The politicizing of the offended feelings of women has been the cause of much censorship in this country.

Women are offended by many things about men.

But to make women's feelings, individual or collective, the criterion for what is acceptable is completely irrational.

Any woman who makes her feelings the criterion for others' thoughts and behaviors does all women a disservice because…she provides prima facie EVIDENCE FOR THE STEREOTYPE THAT WOMEN DEPLORE — That they are creatures and victims of their own feelings unable to cogitate rationally.

Women who use their FEELINGS to actively prosecute men fail to see how their whining undermines all women. For example, in some places students are routinely sent for counseling and “reeducation” by women faculty members if the male student does not show sufficient 'sensitivity' toward the repressive feminist agenda. Others are told by women faculty that bantering, which is the mother tongue of males, and the major way in which men 'share', is 'childish' and 'regressive' and needs to be replaced by serious 'sharing'. That is to say, only women understand how to be men.

The irony is that heterosexual women despise 'sensitive' and 'feminist' men. One look at the covers of women's magazines in any supermarket tells you that women are trying to attract men full of testosterone…and will spend billions of dollars in the effort.

Joan Rivers mocked the daylights out of women, including most often herself. Phyllis Diller mocked men by mocking her 'husband' Fang, but missed the irony of how stupid she was to be married to such a character, even fictionally.

Women who espouse the politics of woman's victimhood at the hands of men mock all women by supporting women who return time and again to men who abuse them emotionally and physically.

Women's sensitivity to their own feelings, and their often blatant insensitivity to men's feelings, simply cannot be a rational approach to behavior. Some men are boors and should be noted as such. Many women are boors and many of them appear on the Jerry Springer show…and they should be noted as such.

If the humor on this site offends someone, they should stay away from that forum just as they would stay away from a movie with a certain rating. To expect the world to change because of one's feelings is very young developmentally. Only young children expect the world to come into line with their feelings. Only young children whine when the world ignores their feelings and gets on with its business.

So be it.

These people's hearts and minds are in the right place. And their energy is exciting and inviting.

But, I wonder if procedurally they are on safe ground.

I haven't read extensively on their website, but they do understand that the ssn is the government property that makes a body a public official on duty every time she uses the number or uses some entity connected to the number.

They don't seem to require, or advise, that all those who join them would have to be unemployed as federal officials. Otherwise the government, inc. can indeed come in and charge their employees with committing, on company time, all manner of offenses against the home office “United States, Inc.”

I hope they stay in touch and involved in these forums and in the literature on FG and SEDM websites since they clearly know about the sites.

Bing,

You make a good point…if the federal government was not so lawless people would not feel they have to defend themselves from it. Exactly.

It used to be, in long times past, that Americans could stroll on Pennsylvania Avenue of a Sunday afternoon, walk into the White House, the People's House, look around the public rooms, just like you might go to a museum today, and maybe see the president scurrying down a hallway but stopping to say hello. The federal government has fallen from a great height since those days.

However, I would take exception to your remark…

“It is God's role to punish wrong doers, not ours.”

As Americans, it's our job.

“…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it…”

We haven't taken this clause of the Declaration of Independence seriously enough. And God won't do it because he told Samuel when the people wanted a king, that when the king became oppressive, and they looked to God for relief, on that day, God said, he would not hear them or answer them (I Samuel 8: 10ff).

Franklin

The first rule of sales is to PRE-SELL to people…which is what gets them ready to buy…and when they buy they rationalize their “purchase” by what they learned in the pre-sell. (“purchase” is in quotes because I'm using it metaphorically with respect to FG and SEDM to mean “buy into” the knowledge being offered).

You raise, in my view, a really important issue. How to get people to want to read what's here. SEDM seems to be getting the idea. There are introductory videos, even one about how to use the website, which introduce the issues (pre-selling to awaken curiosity) and then invite further exploration of the solid research foundations underlying the pre-selling message.

If you understand such marketing, you could be very helpful in writing pre-selling scripts for SEDM and FG videos. I think its much needed. And I hope this pre-sells you on the idea 🙂

Nice to know you Brian.

I'm an admirer of Lindsay Springer and his courage and knowledge.

However, I cannot help seeing a parallel between his work on the PRA and other 'silver bullet' theories such as the 861 argument (among others).

The underlying presumption of Spinger's argument is that if the 1040 form had the requisite OMB number and PRA citations, then he would be turned into a taxpayer required to file the form.

This presumption is alive and well in all of the transcript quotes.

Springer — I'm seeking the protection of federal law (PRA statutes) and am not required to file a 1040 because it lacks crucial OMB and PRA information.

Prosecutor — You are a taxpayer and subject to statutory rules and you have to file a return.

Springer's argument seems intended to prove that he is not a taxpayer because the form doesn't tell him he has to file.

His presumption that his taxpayer status is defined by a form was successfully rebutted by the prosecutor's presumption which in essence maintained that he was a taxpayer and had to file a return by statute.

Taxpayer status is really not a matter of printing technicalities on forms (unless you consent to them). As the Path to Freedom, Form #09.015 makes clear tax payer status depends on substantive issues such as seeking and using federal benefits, claiming federal enclave citizenship, being entitled to the protection of federal statutes (while claiming to live outside the jurisdiction of federal civil statutes).

The substantive question of Springer's status never got to the floor. It was presumed on both sides.

Springer claimed non-taxpayer status because of a defective form. The prosecutor maintained, unfortunately truly, that taxpayer status does not depend on the form, only whether you are one of the class of persons who can be compelled directly by statute…a federal official, employee, or transferee.

They were not on the same page. The law of the case, determined by the prosecutor, was that Springer had to file a return, usually but not necessarily a 1040 form. (IRS publications also say you can file a return or a statement).

It seems to me that Springer removed a crucial element from the prosecutor's burden when Springer (not the prosecutor) defined return to mean a 1040 form. And did not pursue his ignorance of what the term means. The prosecutor may have made the mistake of saying “here it is, return, right on the 1040 form”. I doubt the prosecutor would have done that but it would have been the only way a foundation would have been laid for Springer to go down that road. But the prosecutor stuck with return (and of course everyone knows what a return is, right?).

They never did get on the same page and Springer did not refute that he was required to file a return, only that he wasn't required to file a 1040 form because of its defects. He did not refute the law of the case that insisted he was required to file a return (whatever that is and it has to be something tangible and knowable, otherwise you couldn't “file” it).

At some point, Springer must have agreed that he understood the charges against him. If he understood the charge was that he was required to file a “return”, which is not limited to a 1040 form, then arguing the defects of the 1040 is irrelevant…so it seems to me. Asked if he understood the charges, he should have said no…then asked something like “what return, what exactly is a return”

More great case law for the IRS to use to bolster its fraud.

Mokse, you wrote…

The connection between atheism and collectivism appears to be, following Kantian morality, that one's highest moral duty is to the state and its collectivist agenda, and the more onerous the state's burden is and the more the moral person hates the burden, the higher the moral value. And all benefits (paltry as they are) flow from the state to the non-moral person (in Kant) or the unproductive person (in Marx).

The two specific ideas that you mention are not the same idea…but they are both related to the lack of a morally demanding deity that is above the state.

The first idea refuses to go back before the existence of the material world, or even to explain it. The world or the universe is usually explained by attributing it to some super-worldly intelligence that is spiritual and religious in nature.

The lack of belief in divinity beyond the state is a characteristic of communism.

So, communism conspicuously lacks a viable cosmology…whereas traditional pagan and Judeo-Christian religions do not. [And if you read quantum physics, and especially the presently unfathomable mystery of how light works (e.g. how do some light waves 'know' to pass thru a glass surface and others reflect back at the identical angle they touch the glass), it is hard NOT to believe in an intelligence in charge of things.]

Communism avoids cosmology, which at present really compels a divinity higher than the state and its embodying leaders — Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini etc), and its philosophers who give conceptual shape to the state, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and the minor intellects they spawned such as the highly overrated, but highly influential, psychologist B.F. Skinner who sees duty to the state as a better good than freedom and dignity. (cf. his “masterpiece” of psychobabble Beyond Freedom and Dignity).

In communism duty to the state is good by virtue of the very existence of the state (brought about by force, not by consent of the would-be governed — except in America where the People consent routinely by APPLYING FOR government franchise control of their lives).

Conscience, (unknown to Kant, Hegel and Skinner) either individual or collective, that would question the state or disagree and supercede the actions and beliefs of the state is a nullity in collectivist societies. It is only without conscience that the communist state, embodied by humans, can commit genocide and call it collateral damage.

The second idea, that you can take the property of a productive person and give it to an unproductive stranger or group of strangers for purposes that may violate your conscience (e.g. abortion) is antithetical to Christian and Jewish religion by virtue of the Divine laws “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods”.

Since communist regimes are atheistic with respect to supernatural religious beings and beliefs (including cosmological beliefs), they are Godless in the ordinary meaning of that term.

Since communist regimes are conscienceless (because they are the definers of morality), they are Godless in the ordinary meaning of that term.

These two distinct qualities are both traits of communist regimes.

And one major way they avoid God's existence, is by avoiding cosmology. The Old Testament begins with cosmology.

And if the state wants to limit God and make God into its own image and likeness…(Obama has been freely compared to the Messiah…although the same ending is not meant to be part of the metaphor)…it struggles with cosmology (e.g. correcting “global warming”). It took the papacy 400 years to exonerate and decriminalize Gallileo and apologize to his descendants for noticing that God made the earth to revolve around the sun and not the sun to revolve around the earth.

When God said “Let there be light”, he sure knew what he was doing, but we still haven't figured it out yet. And the intellectual and religious poverty of communism can't even address the issue. At present the logic and reason behind just the phenomenon of light is apparent, but the phenomenon was NOT the result of human intellectual activity.

The two ideas that you see as unrelated, absence of a divine Actor, and stealing from the productive are well-related in communism. Or so it seems to me because…

You can't steal with impunity if there is a morally demanding divine Actor (or as the feminists might have it a divine “actress”). No divine Actor = it's morally right to steal…according to the highest, and only acknowledged, moral standard, the socialist state.

I once went to a Roshashana service. During the service the men prayed THREE times:

“I thank thee Lord for not having made me a woman.”

Those guys knew what they were talkin' about.

Now if Dirty Alex had just called the “dude” a punk, it would have been perfect 😆