Lose-Lose Society

Quote:

---

Attachment 2292
HOW RUSSIA AS IT IS WAS WRITTEN
I was born in 1958 in Moscow, USSR and immigrated to the United States in 1979. I arrived in New York, and in 1984 graduated from Columbia University. At the time, the Communist system was a real contender for world domination, and a world war seemed possible. In America, the Soviet system was presented as uniformly bad, common people were seen as suffering under it, but, because of the Communist tyranny, they were seen as unable to change the way they lived, to bring about American-style democracy that they surely were dreaming of. As much as I hated the Communist system, I knew that such a description of it was very inadequate.

That was the time when Italy and France had huge Communist parties, and indeed, most of my professors in Columbia were left-leaning, unable to understand why did I leave the Soviet Union. As moths are attracted to fire, people were drawn to the Communist ideals (and it was not at all clear what those ideals were) only to be destroyed by them. I felt that we needed to formulate what was the cause of this attraction.

Another related topic was that of envy, which is the world’s last remaining taboo subject. An economics textbook that does not exhaustively discuss envy and such manifestations of it as arbitrary barriers to entry, discrimination on the basis of race, gender, creed, caste, educational credentials, etc. is (partially) applicable only to North America. Yet, you can open any economics textbook, and you would hardly ever find the discussion of an immense area of universally occurring economic activity that is meant to impede, deny, put under control, impose a tribute, destroy, dispossess, mislead, falsify, enslave, or kill. I am convinced that without understanding envy no intelligent discussion of the Communist system is possible. The strong emotions, twisted worldview, perverted rationale, willingness to kill others and to sacrifice oneself – these are the traits that manifest themselves both in an envious person and in the Communist regime, and this is not a coincidence.

Finally, there is a highly questionable assumption that all human societies, whatever the stage of their cultural and historic development, yearn for democracy and can readily see its advantages. I disagree with that. It does not mean that I see democracy as bad: it simply means that there are good things for which some people may not be ready (I am not ready to pilot a jet), and there are people who are unaware that certain good things would be good for them (my daughter is not convinced that studying math will do her any good). Thus, I formulated the three themes I wanted to explore:

1. Causes for the (destructive and self-destructive) attractiveness of Communism
2. Envy and its connection to Communism
3. What is democracy and what makes a society accept (or reject) it.

I started writing this book in 1984 and over these 18 long years, the book got shorter and sharper: it respects your time.

---

Matthew Maly's 2003 book titled Russia As It Is touches upon the nature and fabric of Russia and perhaps the vestiges of the Soviet Union in Russia today. Imagine a society of people who keep each other down and where "lose lose" is the rule of law--communism as it is? Are "austerity programs" built on the lose lose paradigm? Is a lose-lose society the kind of society you want to be part of? Consider the kinds of folk that want to rule over you. This book might just give insight into the kind of sickness aiming to take over USA. Is the block out the sun, spread poison everywhere and make everyone miserable an "evil genius" mindset based on envy?

My observation is that when someone is envious and hateful, they refuse to tell their victim their true motive because #1 they know its petty and embarassing #2 they don't want to clue their victim in.

Quote:

---

Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy? (Proverbs 27:4)

---

Related: Russia As It Is (As low as $7.51) Amazon link; Russia As It Is (pdf link)

P.S. The Amazon comments are quite interesting.

Doesn't envy drive capitalism as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shikamaru

Doesn't envy drive capitalism as well?

---

Greed vs. envy? I suspect much of what has been called capitalism has only ever been the antics of communists demonstrating "how bad capitalism is" (in the hands of Communists/Socialists). Capitalism, communism and socialism all stemming from the school of Materialsm (carnal doctrines without a mind for things spiritual). The scriptural approach is you always remember loving God, yourself and your brothers/sisters and keep fixation on worldly gain as inferior to the higher core principles..your purpose to always be in right alignment...serving God rather than material things.

I knew of a man who expressed willingness to kill other men over money (and did jail time). I got him to start pondering how money could have any use other than obtaining that which men made or that which God made that men had gathered in stores. So how did he manage to place money in such a perspective? In all of his 50+ years, he had never thought about things in that way and just happened to very much be interested in Communism. It hadn't ever dawned on him that loved money so much while being blind to the fact that money could only be used to acquire things men had made or gathered.

He was very much for Communism and "equality". But he admitted to hardly an honest day's work in his life.

There are those who expouse 'equality'....

Attachment 2297
The problem with 'equality' is that if some might be miserable and lazy, to be 'equal' might mean making everyone miserable and lazy. Equity (as opposed to iniquity) unlike 'equality' or 'equalization' (which is to siphon off of or to reduce) looks to bar unjust enrichment of unrestrained (carnal and blind) materialism. Its interesting that one of the first directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to knowledge was a Communist. Is there any surprise that historically the FRB system has drained capital out of areas that needed it and instead has sent it where it was not needed?

Anyone who thinks that the most despicable pettiness has never influenced major events should think again.

Also IMHO the notion of equating capitalism with freedom of members of a society to participate in interchange is a fallacy. From observation: [1] Capitalism is fraud perpetrated through private companies; [2] Communism is fraud perpetrated by the State directly.

Some quote the book of Acts referring to how resources were divvied up and "to each according to his need"--that was equippage to make sure everyone had resources to work with--it was not 'equalization'--if I had 10M and only needed $1.5M to continue my affairs then fair enough if $8.5M went to help my brethren and I could draw $1.5M back--the point is that those that were without were covered out of charity by those who had abundance it was not a statutory/secular matter. It would seem that they were likely led by the Spirit of God rather than by the edicts of Caesar or by doctrines of Marx. Their sharing of resources was neither secular nor statutory it was done out of the spirit of love and charity. It wasn't communism it was charity (agape). I know of those who were quite well off making far more $$$ than they actually needed--they would actively seek out or listen for believers among their local congregations and give them cars, pay their bills, etc and they didn't seek fame or publicity for doing so--they did it quietly and without hesitation. The government doesn't make them do it and its nothing to do with tax write-offs.

Quote:

---

Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud
Equity prevents a party from relying upon an absence of a statutory formality if to do so would be unconscionable and unfair. This can occur in secret trusts and also constructive trusts and so on.

---

Quote:

---

Equity follows the law
This maxim, also expressed as Aequitas sequitur legem means more fully that "equity will not allow a remedy that is contrary to law.

The Court of Chancery never claimed to override the courts of common law. Story states "where a rule, either of the common or the statute law is direct, and governs the case with all its circumstances, or the particular point, a court of equity is as much bound by it as a court of law, and can as little justify a departure from it."[14] According to Edmund Henry Turner Snell, “It is only when there is some important circumstance disregarded by the common law rules that equity interferes.”[15] Cardozo wrote in his dissent in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 254 N.Y 1 at 9 (1930), "Equity works as a supplement for law and does not supersede the prevailing law."

Maitland says, “We ought not to think of common law and equity as of two rival systems."[16] "Equity had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. Every jot and every title of law was to be obeyed, but when all this had been done yet something might be needful, something that equity would require."[17][full citation needed] The goal of law and equity was the same but due to historical reason they chose a different path. Equity respected every word of law and every right at law but where the law was defective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right and remedies.

---

Equity does not promote felony larceny under the color of law. Secular humanist 'equality' or 'equalization' does.

Quote:

---

Equity delights in equality
Where two persons have an equal right, the property will be divided equally. Thus equity will presume joint owners to be tenants in common unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise. Equity also favours partition, if requested, of jointly held property.

---

If A labors and produces a ton of wheat and B labors and produces 1/2 a ton of wheat, how does B gain an equal right to A's production except by agreement or by larceny? To knowledge, scripture would have A always to be mindful of whether B is in need or distress--to share with B if his family's life depends on it--but to be forced to give his production over to B I'm not sure where that would be found in principle. However, A to turn is back on B in true life-and-limb need would likely be regarded to be fraud on the part of A. But if B has more than B needs, then B and A are both in a position to do charity to those in need.

Quote:

---

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry. (Proverbs 6:30)

---

The principle is found in the OT books too, if someone is taking corn from your field to feed his family in need then the notion of considering such to be theft is to be disregarded--you might even help them pack enough corn and throw in some extra. Communists allege associations between true scripture and Capitalism--but I could hardly find such. Where does it call men to put it upon strangers or corporations or secular governments to do charity when you can do charity directly yourself.

However, a society of carnal men and woman acting like wild beasts in the jungle who hate one another and who are spiritually blind might not get the gist of the above for their being being blind to life's true purposes.

Also, one thing most might not quite pick up about merchants or mercantilism is that merchants by definition don't produce anything they simply wheel and deal. An artificier actually manufactures things. A merchant is a mere dealer (buys and sells). Someone who buys and sells wood is a merchant. Someone who buys wood, makes canes and sells them post-manufacture is not a merchant but is an artificier. It could be said that banks, like merchants, only deal in title or rights of possession rather than actually producing anything of substance.

In my upbringing, I was taught if I have an excess of resources and a believer or non-believer is in need, it would be FRAUD to deny them supply.

Related:
Origins of Capitalism
The Legal Meaning of the Commerce Clause

Why don't you want to pay your "fair share"? Am curious of why a lot here just couldn't pay their alleged fair share. Was it in your spirit at a young age or was it partially influenced by the tax honesty misinformation? We know most of us have a fair share of zero but I want to know what caused the rebellion prior to finding STSC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noah

Why don't you want to pay your "fair share"? Am curious of why a lot here just couldn't pay their alleged fair share. Was it in your spirit at a young age or was it partially influenced by the tax honesty misinformation? We know most of us have a fair share of zero but I want to know what caused the rebellion prior to finding STSC.

---

Why doesn't who want to pay their "fair share"? The lose-lose few stealing from the industrious, win-win doesn't sound akin to paying a "fair share". If you're referring to taxes, I suspect those who don't pay income tax for whatever reason still gladly pay sales tax throughout each year which can be as high as 10% of the sticker price in some places. Also, whose idea is it that money is worth more than what it can be used to acquire? As for rebellion, what rebellion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noah

Why don't you want to pay your "fair share"? Am curious of why a lot here just couldn't pay their alleged fair share. Was it in your spirit at a young age or was it partially influenced by the tax honesty misinformation? We know most of us have a fair share of zero but I want to know what caused the rebellion prior to finding STSC.

---

A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, while a just weight is His delight! Proverbs 11:1


You never pay for anything if you are an endorser of the Fed's private credit. Especially for people seeking communion with any higher power/consciousness, that just does not feel right.

I wonder if along with use of FRNs there might a presumption of intent to hide under and partake in the FRB corporate veil and license while not actually paying for things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allodial

Why doesn't who want to pay their "fair share"? The lose-lose few stealing from the industrious, win-win doesn't sound akin to paying a "fair share". If you're referring to taxes, I suspect those who don't pay income tax for whatever reason still gladly pay sales tax throughout each year which can be as high as 10% of the sticker price in some places. Also, whose idea is it that money is worth more than what it can be used to acquire? As for rebellion, what rebellion?

---

I'm not sure what you're having trouble misunderstanding. Thought I was making myself perfectly clear. Which reminds me, I may have a career in politics ... or disinformation... lemme check.

FORMER U.S. ARMY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DISCUSSES RV AND FEDERAL INCOME TAX HOAX

You could start a new thread. Russian society and how Communism relates to envy vs currency resets? Hmm. In the context of the thread your questions were unclear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Merrill

A false balance is an abomination to the LORD, while a just weight is His delight! Proverbs 11:1


You never pay for anything if you are an endorser of the Fed's private credit. Especially for people seeking communion with any higher power/consciousness, that just does not feel right.

---

On that note:

Quote:

---

"Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Hebrews 1:9/Psalms 45:7

---

Some about swear the word 'iniquity' to be without relation to the word 'equity'. Nonsense. Iniquity is the opposite of equity. You can have a very viable paper money system in a society of equitable people. But you have to keep the inequitable (and pirates) out of the boardroom. Being ridiculous about the high tide mark might be a way of promoting piracy on land.

False balances ~= lack of equity or iniquity. Equity that doesn't follow the law ~= iniquity?