"Oh well, we've still got Prince Harry so there's hope yet" - Gypsy_Man'68

Yes, you have/yes, there is.

Click to view link

Gratitude to DB for the forum. Thanks amanfrommars, Allaho Akbar indeed!

Excellent article. I rarely hear anything about the regulatory system we've actually become. Even new TV cop shows have people saying "I didn't break any regulations" and never a breath about genuine law, let alone justice. It has become increasingly obvious that citizens are hamstrung by regulations that are enforced as if they are law and that these regulations are reaching into absolutely everything including whether parents can buy their kids happy meals or not. We are ruled by rules instead of by law and justice, and it accustoms us to have a RULER instead of a set of laws to organize our societies by. Thanks!

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. Think this comment belongs on another thread:

"Federal Reserve 'Embeds' Employees in Banks"

Quite so. I do believe one has. An interesting Special Op is Royalty.

I'm really tired of hearing about the British Royals and their families. I couldn't give a damn about Pippa Middleton's latest adventures or what dress she's been spotted wearing lately. In fact I care about Pippa Middleton about as much as I care about Nicole Ritchie. Not one iota. But hey, a lot of people do care and to each their own. At least Pippa and the newlywed royal couple seem to be projecting a positive image rather than being wrapped up in scandals. Although I wish they were involved in scandals. Perhaps then the British public would wake up and quit worshipping these bloody Royals and demand an end to the British monarchy, which I feel is an antiquated institution and little more than a tourist attraction and fodder for the tabloid media. It's a pity that the royal public relations disaster in the wake of Lady Diana Spencer's untimely death didn't put an end to the monarchy. Oh well, we've still got Prince Harry so there's hope yet.

"Incidentally, many non-Muslims are scared of psycho extremists who say they want to impose Sharia Law in Western countries - a complete absurdity and contrary to the original Islamic plural legal systems! But they are Muslims in name only and the press love them for it! "

But it is a disservice that they both love to deliver, and that can't be good. With Global Control of IT are AI Beta Solutions in Virtual Reality Suites available.

Magical Jinn a la Mystery Turing Root. Allahu akbar.

From whom do you receive Cosmic Views and Infinite News?

"The Worgl experiment exactly used the twofold Islamic economic principles during the depression; with amazing results for the town's economy, where the rest of the country was in dire straits. The central bank soon put an end to this successful experiment!"

Worgl v2.0? Via Virtous Virtual Memes for Legions Anon?

Thanks for that wonderfully instructive and informative post, Summer.

Bring back, Worgl. Release Worgl. Which is what the TARP and QE exercises should have been rather than the Systems Bank Robbery of Public Property, Consumer Wealth, that it has been, and is.

With SCADA Exe Code hacked, what of Global Money if Banking is a SCADA System? And how is it not supervisory control and data acquisition intensive dependent.

She will be given lessons on her new royal roll as a representative of reptiles.

Worgl wiki Click to view link

DB: "One of the reasons to challenge Islam worldwide is that many Islamic regions still abide by elements of private justice, a state of affairs that is apparently anathema to Western power elites."

Interesting, I'd never considered this before. Islam insulates its followers from exploitation by 'external forces/factors' in many ways:

1. Women are under consensual guardianship of their fathers or husbands (they must provide and care for women) - thus it's difficult to exploit them. So too - children are under guardianship.
2. Women cover their beauty and normally marry so are protected from opportunistic men. Men, then, are made to consider women as life partners and look at virtues other than just looks.
3. Fixed inheritance shares, thus no one can deprive anyone of their blood-tie rights i.e. new wife taking all the inheritance and children left with nothing. And no one can be coerced/deceived into changing inheritance shares.
4. No gambling and drinking = poor are not exploited by those wishing to make money from addiction/foolishness/waste.
5. No usury - protects the poor from exploitation by the wealthy and inculcates equity between the rich and poor whereby the wealthy lend out of goodwill - to help, rather than profit. Thus whole nations cannot be debt slaves to wealthier ones - as today.
6. Men are breadwinners - it's their responsibility. Therefore women and men are specialists in their own spheres - earning and child/homecare. It's very difficult to break up the family unit as spouses are mutually dependant.
7. Law is seen more as a deterrent from moral 'wrongs' than an implementation of law, as the burden of proof for offences inducing corporal punishment is extremely high, and in plural legal systems where all are not Muslims, Islamic law should not be applied anyway (to non-Muslims as per the Holy Prophet).
8. Interestingly, Islamic traditions were probably the first whereby children were to be loved and educated rather than used for financial/familial gain - as in the England up till around 1900. Thus, saving them from exploitation by employers and even parents.
9. Women were given the right to own property, to education, to respect and to divorce. Thus there was no stigma attached to divorce, so women could re-marry after four months (whilst provided for by their ex-husbands) and not forced to demean themselves to 'survive' because they were free to re-marry = no exploitation due to divorcee stigma. Similarily, men may marry up to four wives - a provision mainly for war time (as in other cultures and four wives was actually a limitation on biblical and other eras) where men are few and women need to be provided for - if a woman doesn't like it she can always divorce!
10. The first welfare state in history, in the sense that it was the ruler's duty to ensure that the poor were provided food etc.

Law is seen as mainly a moral code. Only in very few instances would law intervene in daily life - divorce, inheritance, theft, murder, adultery&homesexuality (only where overt displays of this are proven to a very difficult standard of proof and only in an Islamic country where people are willing to accept these laws). Under The Holy Prophet (unanimously THE example for ALL Muslims) there was a plural legal system in operation. Where Christians, Jews etc were punished according to their own laws (In fact stoning to death was found in Mosaic law NOT Islam).

Today, many countries - supposedly secular in character, incorporate Islamic legal adjudication, in family law, where parties mutually consent to valid arbitration. I suppose this is a display of independence but not for independence sake, for sincere belief - true independence?

Incidentally, many non-Muslims are scared of psycho extremists who say they want to impose Sharia Law in Western countries - a complete absurdity and contrary to the original Islamic plural legal systems! But they are Muslims in name only and the press love them for it!

Islam protects the poor by promoting society's moral duty to care for the poor, weak, widows and those in debt. Thus 'weak' people do not have to degrade themselves or turn to crime to survive and the wealthy have an equitable duty to care for the needy. Promoting love and regard for fellow man.

The economy is protected and wealth is circulated as any property owned for a year and not used is liable for Zakat - a percentage of unused property's worth that must be used for the poor. Thus ensuring wealth is circulated and/or utilised for investment (not liable for Zakat) - making money constantly flow through the economy - no booms and busts - less chances of people being subjected to powerful maffias.

Islamic economy:

In Asian cultures there are traditions to give brides gold jewellery. I know many people with much gold they never sell it. They see it as an investment and would only sell it if in desperate need. They o not care what happens to fluctuating prices - they would always hoard but for Zakat. Zakat forces these ladies to either pay Zakat on the jewellery (a small percentage) or use their jewellery or lend it to a poor bride, invest etc. I cannot imagine anyone other than short-term investors 'dumping' gold as prices fluctuate.

Thus the Islamic economic sytem is in two main parts. 1. No Usury = equity and no exploiation. 2. No hoarding, causing wealth to be circulated.

The Worgl experiment exactly used the twofold Islamic economic principles during the depression; with amazing results for the town's economy, where the rest of the country was in dire straits. The central bank soon put an end to this successful experiment!

Silvio Gesell

Michael read and re-read 'The Natural Order' by Silvio Gesell. He talked with people in the town and convinced the members of the Worgl Welfare Committee to hold a session on July 5, 1932. In this session he gave a short summary and then proposed a 'Distress Relief Program'. He stated that slow circulation of money is the principal cause of the faltering economy. Money as a medium of exchange increasingly vanished out of working people's hands and accumulates into the hands of the few who collect interest and do not return it back to the market. He proposed that in Worgl the slow-circulating National Bank currency would be replaced by 'Certified Compensation Bills'. The council would issue the Bills and the public would accept the Bills for their full nominal value. Bills would be issued in the denominations of 1, 5 and 10 shillings. A total issue of 32,000 Worgl 'Money Bills' was printed and put into circulation.

Worgl Success

Over the 13-month period the Worgl money was in circulation, the mayor carried out all the intended works projects. The council also built new houses, a reservoir, a ski jump, and a bridge. The people also used scrip to replant forests, in anticipation of the future cash flow they would receive from the trees.

Six neighboring villages copied the system successfully. The French Prime Minister, Eduoard Dalladier, made a special visit to see the 'miracle of Wörgl'. In January 1933, the project was replicated in the neighboring city of Kirchbuhl, and in June 1933, Unterguggenburger addressed a meeting with representatives from 170 different towns and villages. Two hundred Austrian townships were interested in adopting the idea.

One eyewitness report was written by Claude Bourdet, master engineer from the Zürich Polytechnic. "I visited Wörgl in August 1933, exactly one year after the launch of the experiment. One has to acknowledge that the result borders on the miraculous. The roads, notorious for their dreadful state, match now the Italian Autostrade. The Mayor's office complex has been beautifully restored as a charming chalet with blossoming gladioli. A new concrete bridge carries the proud plaque: "Built with Free Money in the year 1933." Click to view link http://en

Reply from The Daily Bell

Wow, wonderful. Thanks

DB writes:
"The move away from private justice (between the two affected parties) and toward public justice (in which the state seeks penance for so-called debts-to-society) is one of the elite's most effective memes. We have seen for ourselves when writing about this issue that people cannot even conceive of private justice anymore."
. . .
"The current justice system is probably the most ingrained of all modern power-elite memes. People literally cannot conceive of how justice can be gained except by some omnipotent state. It does not occur to them - in the grip of this mind control meme - that justice is inevitably uncertain and biased. What is one person's justice is another's unfairness."

An essential fundamental definition is missing and that absence is at the heart of many major problems of society. What is "justice" and when has it been obtained - or denied? Typically phrased colloquially, justice is "getting what one deserves". But as determined by whom? Justice rarely (if ever) occurs when governments decide all of: what is harm, when and to whom it has occurred, who is the harm-doer and what will happen to the victim and the harm-doer as a result of the harm-doer's action.

In a truly free society operating under the principles of "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction", the victim of responsible (culpable) harm - including unintentional, which is the case of most harm - receives justice (though this very misused word is not applied) when s/he is restituted by the harm-doer in order to have his/her (hir) Lifetime Happiness restored to the level to which it would have become if the harming action had not occurred. The restitution type and amount required for such restoration is determined by the victim as the only person who can possibly know hir own Lifetime Happiness. And the problem of "one person's justice is another's unfairness" is adjudicated by all others in the society through Social Preferencing - the decisions by others to voluntarily associate or not with the victim as a result of the restitution required from the harm-doer. How this is achieved can be seen at Click to view link and via its twin frameworks, The Natural Social Contract - Click to view link - and Social Preferencing - Click to view link

Isn't it all about money? Love of money is the root of all evil and using people, making merchandise out of them, to make money is about as low as you can go. It is the modern version of slavery except upside down, it is the celebrities who are the slaves. Do not envy the royals or those who are caught up into their orbit. I cannot imagine a less free life.

As for private versus public justice yes that is one way to go. Also restitution rather than prison. To restore the social balance should be the aim. Remind me, what was the connection again between celebrity and justice? Something about establishing a caste system of privilege? But privi-lege means private law, one law for one group and another for another group. Human rights legislation is taking us in that direction.

Why don't you go to the auction and bid for the things you want. If they have simply sentimental value no-one else will want them anyway.

As for the cats and the birds, have you tried laying out plastic bottles (any used dishwashing liquid bottles are ideal) filled with water. We use them to keep away cats and it seems to work.

You are one of the persons here for whom I have much sympathy. You are always talking straight from your heart, and that's very heartening. The only thing left is buying the things yourself at the auction. That's by the way common in our family - we have an internal auction with all family to avoid sour faces who gets what. The money is later divided among all.
Apart from his legal duties and his conscientious take on the matter, my guess is that he is not the most popular in your family now. He will probably be subjective to social forces during the rest of his life. Now THAT is something!
(PS: on your neighbor's cats, send me a PM if you are interested to know how to build an effective cat trap)

I meant to thank the elves for their kindness also, but the phone rang and I got distracted. I do so much appreciate the Daily Bell! Thank you.

Thank you, Leonardo. No, he was named as executor in the will. The folks did not trust strangers with such things. He has been in the family for about 30 years and they felt he would abide their wishes. He is doing it "by the book", discounting the fact he knows Mom would be appalled at the thought of him going through her personal stuff instead of us girls. They wanted him to handle the funeral arrangements, get the will and insurance stuff done legally. And he has. My point was, the law wants it done their way so they know exactly every penny you gain. It leaves no room for the heart matters. But before Mom was even buried, he had taken control of the house. There was no time for grieving or healing. No place for siblings to weep together and cling to one another. It is sad that soon there will be nothing left that says these two people were ever here in this world except what we hold in our hearts and a piece of paper with some figures on it (a check). There was nothing of real value in the house. Worn furniture and stuff like that. They lived simple. Families need time to deal with these things. The law does not allow for it.

"Comic book content is extraordinarily popular these days."

That's because "edjumacation" has been dumbed down to the point that children are only able to read in pictographs.

That would be Right Royal jerks, Berthe. They have the Gift of Special Powers for Control of their Chosen Realms. And the Gift is an Open Source Secret well known, and is practised by more than a few who appreciate the Intelligence Exercise.

Do not misunderestimate the Ultimate Stealth that is Meritocratic Monarchy with an Abundance of Knightly Peers and Great Ladies. Exclusive Drivers XSSXXXX Coded and AIRated ... HOT42GO

That would be to miss the first boat away to virgin fields at every port.

Queen Elizabeth wearing those chamber pot hats of hers ---- she's in on the joke. How she must laugh when she looks at pictures of herself. "I'm wearing a chamber pot on my head and they're all curtseying to me!"

The Middletons are another story. Did they not think about what happened to Princess Diana or are they a bunch of total jerks? If they thought about it for 2 minutes, they wouldn't participate in any of the "royal" business unless they are jerks.

Maybe 26, 27 years ago, when Charles and Diana were still married and it was still a love story, I was walking by the Time Life Building in Manhattan and a young lady came up to me and asked if I would participate in a survey for People Magazine. Having no pressing engagements, I agreed. It was a slide show of "Newly available never published photos of Princess Diana growing up." I had a little gizmo to choose which of the different covers that I liked better. It went on and on. Dozens of slides shown to a little room of us pushing buttons for whether we liked this one or that one. I think they gave me a tote bag. This was big business, exploiting Diana to make money. And how it ended up.

William must be a meathead and Kate is dunce and her whole family are jerks.

@Bluebird:
Sorry to hear your suffering. Just wondering: why is your brother-in-law in charge of this in the first place? Cannot you just release him from his duties?

I love reading feedback of the Bell. I have gotten so many websites and such from readers. But sometimes I have hard time to decipher what some are saying, like in this case. Is it possible for you to translate what you were trying to say?