RG

[Dale Eastman]

This comment card is my one somewhat narrow focus.

shall we discuss it here in case i succeed and you have to put it on your website?

first, give me your definitions for government, criminal, syndicate, extorts, people, money, control, so semantics cannot be the reason we don't agree.  if its just standard dictionary, just say that and i can check myself

I can't comment on Facebook for 5 more days

My first point is syndicate.  What is this in particular?

Trilateral, Bohemian, majestic 12, Illuminati, Masons, etc etc?  Or something specific

[Ryan]

Ok , so tell me about your syndicate, please

[Dale Eastman]

give me your definitions for [...] so semantics cannot be the reason we don't agree.

Kudos and increased respect. Yes!

Ok , so tell me about your syndicate, please

On this one this dictionary search synopsis fits:

noun a group of individuals or organizations combined or making a joint effort to undertake some specific duty or carry out specific transactions or negotiations: The local furniture store is individually owned, but is part of a buying syndicate.

So, all the people that work in government, be it as officers, employees, or elected officials.

extortion: "Do what we tell you to do or we will hurt you."

[Ryan]

OK, so a syndicate is a group of private individuals.  Already that is not Government.  A syndicate can be anything a group of individuals get together to do that involves "import/export" or buying and selling.  On the other hand, it hinges on criminal. 

A criminal syndicate, like the mafia in Sicily, has syndications as the mob/mafia here in the states and elsewhere.  This is not just any commerce, but "black market" commerce. 

This syndicate, the private people who work government buying and selling on the black market using..."extortion".  "do this or else..." a veiled threat, at least.  a threat of violence. 

Markets are manipulated, countries couped and sovereign citizens are denied their access to the political means of production with violence.  Often no threat given.  But threats as well.

This is The United States Government as it currently is, not as all governments are or must be.  The US Government is Corporate Socialism. The State is owned by the donor class.  This is the private group of individuals doing criminal things via extortion. 

For Example, The Federal Reserve and Central Banksters in general.

Then there is the original point.  Government is not a private industry.  It is a public one.  The private individual syndicates are us.  We are the ones accepting and allowing the other private individuals to do their thing.

[Dale Eastman]

OK, so a syndicate is a group of private individuals.  Already that is not Government.  A syndicate can be anything a group of individuals get together to do that involves "import/export" or buying and selling.  On the other hand, it hinges on criminal. 

Except the quoted definition does not say "private" individuals.
"a group of individuals [...] combined or making a joint effort to undertake some specific duty"

A criminal syndicate, like the mafia in Sicily, has syndications as the mob/mafia here in the states and elsewhere.  This is not just any commerce, but "black market" commerce. 

My focus is more on the "criminal" action of the "syndicate"; The "criminal" action of the group of individuals making a joint effort to undertake some specific duty. Of which the criminality will be presented elsewhere in the discussion.

This syndicate, the private people who work government buying and selling on the black market using..."extortion".  "do this or else..." a veiled threat, at least.  a threat of violence. 

Sorry. You lost me there.

Markets are manipulated, countries couped and sovereign citizens are denied their access to the political means of production with violence.  Often no threat given.  But threats as well.

Um... Yeah?

This is The United States Government as it currently is, not as all governments are or must be.  The US Government is Corporate Socialism. The State is owned by the donor class.  This is the private group of individuals doing criminal things via extortion. 

Even though I understand and agree with what I think you are presenting, I find I must reject it as hyperbole. Shareholders are the owners of corporations such as Walmart, General Motors, General Electric, Etc. The stock certificates are proof of ownership.

So I find I must challenge you to provide proof of ownership of government... And loans to government via purchasing savings bonds are not valid as such proof of ownership any more than a bank's lien on a house proves the bank owns the house.

For Example, The Federal Reserve and Central Banksters in general.

I've read The Creature From Jekyll Island. I've also read a counter claim dissing the book... As in disrespecting and dismissing the book for calling the Member Banks as being a private bank cartel. What swayed my thinking was the rules regarding who gets the profits from the Federal Reserve system banks. That's some examination I will have to undertake. As a Boomer, I sometimes suffer from CRS. <shrug> Not germane to my narrow focus point.

Then there is the original point.  Government is not a private industry. It is a public one. 

At this moment, I view that as a distinction of no concern... Because government is a ruling entity. Rules to be obeyed or be hurt for not obeying.

The private individual syndicates are us.  We are the ones accepting and allowing the other private individuals to do their thing.

And again, sorry, this makes no sense to me.

There is me. There is you. There are others. There is no we.

I do agree that people are allowing their rights to be trampled by the criminals called government.

[Ryan]

Goodie, let the games begin haha.

i deliberately left my syndicate explanation as is despite seeing it also not saying "public" or "private".  I did this because one, what public individual is there, if not government, or none at all.   What organization other than government isn't private, that it must be singled out beyond what you already had done in your statement?  so i went with what i said and i am fine with it.

it seems i lost you a couple of places and you chose not to ask for help, so i will leave you there.

And of course, you dismiss me as hyperbole.  What better way to pretend to have substance, than to say you have TOO much substance? 

So far, I'm not impressed, but not discouraged you can do something other than predictably deny and dismiss any points made.

Shares are not proof of ownership.  They are proof the state backs your claim.  If ownership requires more than just a piece, but a certain ratio that only leaves a very few with majority shares.  And that is how socialism works.  People work for their share, and they get it.  Corporations are state entities.  Publicly traded companies are called public for a reason. 

Before I show proof of ownership of the government, you show proof of proof of ownership.  "Others" are not the ones who say taxation is theft, or "government" is a corrupt syndicate.  That's you brother.  You are the one feeling trampled.  As you should, but not as you should project and pretend you don't.  I'll wait for you to clean your arguments up a bit, or we can be done.  Either way, good luck.

[Dale Eastman]

Goodie, let the games begin haha.

Wish this was a game. My purpose is to expose the indoctrinated belief in government authority for the superstition it is.

i deliberately left my syndicate explanation as is despite seeing it also not saying "public" or "private".  I did this because one, what public individual is there, if not government, or none at all.   What organization other than government isn't private, that it must be singled out beyond what you already had done in your statement?  so i went with what i said and i am fine with it.

"what public individual is there, if not government, or none at all."

So you brought the concept of public / private entities into this discussion, for a purpose not yet presented.

it seems i lost you a couple of places and you chose not to ask for help, so i will leave you there.

That looks to me like you read my admission of not getting the point(s) you are attempting to present, and you choosing to leave me confused.

And of course, you dismiss me as hyperbole.  What better way to pretend to have substance, than to say you have TOO much substance? 

You: The State is owned by the donor class.
Me: So I find I must challenge you to provide proof of ownership of government...

So far, I'm not impressed, but not discouraged you can do something other than predictably deny and dismiss any points made.

Uh huh...

Shares are not proof of ownership.  They are proof the state backs your claim.  If ownership requires more than just a piece, but a certain ratio that only leaves a very few with majority shares.  And that is how socialism works.  People work for their share, and they get it.  Corporations are state entities.  Publicly traded companies are called public for a reason. 

Ignores the point and the challenge: Provide proof of ownership of government.

Before I show proof of ownership of the government, you show proof of proof of ownership.  "Others" are not the ones who say taxation is theft, or "government" is a corrupt syndicate.  That's you brother.  You are the one feeling trampled.  As you should, but not as you should project and pretend you don't.  I'll wait for you to clean your arguments up a bit, or we can be done.  Either way, good luck.

Uh huh...

What, specifically, are you calling "my arguments"? Which words specifically?

[Ryan]

Ok, your wish is my command.

i mentioned private because either syndicate is a private organization that is controlling a public one, or government and syndicate are redundant.  you tell me. 

and then tell me, if a private organization, individuals all, doesn't own the fruits of its labor, how anything owns anything.  if a public organization, then who owns that but the public?

So, The Public, We The People, All Individuals, own our own fruits of our own labors, or lack of labors.  I misunderstood what you were asking proof for, thinking you were referring to proof we the people owned the government.  Either way, the answer is the same.

So, if you are lost, but you are saying "hey buddy, you're lost", and not even asking where i am, do you think i believe you care where i am, or that you believe you're the one who's lost?  mm-mm.

So, I can see you're not doing anything to directly defend against what I said about your statement.  You "questioned" public and private and alluded to you not knowing the significance.  Is this a sign the debate/discussion is no longer about the original topic?  I don't care, but that leaves your statement wide open. 

I'm sorry, I couldn't find any arguments you have presented to quote to you.  My bad.

[Ryan]

I bet we agree on a lot.  This is just a fun exercise for me, it is your statement.  It will be true to you no matter what til it isn't.  I have my own sayings you probably would disagree with.  It's fine.  In the end, it doesn't matter.  What's in a name, right, Romeo?

[Dale Eastman]

I'm about toasted this evening.

Yes. My claim...

Government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Here's the last attempt to challenge the logic:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=849.0

It'll give you something to read and think about.

If you're doing this for the mental exercise, I'm okay with that. I just have to remember the difference 'tween you and an indoctrinated statist.

Dunno how soon I'll get back to this. Rusted out brake lines on my brother's car. Real PITA to fix.

[Ryan]

Don't sweat it brother, I rest my case.  Rest well and hit me up anytime if I don't hit you up first.

[Dale Eastman]

Unlike FecesBook, this conversation thread is easy to follow and re-find.

I've some time this morning, so I'll be reviewing the convo above. That's another thing that any BB (bulletin board) forum is better for than FecesBook.

i mentioned private because either syndicate is a private organization that is controlling a public one, or government and syndicate are redundant.  you tell me. 

Bold emphasis mine.

As I define, and in the top post comment card, previously defined; Government and syndicate are synonymous.

Syndicate simply means a group with a goal. Syndicated television programs have as a goal, being presented to a wider than original audience(to sell more advertising, of course).

As you have noted, because of mafia style organized crime, "syndicate" has criminal overtones - a metaphysical component, or as I was accused of -a word with a loaded meaning.

So, The Public, We The People, All Individuals, own our own fruits of our own labors, or lack of labors.  I misunderstood what you were asking proof for, thinking you were referring to proof we the people owned the government.  Either way, the answer is the same.

I was specifically asking for proof that some person or several persons owned the government. Specifically because you wrote this: "The State is owned by the donor class." For my purposes, State and Government are one and the same. The State of Wisconsin is the name of the government of Wisconsin. From its website: "Primary contact information, agency description, and social media directory for agencies and offices within the State of Wisconsin."

I have had discussions enough regarding the fraud of government that I automatically challenge "We the people." This is Reification "(also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity." This is treating The Many as if it is a singular entity. THERE IS NO WE! There is only you, I, and about 8 billion other individual humans, none of which have my authority to speak for me.

So, if you are lost, but you are saying "hey buddy, you're lost", and not even asking where i am, do you think i believe you care where i am, or that you believe you're the one who's lost?  mm-mm.

I quoted your words here to specifically NOT pay them any attention. I'm calling you out on that claim by not addressing it. With discussion, things get ironed out. So long as discussion continues.

You "questioned" public and private and alluded to you not knowing the significance.

My bad. I'll clarify: I don't find the difference to have any impact regarding the (to be proven) fact that government is a criminal syndicate that extorts people for money and control.

Is this a sign the debate/discussion is no longer about the original topic?

I don't think so, for the reason cited.

but that leaves your statement wide open.

Well... Either that my statement is correct or valid refutation of my statement shows it to be incorrect. Yet even as I type these words, I wonder if you are referring to something else and not my claim of what government is.

I bet we agree on a lot.

So far, that is my sense of you.

This is just a fun exercise for me, it is your statement.

I can see why, especially if you are ZuctFuct for a few more days.

Unfortunately this is more important to me... To educate the indoctrinated about their indoctrination. I'm a Boomer, and if my bio-dad's age of death is an indicator, I've only 3 more years.

[Ryan]

"As I define, and in the top post comment card, previously defined; Government and syndicate are synonymous."

You called government "a criminal" syndicate.  There is an obvious distinction, and my point.  Not all governments are criminal.  Government and syndicate bring redundant, you are saying government is criminals...aka government is people.

So, if you have no basis for a we the people, like a nation with borders outlining the servant and protector of the rights of the individuals in that nation state, then on what basis do you base the criminality of the people in government in the first place?

Do you govern them or do they govern you?

Perhaps you do not see the difference between public and private because you don't know the difference.  What is the difference to you?

[Dale Eastman]

Apologies for the delay.

I'm putting these at the top. You can scroll back up to them if you need them.

Definition of reify: to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea)

In public relations and politics, spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through knowingly providing a biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to influence public opinion about some organization or public figure. While traditional public relations and advertising may manage their presentation of facts, "spin" often implies the use of disingenuous, deceptive, and manipulative tactics.

As I define, and in the top post comment card, previously defined; Government and syndicate are synonymous.

You called government "a criminal" syndicate.  There is an obvious distinction, and my point.  Not all governments are criminal.

All governments are criminal. This is my main contention. This is provable.
There are multiple ways to show this. For this post I start with three simple words: By What Authority?

The "official" propaganda; the "official" PR (public relations); the "official" BS (Bull Shit) starts with "We The People." This is called reification.

This reification treats ALL approximately 4 million people then, 328 million people now, as one sole voice. Then claims "By consent of the governed" as if a single entity consented.

I DO NOT CONSENT! Thus the reified We The People is now fractured. It is NOT a unified whole.

Nevertheless, Governments in the US of A claim they were given authority to do what they do by the US & State CONstitutions. (Sic) Depending on the "flow" of my writing, and your overall reply(ies), I will dismantle this PR BS and show my work.

For the moment, I wish to continue in addressing your points.

Government and syndicate bring redundant, you are saying government is criminals...aka government is people.

Government is another term that has been reified.

Yes. Government is people. People with titles like Officer, Employee, or Elected Official. I was challenged for referring to government as "MERELY" men and women. Does a "government" still exist if every officer, employee, and elected official of government quits or resigns at the exact same time? The answer is quite self evident to me.

NONE of those people can do anything without authority.

For example, Congress delegates authority to the Secretary of Treasury to do treasury related things. The Secretary of Treasury then delegates certain authority to the Commissioner of the IRS to do IRS related things.

This is done in writing. This is called a "Delegation Order". Regardless of who is the office holder of either office, the "DO" is the authority for the commissioner to do IRS things. This "Chain of Authority" is itself fair game for examination.

For the moment I'm just going to point out that government people doing things in the name of government without non-bogus authority are doing criminal actions.

So, if you have no basis for a we the people, like a nation with borders outlining the servant and protector of the rights of the individuals in that nation state, then on what basis do you base the criminality of the people in government in the first place?

Borders? Okay. In this fenced in pasture there are only vacas de habla hispana within the pasture's borders. In this adjacent fenced in pasture there are only English speaking cows within the pasture's borders.

How did those borders get created? What is the real difference between the cows on either side of the border? I'm thinking the Rio Grande as the adjacent pasture demarcation. Oops. Why's it called the Rio Grande and not the Grand River? [SARCASM]

"then on what basis do you base the criminality of the people in government in the first place?"

Because those people are doing "government" things like taxation with provably bogus authority.

Do you govern them or do they govern you?

Am I called government? Are they called government?

Perhaps you do not see the difference between public and private because you don't know the difference.  What is the difference to you?

Context is missing. Public what? Private what?