuking me in you FULL page response, but you NEVER answered my question in your full page response. Now, what am I supposed to think? I thought, somehow, my email to Alfred,was “intercepted” “altered”,otherwise, Alfred would not have responded with a full page rebuking me without at least answering my question.

        I never brought the following up BEFORE, & hopefully the reason for not bringing it up is explained.

        Why is it then,that I send a message to Anon4fun, & it gets your attention enough to the point that you, Alfred, start a new thread in regards to the message I sent,but you, Alfred,say that Anon4fun said what I,Don, said in the message I sent Anon4fun? In other words,you, Alfred give credit to Anon4fun for a message I sent to him. I never brought this up,before,because it did not matter to me who got credit for it. I am bringing it up now because from everything you say about selfshness
        misunderstanding,personality conflicts regarding me,seems to apply to you TOO. See the “Driving in Commerce thread at the very top, where it begins, where it says: Anon4fun……

        I have a lot more I could show and prove by actual verbatim cut & paste comments,but we need to stay SHORT in our responses like your FULL PAGE “answer” to me, with NO ANSWER which simply could have been, Don, no problem, or, Yes, Don, there was a problem.

         
      • Adask

        November 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM

        I knew that, in response to your earlier “I can take it” email, you could not read my email without thinking you’d been attacked or disrespected. And sure enough, I was right.

        If I understand your immediate complaint, it’s that I previously had the audacity to not answer one of your questions in one of your comments that I did otherwise answer. And worse, as we both know, I didn’t answer a number of your comments.

        Therefore, you ask (because I never answered your “ONE question”) “What am I to think?” Therein lies the problem. You don’t want to think. You want to feel. And worse, you want to explain and justify your “feelings” on this blog.

        If you really wanted to “think,” you might recall that I get 200 emails a day and if I spend 3 minutes on each, it will take me 10 hours a day to answer email. Then, after I’ve responded to every email I receive, I can start to read, write, and do what I want or need to do. The simple truth is that I can’t answer all email and do not try. You might also think that I get 50 to 100 comments a day on this blog. If so, you might think that I’m too busy to answer every comment I receive–even YOURS (OMG!).

        You might also think that I have no obligation to answer anyone’s email or comments–even YOURS (OMG!) I am not your manservant. I have no more obligation to answer your comments or questions than you have to read my articles. I make my articles available on this blog for free to anyone who cares to read them. If you want ’em, read ’em. If you don’t want ’em, leave ’em alone. It makes no difference to me. I am not “hurt” if people don’t read all or any of my articles. I am not “hurt” if every individual who reads this blog doesn’t leave a comment on each article or give me “five stars” approval on each article. I know that no one out there owes me the time of day, let alone is obligated to read my stuff. I don’t take it as a personal affront if anyone “dares” to not read one or more of my articles. I am grateful that anyone reads my articles.

        Do you answer every email you receive? I doubt you do. If you aren’t obligated to answer every email you receive, what makes you think I’m obligated to answer every email, comment or question comment I receive? Or do you understand that I need not answer all the email, comments, and questions of all the other people who write to me, but I simply must answer every precious, brilliant, humorous email, comments and questions sent by the the almighty “Don”?

        Do you “feel” you’re so special that everyone must respond to you? I think you do, and I think that’s the problem.

        You didn’t “think” about me having the audacity to dare to not answer one of your questions. You felt about me having the audacity to dare to not answer one of your questions. You felt that my failure to answer one of your exquisitely crafted questions must be evidence that I have disrespected you.

        You seemingly refuse to understand that I (and perhaps most others) don’t give a damn about your feelings. Why should we? You don’t give a damn about ours. You don’t mind wasting our time with yet another episode of “The Wonder of Don”. And it’s not as if you simply refuse to understand that this world and this blog are not “all about Don”. A refusal would imply that you have a chance to choose to be, or not to be, ego-centric. I don’t think you are capable of shedding your self-centeredness long enough to even imagine that it’s not “all about you”.

        I don’t think you’re are capable of understanding anything anyone writes, doesn’t write, answers, doesn’t answer, except as grounds for your personal “feeling” that you’ve been rightly praised or un-righteously criticized, attacked or slighted. The truth is that I (and probably others) don’t much give a damn about your feelings. Sure, we have some normal concern, but you seem to insist that your personal feelings are so important that we must all continuously focus on your particular personality and feelings. God help us all, if we do something that the great and powerful Don might take as an offense. We must all walk on eggs because Don may be present and we must constantly be alert to having an adverse impact on Don’s precious “sensitivities”.

        You behave like a spoiled child who insists on being the center of everyone’s attention and concern. The child “feels” that anyone who does not focus on the child is some sort of monster.

        And there’s nothing anyone can say to convince the child that the child is not, and should not be, the center of the universe. It’s just something we all learn, eventually: None of us are the center of the universe. Most of us learn that painful lesson at a fairly early age. But some refuse to learn that lesson and cling to their ego-centric nature until they are fairly old. You seem to fit the latter class.

        So what are you supposed to “think” when I don’t answer one of your questions? You might think nothing at all and just get on with your life. It ain’t no thing. Y’unnderstan?

        But I don’t think you can understand. You seem so convinced that everything is about Don, that I don’t think you can get on with your life. If I’m right, this is no small disability. Everyone needs and has an ego. All of us remain somewhat “childish” even when we’re grown. But most of us get to the point where we realize that in other people’s eyes, we’re just another face in the crowd. More, we may even come to realize that most people’s indifference to us is as natural and necessary as our own indifference to them.

        But, you write like a man who hasn’t reached that level of realization. You seem to insist that everyone must be concerned about your personal “sensitivities”. You refuse understand that nobody gives a damn about your “feelings”. Nor should they. Some, like me, are eventually aggravated by your habitual use of your precious “feelings” as a device to at least attract attention and perhaps manipulate others. I get the impression that you may like to bully people with your “feelings”. If we don’t do what you say, you’ll cry? You’ll be hurt?

        Insofar as you bully or manipulate people with your “feelings,” you force us not care about your feelings. As a matter of self-preservation and retaining our own autonomous control over our lives, some people may be forced to simply abandon you. But you’re the one who’s driving people away from you with your insistence that everyone pay complete attention to you. Wake up, Don. You’re not that hot an item.

        I know my last response to you made no difference. I don’t expect this one to make a difference either. So I am probably playing the fool. I’m pretty much done playing that role. At least relative to you, Don. If you write to me in the future and I don’t answer, please don’t take my omission as evidence of a personal attack. If I don’t respond to each of your questions and comments, it will only be because frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.

        So, the next time you feel slighted, unjustly criticized or attacked by others, please think that you may be seeing a personal attack when there is only indifference.

         
  21. Don

    November 15, 2012 at 9:05 PM

    pop de adam

    November 15, 2012 at 6:48 PM

    Don and Anon-

    @I still haven’t figured out what the both of you are going on about

    What perked your interest then? Anon4 fun thinks Babylon is confined to a certain city. I say it’s the whole world. That is what the difference is. You may think it’s neither one. Somebody else may think Babylon means the west side only of Mount Rushmore,or Bangor Maine. Why are you interested is something in which you don’t know what’s going on? You sure make a lot of comments about your don’t know what’s going on opinion/observance. Remember this, the SHADOW knows what’s going on. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow due. he no. he no whut goin oan. he sho due. I ain lyin.

     
    • pop de adam

      November 16, 2012 at 3:25 AM

      you are under the impression i care.

      What are you going to do about that?

       
      • pop de adam

        November 16, 2012 at 4:15 AM

        make me care

        or

        make me not care

        I doubt you can do either.

        who is the pusher?

         
      • Don

        November 16, 2012 at 9:23 AM

        pop de adam
        November 16, 2012 at 3:25 AM

        you are under the impression i care.

         
  22. Don

    November 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

    If I understand your immediate complaint,(You didn’t) it’s that I previously had the audacity to not answer one of your questions (questions is plural. I asked ONE (1) question) in one of your comments (comments & E-MAIL) that I did otherwise answer. And worse, as we both know, I didn’t answer a number of your comments.(that’s right,but quit answering the question(s) I send for another to answer,e.g. Cody & “others.”)

    If you really wanted to “think,” you might recall that I get 200 emails a day (partially true, you actually said 200 T0 300 E mails a day which did not answer the ONE question I asked of you)

    I’ll ask the ONE question again NOW !! Alfred did you have any problem getting the money order I sent to you, CASHED? That IS the QUESTION I asked. YOU NEVER ANSWERED THAT ONE QUESTION.

    “THINK” ABOUT IT !!! Are YOU CONFUSED ADASK ? It’s hard to think straight when WE are confused, but maybe not for you. It is for me though. Drink some more apple juice.

     
    • Adask

      November 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM

      No, I’m not confused. I’m a little surprised.

      It appears that the foundation for our current dialogue is your feeling that you were slighted when I didn’t answer your “ONE question” about the contribution you sent me–when? Four months ago?

      Is that what this is all about?

      In fact, I had received a 100 dollar money order from you as a contribution. In response, I sent you a Thank You for that contribution by email.

      Apparently, it was not enough that I thanked you for receiving the contribution. I also had to specifically thank you for actually cashing the contribution. Apparently, you did not understand that when I thanked you for receiving your contribution, that I thereby thanked you for being able to cash your contribution. I did not suppose that you were so dim that you’d think I’d thanked you for a contribution that I had not actually cashed. Silly me.

      More, it now occurs to me that while I thanked you for a “contribution,” I didn’t expressly thank for $100 contribution, nor did I expressly thank you for cashing all 100 dollars of your contribution. Recognizing your sensitivity and attention to detail, I realize that you may be disappointed that I have not yet said Thank You, Thank You, Thank You! Great Donald for cashing the full 100 (as opposed to 99, 98, 97 or 74.50) dollars out of the 100 you sent.

      Given that I have thanked you for receiving the contribution, and you expected that I would also thank for cashing the contribution, will you now expect me to additionally thank you for spending the contribution?

      If so, how many times do I have to say “Thank you” before you feel that I’ve paid sufficient homage to The Glory of Don? I think it’s only fair that when you make contributions, you tell people up front how many “thank you’s” you expect and what each “thank you” should specifically reference so the recipients can make up their minds whether the contribution is worth it or not.

      If I knew how much trouble your $100 contribution was going to cause, I probably would’ve held out for $120.

      As for your comparison between men and Jim Jones, I can only say that if I ever lead a bunch of “followers” into the jungle, and you are one of them, I will probably give up my apple juice and be the first to drink the Kool Aid.

      Just so there’s no further questions about your contribution, I did receive it. I did cash it. I did spend it. Somewhat like Caesar, I received; I cashed; I spent. If you have any more questions or need further thanks, ask yo’ momma.

       
  23. Don

    November 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM

    @And there’s nothing anyone can say to convince the child that the child is not,and should not be, the center of the universe

    It’s hard to believe you are 68 years of age. But it doesn’t matter, if all of the rest of your Adask LAW followers are scared to disagree with their leader that’s their problem. I hope you don’t turn out to be another Jim Jones.

     
  24. shofar

    November 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

    Hi Adask 11/20/12

    I want to thank you again for your very insightful article on Fiat Currency Sorcery. For me it is a great revelation that helps me understand the great depravity of man & to better understand the Word of God!

    Not to put anyone ‘down, I regret to see some of the ‘Mickey Mouse’ that is going on your blog, & the valuable time wasted in comments. They certainly detract from your very excellent article!

    After thinking about your paper for a week, I have now downloaded your article on a Word file so I can view it later & reread it. I want to work on an paper on ‘Sorcery- Fiat Money, Satan’s Ploy to Weaken the Nations’ Is14:12 .. or something like that.

    I just submitted a post on my blog http://drgoldsite.wordpress.com on ‘The Last Days of the Last Age Before Jesus Christ Returns’.

    I would appreciate your email address so I can share some ideas with you! Thank you again!

    In Christ,
    Drgold

     
  25. extremepacifist

    April 14, 2013 at 11:38 AM

    Reblogged this on Extremepacifist's Blog.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s