grithin

Bill Still touches on what should be the primary concern in opposing the fed in one of his recent videos ( ) . Unfortunately, opposition to the fed is often confused into a blanket desire to remove government's ability to print money (or a desire balance the budget). And, unfortunately, from Bill's side, I've never seen an admission or an analysis of the repercussions of removing the banks' control of USD - the banks' control so much of the world economy, if you were to remove their control over the fed, they'd likely retaliate against the new US dollar.

Please excuse my lack of commas - I have so many asides, the content would surely be 30% longer. I'm not certain why you care so much about the origin of money, especially in the context of explaining economics to others (who probably don't care). The likelihood is a priest class extracted tribute in the form of partial harvests, then contracts on partial harvests, then general contracts on goods. The notion of contracts goes way back. An enlightening book on the matter is "Babylonian and Assyrian laws. contracts and letters". This notion of a general goods contract can be encapsulated in a coin, and by its commonality and convenience of use, coins (tokens of tribute to the temples) became money. But, I'm no anthropologist, and how a hammer came into existence doesn't factor in to me explaining to someone else how to use it. To explain the current system, for me, the easiest method is to simply say "the first dollar in existence was a loan from the federal reserve with interest. There is no way to pay back both that dollar and the interest because the interest does not exist; we must borrow more just to pay back the interest." However, this is a simplification, since the fed can relinquish debts. In your video, you present what I think is a wrong attachment to the notion of needing a deficit. If I put $100 into the economy, then for each following year, tax $10 and spend $10, the system can go on continually without either a surplus or a deficit. Also, there is subtlety I think missed. And, that is, the money velocity is not entirely based on the quantity available. Let's conduct a thought experiment (lol). With this initial $100 into the economy, if the population grew from 100 to 1000, the average amount held by a citizen would go from $1 to $0.1, but this would only affect money velocity if prices did not also scale downwards and if there were some additional inconvenience to spending in smaller amounts. We can imagine things that would prevent prices from scaling with money supply: limited resources (gold), external factors (external currencies), the cost of repricing goods, the inconvenience of re-issuing revalued currency. Why this is important is in analyzing your idea that surpluses cause depressions. It is important because "surplus" can mean multiple combinations of things including a shrinking of the money supply. - We could have a surplus funded by chinese dollars from alaskan oil extractions tax receipts in where no government programs were reduced and domestic tax receipts were the same - We could have a surplus where government programs were reduced and taxes were kept the same - We could have a surplus were government programs increased but tax receipts increased to over government program expenditure What I'm getting at here is it is better the analyze the individual factors for a better understanding of the dynamics involved. And, to my knowledge, it is generally agreed upon that inflation is better than deflation from a societal stand point. The common example is, if you were a business looking to invest in infrastructure to create some product, in inflation, the potential gain from selling the product goes up relative to the infrastructure expense, whereas, in deflation, it goes down - and this encourages business development during inflation. Also, I took issue with your mentioning Andrew Jackson in regards to his zeroing the national debt and think it is, again, an oversimplification by over-including items. And, this is a consequence of two different scenarios: 1. When you are a country and can print your own money without it becoming worthless, and can pay off your bonds by this printing, and consequently the bond holders do not hold practical leverage over you, there is no reason to zero the national debt. 2. When you are a fledgling country, who can not print its own money without it becoming worthless, who has bond holders who not only can influence you, but can invade you or otherwise sanction you into oblivion, there is reason to zero the national debt (or at least move it into non-hostile hands). (this seems to be the IMF scenario a lot of countries have found themselves in).

It is relatively easy to get poor people to play the victim. That is, it is rather easy to fabricate injustices or fantasies of justice to rile up those who seek reasons for their low state. This can be seen with poor muslims, this can be seen with poor whites, this can be seen with poor blacks, and this can be seen with virtually any classifiable group of poor humans. And, just like a gang seeking protection money, governments can benefit from controlled chaos and controlled opposition. Controlled chaos is thus found in the creation of groups that group sections of disadvantaged people. BLM happens to be one such group. The nature of controlled chaos groups tends to be the provisions of opportunity for and support of chaos. In other words, such a group provides a pool from which an extremist can be chosen to commit an extremist action, and that group will then support that extremist's action before and after, but the committing of the extremist's action tends to be a consequence of incitement. So, the question that comes when one of these groups commits an extremist act is, "was this incited naturally or artificially?". That is, did the group controllers, (often government), incite this, or was it spontaneous or reactive. Some events, like the Ferguson riots, might only take a small amount of artificial incitement. Other events are so artificial, the extremist is only used as a patsy. Detecting the level of artificiality in an event can be done by finding discrepancies in the narrative, and analysing how the news covers the event, but detecting whether an event is artificial is rarely of much importance. Instead, the question should be, of what consequence is the event in regards to politics and powers. Based on the ramp up of BLM violent activity and the proximity of the RNC, I would venture there are plans for specific violence at the RNC. Disclaimer: I could easily be wrong. This might just be semi-natural, or it might be further efforts towards gun control, or it might just be further efforts towards class division to draw attention from the banks and the financial system.

deleting post, goodbye forum

Good video:

Disappointment tends to be a theme among those joining high IQ societies. It's particularly interesting how very high IQ societies, >=146 IQ, have a history and tendency of intragroup squabbles. I might attribute this to the tendency to be competitive inherent in those seeking recognition of high IQ. A reason magazine event might be enjoyable, but I'm looking for a group that works on building persistence systems. EFF is the closest group, in terms of intelligence coupled with activity, that I have found, but they are primarily reactive and are restricted to technology concerns. Regarding how high an IQ, perhaps an IQ requirement of 130 or more, but as shown by mensa, high IQ is not enough. I would not consider FDR (forum) such a group because it is mostly a spill over from the show, and the show and the community represents primarily an effort to promote a general philosophy of SM and to promote not violent parenting. If FDR (forum) were primarily a "listener projects" forum, and if those listener projects were more than just videos and essays, then perhaps. But, here we see, as demonstrated by the tax wallst party, the failures of undirected effort.

I've never found one, and I've been looking for a long time.

Quite rude of you not to read more than the first sentence of my post, and then to reply in contradiction. There are, from your post, many things you appear to be confused about. First, the following are not identities - anarchy = working together - anarchy = free market So, that I encounter "working together" and "free market" in my life is not empirical evidence that anarchy works. Second, do you know who Adam Smith is? You are, ironically, attempting to school someone (me) who suggests reading The Wealth of Nations on "free market forces ... self correcting". I would continue about how tWoN book contradicts your last part, but I don't think it would do any good.

In the normal sense, anarchy can not work. The normal sense is just the removal of government. SM's anarchy is removal of government + liberty minded philosophical people. This type of anarchy, I'll call, SM anarchy, could work, but probably would not. Part of whether it would work depends upon two rising effects of patterns. 1. the pattern of smart people to come up with solutions. 2. the pattern of monopoly/compound formation in nature. Most people are not familiar with #2, and if they are, they tend to be familiar with it in a very limited sense. To understand #2, you have to understand three components and how they relate. These components can be found in: 1. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations 2.C. Quigley's Books (read them all, they are all worth reading) 3. The studies of Ilya Romanovich Prigogine There are other factors about SM anarchy that make it unlikely. But, instead of asking this question, * * a better effort is creating a tribe in the systems that currently exist. That is, find and work with people that share your values, and attempt to grow that group. This is much the same idea of changing things at a local level as opposed to being ineffective at changing the larger system.

There is a lot more to this than seems to be discussed here, but before I touch on the depth, I want to briefly redress those with a faulty of "libtard": - Those in power are not libtards, but, instead, they use libtard logic to gain more power for themselves. (see my response here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46516-venezuela-destroyed-by-socialism/) Scalia, supposedly died of a heart attack, was found with a pillow over his head. If that does not baffle you, then you appear to be unfamiliar with heart attacks. Additionally, the circumstance surrounding the death are not only suspect, but involve the law being broken: The notion a local judge would break the law to avoid an autopsy of one of the most important people in America is, again, baffling. In regards to the notion he was poisoned, consider the heart attack gun, which I mentioned here (https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46381-inquiry-into-the-capacity-for-us-reform/ ), which, btw, is an admitted technology that is over 40 years old. Now, its possible the overweight old guy died of a heart attack, but it sure is convenient for some people. I suppose it is important to have an idea of the general plan to understand why this is convenient. It is not because libtards want to live in libtardia. General Plan: - decrease the power of all nation states relative to global entities (IMF loans, trade pacts, etc) - with impotent nations, unify them under the pretence of empowering them (in trade, EU, north american union, etc) - unify the regional groups into global groups, have a world government - reduce population, re-institute not-equal-under-the-law, etc And, with this, you can understand why a country, as a pawn of this general plan, would let in migrants, weakening the individuality/culture of the country, and weakening its power. But, why would a country be a pawn of this general plan? That requires a fairly long explanation, but, briefly, powered non-government groups have influenced who is empowered in government for centuries.

Why would someone promote a system they don't understand in hopes of gaining the reward of free stuff? Why do you think those voting for Sanders know anything about Venezuela, or anything about the realities of socialism? Socialism requires massive ignorance of how economies work. So, two types of people promote socialism: - the oligarchs, and their agents, who would end up with the reins on the socialism beast - the ignorant masses wanting more but without the intellect to get it

Try to sell an AA battery in the 1100s.. Your bias probably comes from that fact that, in being in start ups, you are almost necessarily involved in a product that someone is betting there will be a market for, and so your measure for the success of the start ups is based on how well they sold the product - which is often the crux. I think I have an accurate assessment of the market, and I'm not going to build this system unless I see a specific, imminent, probable, case for its utility. Thanks for the attempt at motivation, but as seems to be my motto on here: haste makes waste

The moderation can be done by reputation and voting. This is a complex subject who's details I won't go into here, but I've already built a system which handles automated vetting. For almost all successful products that the public sees as first to the market, there were products of the same nature before them. Google is the easiest example of this, but it fails to convey the entirety of the problem because google was better then the preceding search engines (and funded by the CIA, so I'm told). You can be the first and you can have a good product, but if the market timing is off, you can lose out, and someone with even a lesser product that comes into the market later when the demand has been increased will succeed. I've encountered this dynamic many times with my own projects. I have no reason to think any non-financially interested parties would be interested in this system. General voters are too stupid, governments are not interested, and the "liberty movement" members are also, generally, too stupid. I base these conclusions on another system I built a few years ago. It was a system in which you link entities together, and rate the influence one entity has on another, and rate the 'for-ness' or 'against-ness' one entity has for another. On the surface, it was fairly simple. All you had to do is create an entity, then optionally link it to other entities and describe the relations using those two factors and optionally a description. The system would then use a fairly complex algorithm I created to find all of the indirect relations. The idea was to see something like this: - company x donates to organization y - organization y is owned by Bill Sanders - system says on the "Bill Sanders" entity page: Bill Sanders is supported and influenced by company x This, to me, seemed like an entirely simple interface. I even wrote a tutorial just to be sure. This system, on the front end, is less complex then the system I am envisioning regarding this topic. And yet, almost all participants in the system were total failures. - at most, I got about 10k views on the articles I posted to attract attention to the system - I paid one person to create content. I estimate this person had between a 110 to 120 IQ. This person failed to use the system correctly. - 4 Other random people created accounts and used the system. One person managed, after using the system incorrectly for a few entities, to figure it out and use it correctly for her final entity creation So again, gold panning in a water fountain. I will say, however, we are at a great time for the likes of Stefan, who offers fairly easily digestible, middle class oriented information. And, this period of time is unlike much of history, as presented as the primary problem in the non-published, internet transmitted, very obscure, book to which I can't remember the exact title to (tell me if you do), whos title was something like "nihilistic socialism". That is, those who can move the system, the middle class, are naturally attached to the system, and will ignore intellectual pleas to change the system, until they are downtrodden, at which point, they no longer have such power (as discussed in the book as the reason it was difficult to start socialism from the middle class). But, what we have now is a global downturn, where many middle class people are concerned about their future, so much so as to seek out information, which is available because of the internet, like that presented by Stefan.

What you appear to describe is software for a conventional debate. There is indeed software for this already, and it is mostly used by debate clubs and schools. What I envisions is based on a specification I wrote years ago to address the problems with voting on issues. I don't presently have that paper, but I can remember some factors necessary to consider for such a solution: - there are often more than two possible considerations for any particular issue (these are not necessarily contrary positions, as within a debate) - ex: should we defund X? 1. If we do, "a" may suffer. 2. If we do, "b" may happen. 3. ... - in discussing any particular consideration for an issue, a branching may occur. - ex: if "b" happens, then "c" might happen. Or, if "b" happens, "d" might happen - a period of time should be given for the exploration of branched considerations. There are no arbitrary posts. Instead, people add factors as branches into considerations, and deductions based on those factors. This organization should prevent repetition within an issue, and should allow clarity of deductions since deductions are linked to considerations. - in voting, occurring after the discussion period, a synopsis of the deductions should be available, along with the "tree" of considerations. There were a lot of other things regarding voting and such in the paper (such as weighting depending on issue specialization, penalization for various things (re-raising issues), linking any law/rule passed to the "tree" of consideration, so if the considerations change, it would necessitate removing the law), and while it is amusing to conceptually construct better systems, there is virtually no demand for this. I attribute this to rational self benefit. People who are not smart, perhaps <130 IQ, will not understand the need for sometimes complex systems, and therefore will not demand them (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?372831-The-Merit-or-Lack-of-Merit-of-a-Return-to-the-Constitution (my attempt to confront Ron Paul supporters with their fallacy)). And, most smart people are presented with a choice: - make a lot of money and enjoy life - work against a massive system, that is almost immovable, for people who aren't like you. And, the trend I seem to see is smart people who had made a lot of money and are semi-retired becoming commentators. Unfortunately, their efforts in commentating are not a consequence of their desire to change things, it is a consequence of their desire for talking and for attention (paul craig roberts). So again, the prospects are grim, and it appears I am gold panning in a bathtub.

Not-selective distribution of sympathy is a bad idea. There is a tremendous capacity most rotten people have to play the victim. There is a global recession in conjunction with debt retraction, and a stated plan to decrease the population. You can expect many more homeless and they will always have a sob story. Just envision them as Stefan's mother. That is, without a history of demonstrated moral action, avoid giving out sympathy to such a person. -- High calorie food will kill you over time, especially fast food. Cheap now, expensive later.

"Can you expand upon what you mean by disincentives with a real life example?" Notice my reply on https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46427-donald-trump-on-eminent-domain/ Wherein one of the posters makes a new topic based on my reply, but fails to copy over my reply https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46439-voting-for-the-lesser-of-two-evils/ -- "Isn't wikipedia such a system? Despite its flaws, it is revered, and in demand by many." Wikipedia is for stating shallow facts, not for debate, argument, or narrative conclusions (although they have a discussions feature). Back in 2007, I created a wiki for "liberty movement topics", and posted it on the Alex Jones prisonplanet forum. No one contributed. And, on that note, I also, requested, around that time, replies from anyone interested in creating a "free and open society think tank". I got thousands of post views and about 20 different people replying, so I made the site. Of those 20, about 4 people joined the site (once fostt.org), and of those 4 people, no one did any of the activities I recommended or continued any of the discussions I had presented. There are two dynamics I am describing here - the writers on wikipedia are not the same in nature as the "liberty movement" or "peaceful parenting" members (I could describe why this is, but it is an unnecessary and long tangent) - "liberty movement" or "peaceful parenting" members are primarily consumers (>99%), wherein about 1% pretend to be producers, but when push comes to shove, aren't. So, this topic represents almost an entirely irrational panning for gold - as though I were at some water park doing it. Hope can be a wasteful thing.

Anyone who has some degree of deep knowledge about a topic and has experience with online forums knows there are substantial disincentives against spending any time attempting to argue points or convey deep knowledge. I can build a system that will remove most of these disincentives, and will encourage the cumulation of non-repetitive topics. I would set this system up as a free system for use for the benefit that it brings in clarifying reality for others. I do not, however, think there is any significant demand for this. I would like to know if any of you have a strong desire for such a system, or know of how to reach people with a strong desire and willingness to use such a system.

Insanity: - "I'll take it a step further and claim that political voting itself is the initiation of the use of force. So to address the problem at it's source, I'd make the opening line "If you're thinking about voting... look in the mirror."" - "I'm looking in the mirror. I've never bought the lesser of two evils argument, but consider this:" Forums are ultimately ineffective for many reasons, the the above are examples. And, what does the above represent? - the ability to continue a topic either - away from the initial topic - in ignorance of logic that should have ended the topic - the dominance of those who chat and argue emotionally over reasoned posts Insanity #1: "voting itself is the initiation of the use of force": No force is exerted upon anyone unwillingly by voting, and voting does not "support the system". The system has and will continue despite huge numbers of non-voters, and despite a <20% approval rating. If you want to use your insane logic of 'the gun maker is culpable for murders by guns', then you have to actually look at how the system is supported, and then blame people who conform to those supports, the main ones being: - paying taxes - following the law - using the country's currency But, not doing one of those is actually difficult, unlike not-voting. Insanity #2: "lesser of two evils" This failure to understand the notion of "lesser of two evils" by saying "never bought..." is a result of a failure to understand the situation. It tends to be a misunderstanding that: - if you support the lesser of two evils, you are still supporting evil So, if you don't vote, evil loses? No, someone still gets elected regardless, they just are potentially more evil. You need to understand that, in this particular situation, (and it varies depending on the situation), it is a matter of decreasing the amount of evil. This is completely different from the situation in which, for example, there are two evil companies, one being more evil, so you decide to buy stock in the lesser of the two evil companies. In this situation, there is no guarantee of the success of one of the companies and you are voluntarily buying stock into one, and therefore supporting/increasing evil - you have the option to put your money elsewhere. There is an actual argument regarding a potential fallacy of "lesser of two evils" when applied to politics, but that has to do with where you spend your time, and is much more abstract and pointless to discuss here since, as evidenced by our postings, we are very bad at choosing wise ways to spend time.

The concept of my reply was that there are additional factors to consider; it was not to exclude the possibility of 'r' natured people who do not openly identify as leftist or liberal. The luxury of excess and efficiency provides the capacity to be 'r' in nature and profess 'K' (the competition of the free market). And, I intended to include that under "hypocrite": - "profess liberty but avoid all hardships required to effect it"

r/K would explain the leftist response, but let us take a theoretical "libertarian" or a "liberty minded" individual for analysis. There are a few primary factors that contribute - idealism or, "there can be no solution if it is not perfect" - failure of intellect to analyze chains of consequences. In this particular case, it is a failure to see that - the statist/elitist agenda has been rather smooth sailing, with very little (little in consequence) push back - Trump will likely cause a significant disruption to this agenda, and in that disruption is the opportunity to counter that agenda - this disruption will occur regardless of the specifics of Trump's actual plans except, in the very unlikely event, Trump gets on board (reagan) or is on board (nearly everyone else) - but, primarily, envy. Any this could be considered generally as envious of his financial success, his popular success (some anti-establishment leftist guys have gone nuts, calling Trump worse than Hitler), but, for our theoretical libertarian, it tends to be: - the envy of the hypocrite. And, this hypocrite tends to: - like Ted Cruz who is as snakish as the hypocrite is - profess liberty but avoid all hardships required to effect it - profess morals but be amoral and secretly have the notion that: - there are two classes of people: people as snakish as they are, or unsuccessful moral sheep The polarized response does not make sense as a consequence to the factors of idealism or failure of intellect. And, so, it seems the polarized response, by "libertarians", is a consequence of envy.

To address the issue of nuclear power in the future, you must acknowledge some facts - nuclear plants built before 1980 (practically all of them) have acknowledged design flaws - new nuclear plant designs are considerably safer, with virtual guarantees against the sorts of issues present with the 40+ year old designs So, here we have a topic in which these two, pretty much ultra-pertinent facts have not been addressed, with the, sort of, notion that new nuclear plants are going to be built using the sort of design of Fukishima, and that this is something to spend(waste) time talking about. A force multiplier to the meaninglessness of this conversation in combination of the above facts is the near absolute lack of control any of us have on intentionally catastrophe-attracting behavior of those with extreme power. Ex: - exploding an nuke in the ionosphere with the concept that it could perhaps ignite it (and kill virtually everyone) - building a large portion of nuclear plants on fault lines (japan) So, we have three parts of consideration about future nuclear power catastrophes, all of which do not merit general discussion: - new nuclear plants' safety features remove legitimate concern - engineered catastrophe is not something anyone here controls or influences in any manner more so than they control the zeitgeist - the old nuclear plants are largely decommissioned or suspended, and there are local pushes to decommission them that needn't be discussed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan#Nuclear_power_plants) Then, there is the issue with spent fuel rod storage, but as already addressed, if no one finds a beneficial commercial use (like projectiles (pray for an alien war)), then we can just shoot them at the sun or elsewhere. Then there is the issue of the current ongoing Fukishima disaster, which, again, no one on here has any influence over. Perhaps, for some reason, you think that there was not a massive effort by thousands of people outside japan for years after the disaster to draw attention to it and to get governments to do something about it, and perhaps you did not see the response by governments, which was to deny and lie. The factors on this one are: - is it causing a continued negative ecological effect? yes - can it be resolved? yes - will it be resolved? no You have to wonder, if it can be resolved, why isn't being resolved? This goes back to the nuking the ionosphere bit - something you might classify as the relentless desire for experimentation. So, it appears this topic exemplifies either: - the desire to talk is much greater than the desire to improve things. - the desire to improve things is inexorably detached from the knowledge of how to improve things

"Can you find any evidence of an individual dismantling the power of the state to any measurable degree through peaceful and political means?" Andrew Jackson was mostly peaceful (in the sense that a majority of the time he was not shooting people). There is a theme in these two replies: - politics is hopeless Thomasio: The generalities of hopelessness rarely serve any benefit apart from the benefit of those who seek your inaction. algernon: "If through a huge error he was able to somehow become elected, and somehow try and make a significant change, he would be impeached, threatened or eliminated." You are typing these as statements - as if you knew, which, I assure you, you do not. My request was more towards opinions and speculation on the state of the oligarchy, and the relation of that state to the potential to remove Trump. In order to contribute any consequential opinion to this topic, you'd either have to identify a state of a specific oligarch, or a fact relevant to the matter. For instance - executive branch (usually single oligarch) decides not to prosecute Hilary Clinton - FBI (multiple-oligarchs) decide not to go public with further incriminating evidence from investigation - Bernie sanders raises question of IBM vote fraud and attempts to counter But, there is another theme that I would like to settle. The concept of "let it fail". This theme is usually coupled with something like: - and then we'll have our time to shine - and then a better society will rise up - and then we'll have the opportunity to implement our ideal society This "let it fail" is dreadfully daft in all but the coupling with: - because I enjoy the much greater probability that I will be die violently Excuse me for my brevity: In times of scarcity/chaos, the powers that have the most (resources stored)/(stability)/(isolated systems) will have the most power, and therefore will control the formation of the new system. Why do you think some oligarchs are so keen on the phrase "order out of chaos"?

If not of specific import, your interest in the Ken Lay death appears to be over either two points - there are hidden parts to high money theft - assassination is used in important corporate or political power concerns Both of these are well evidenced throughout history. To give some examples - (assassination) DC Madam suicide. Facing prosecution and having the potential to provide information about congressmans' use of prostitutes, she was "suicided". How is this known? Weeks prior, she was on Alex Jones radio show saying that she had no intention of suicide, and that if she were found dead, that it would be a 3rd party actor that caused it. And, on the suicide note, those familiar with her handwriting said both that the note was not in her hand writing and did not write using her mannerisms. - (hidden parts) just do a search for "pentagon missing budget trillion". Essentially, >5 trillion dollars is unaccounted for in the pentagon since 1996. On the matter of revisiting past conspiracies: there is more than a lifetime of material involving conspiracies, and in knowing it all, you are little better off than someone knowing very little of it, but who understands the controlling concepts. So, I recommend not introducing past conspiracies into discussions of potential future ones unless there are enzymatic, concrete, facts leading to better conclusions about the future ones.

A lot of people are inclined to think Donald Trump can serve to partially reform the US. There is some prerequisite knowledge to analyze this possibility - The existence of covert methods of assassination, such as the heart attack gun (http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001) - The capacity to control investigation into death (go research JFK or his brother) - The fact powered interests have controls over these other two capacities (tons of material on this, but a good basic understanding comes from "Bush, the unauthorized biography") - Control of the primary avenues of control in the world is held by an oligopoly (again, lots of material on this, But, to keep it simple, just think companies or corporations) - There is both evidence of the capacity for vote (programmer congressional testimony) fraud and the actualization of vote fraud (past presidential elections (florida)). With these considerations, we have two possibilities. - The oligarchy is uniform enough in its desire to avoid trump that the capacity for prevention will be used - The oligarchy is not uniform enough in its desire to avoid trump that the capacity for prevention will not be used I'm curious as to what others on this board think regarding the state of things and how this will play out.

It is amusing that first you have Elon Musk warning "elites" to move off the planet, and now you have Hawking warning plebs to move off the planet. There are two things to note about this. 1. You can take a well meaning person, who does not have any particular speciality in the area, feed him a logical story, and that person will then, with a subset of the facts, have a strong opinion about something in that introduced area - and perhaps, as Hawking has, provide that opinion publicly. 2. The cost of leaving earth and maintaining a civilization in inhospitable space or on Mars will always be more than the cost of surviving a catastrophe that makes earth less hospitable. It's simply a distance to resources and cost of maintenance conclusion. None the less, the drive to do things beyond current capabilities has provided quite a lot of nice technologies, and if this new fear encouragement encourages investment in space x or the like, great.