Inquiry into the capacity for US reform

[grithin]

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.
 

[AccuTron]

This intrigues me from an other angle, regarding the heart attack gun.  In the gigantic money and power scheme called AGW...easily a trillion dollar crime, more if political power is included...there was one canary that could sing...Ken Lay of Enron, a major player in the fraud, and that canary died of a heart attack on a golf course after being convicted of 11 counts of fraud, awaiting sentencing of 10-20 years.  Ten years is enough to get a canary to sing.

[algernon]

Can you find any evidence of an individual dismantling the power of the state to any measurable degree through peaceful and political means?

 

Say we elected Ron Paul type characters for the next 100 years, would the state be measurably smaller? Would we be more free?

 

The president is not the king, a lot of people treat them like they are ... "Obama did this to me!" ... the president can veto, which makes passing new regulation harder, but it can still be bypassed.

 

The possibility of Trump being elected is extremely small, regardless of how well he appears to be doing. The general population does not vote for the president, the electorates do, some states they are legally bound to follow the majority vote but laws mean nothing... Assuming when you cast your untraceable vote into the voting machine it even counts it.

 

Say somehow he did become elected, just like Ron Paul in congress, other than perhaps exposing lies and helping people wake up, he would be largely ineffective. Was Ron Paul able to stem the growth of the state?

 

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.

 

I believe the only significant change will happen after it collapses from its own massive weight. The political process will not help, I'm afraid. 

[grithin]

This intrigues me from an other angle, regarding the heart attack gun.  In the gigantic money and power scheme called AGW...easily a trillion dollar crime, more if political power is included...there was one canary that could sing...Ken Lay of Enron, a major player in the fraud, and that canary died of a heart attack on a golf course after being convicted of 11 counts of fraud, awaiting sentencing of 10-20 years.  Ten years is enough to get a canary to sing.

 

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.

[Thomasio]

First of all, politics nowadays is nothing more than a corrupt bunch of individuals taking bribes to their personal advantage in exchange for executing the will of large multinational corporations and the super rich.

Making one of the richest people in the country president only skips the bribing part, meaning Trump would be able to execute what he wants without spending money on bribery.

 

An example of how that looks in the end you can find in Italy, if you look up the actions of Silvio Berlusconi and the crimes he got charged with after he lost his post in politics.

Even the story of how he got into office is almost identical of what Trump claims today.

"I'm rich, I'm not vulnerable to bribery, I can and will do what I like, that's why I will make a difference."

In addition with a whole bunch of empty promises Berlusconi made, where by now we all know he never had any intention of keeping them, people believed him, on top of having had enough of the previous government and elected him.

What happened then was the opposite of the promises, aside of giving gigantic advantages to the businesses he owned, while in office he actually tried introducing laws that would have put himself outside the law, so nobody could prosecute him afterwards.

 

That said, it might make a tiny little difference for the general population on near meaningless details, whether you elect a corrupt government or put the bribers directly into office, but the oligarchy sits in the core of the system, meaning no matter what change in government might make what kind of difference, it still remains a government that steals from the people.

[grithin]

Can you find any evidence of an individual dismantling the power of the state to any measurable degree through peaceful and political means?

 

Say we elected Ron Paul type characters for the next 100 years, would the state be measurably smaller? Would we be more free?

 

The president is not the king, a lot of people treat them like they are ... "Obama did this to me!" ... the president can veto, which makes passing new regulation harder, but it can still be bypassed.

 

The possibility of Trump being elected is extremely small, regardless of how well he appears to be doing. The general population does not vote for the president, the electorates do, some states they are legally bound to follow the majority vote but laws mean nothing... Assuming when you cast your untraceable vote into the voting machine it even counts it.

 

Say somehow he did become elected, just like Ron Paul in congress, other than perhaps exposing lies and helping people wake up, he would be largely ineffective. Was Ron Paul able to stem the growth of the state?

 

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.

 

I believe the only significant change will happen after it collapses from its own massive weight. The political process will not help, I'm afraid. 

 

 

First of all, politics nowadays is nothing more than a corrupt bunch of individuals taking bribes to their personal advantage in exchange for executing the will of large multinational corporations and the super rich.

Making one of the richest people in the country president only skips the bribing part, meaning Trump would be able to execute what he wants without spending money on bribery.

 

An example of how that looks in the end you can find in Italy, if you look up the actions of Silvio Berlusconi and the crimes he got charged with after he lost his post in politics.

Even the story of how he got into office is almost identical of what Trump claims today.

"I'm rich, I'm not vulnerable to bribery, I can and will do what I like, that's why I will make a difference."

In addition with a whole bunch of empty promises Berlusconi made, where by now we all know he never had any intention of keeping them, people believed him, on top of having had enough of the previous government and elected him.

What happened then was the opposite of the promises, aside of giving gigantic advantages to the businesses he owned, while in office he actually tried introducing laws that would have put himself outside the law, so nobody could prosecute him afterwards.

 

That said, it might make a tiny little difference for the general population on near meaningless details, whether you elect a corrupt government or put the bribers directly into office, but the oligarchy sits in the core of the system, meaning no matter what change in government might make what kind of difference, it still remains a government that steals from the people.

 

"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"?

[Thomasio]

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"?

 

For one I believe everyone is afraid of losing the little they have.

No matter how big the inequality, no matter how poor someone is, if you live in Bangladesh and have a job that pays only $30 a month, you would still be afraid of losing it, because by the time a better world arises out of the collapse, you and your children would be starved to death.

That's why even most of the poorest people are afraid of system failure.

 

For two, under the current circumstances in the world, the power that has the most resources stored and might control the formation of the new system is China.

We might end up in worldwide communism under Chinese laws and that almost nobody in the western world wants.

 

I myself believe, it would be far better to actively change the system into a better one, before it implodes and leaves it up to the most powerful people to set the rules for a new one, because I believe, even if it wouldn't be the Chinese, these most pwerful people wouldn't setup anything remotely close to a free society.

 

But to answer your question:

Under specific circumstances even an elected Trump could be removed from office, but it would require some huge scandal, like we had with Nixon and Watergate.

Movements for humans rights or a free society won't do it.

[Mister Mister]

Thomasio, do you have some secret to actively change the system into a better one?  Because people have been trying to do this to governments for hundreds of years...Do you think you are smarter than Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, do you have more resources than political parties, or are you sitting on some secret that no one else has thought of?

[Torero]

Thomasio, do you have some secret to actively change the system into a better one?  Because people have been trying to do this to governments for hundreds of years...Do you think you are smarter than Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, do you have more resources than political parties, or are you sitting on some secret that no one else has thought of?

 

Great questions RoseCodex. I asked that too in Thomasio's own topic but he decided not to address that "because it would get too long".

 

Where he found this Aladdin lamp still remains a secret...

[Thomasio]

Thomasio, do you have some secret to actively change the system into a better one?  Because people have been trying to do this to governments for hundreds of years...Do you think you are smarter than Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, do you have more resources than political parties, or are you sitting on some secret that no one else has thought of?

 

I have a few ideas of how we could use the current system against itself, like here:

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46309-why-i-believe-the-system-will-hit-the-fan/#entry424403

I had to notice the downvote underneath telling me someone doesn't like the idea.

But then postings like this one

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46355-upb-summarized-for-my-young-students-teenagers-i-love-this-video/#entry424854

tell me, I'm not alone in thinking that voting against the ruling class is the key to success.

I only go one step further on that, because there is no libertarian party in my country to vote for.

I believe it doesn't even matter which party you vote for, as long as it isn't one of the parties of the ruling class, in fact the example from Germany shows, you don't even have to vote for anything, all you have to do is express in surveys that you will not elect party x nor y, as long as they do this and that.

Of course not everyone is asked in surveys, that's why we have to spread out this strategy, so the ones who do get into a survey give the right answers.

I believe, once a majority of people express libertarian ideas in surveys and say, they won't elect democrats nor republicans as long as they steal taxes from workers, we will at least get a step into our direction, because both parties will rather give up part of their "income" than lose their power all together.

This way we can be active and work step by step in our direction.

 

Either way, even if my ideas wouldn't work, I'm still not willing to sit on my hands and wait until the ongoing theft has ruined me or the children in my family (I don't have any, but my sister does, I count that as family).

I believe talking about what can be done, even if it doesn't bring practical results instantly is still far better than let the thieves get away with their stealing for several more generations.

I'm quite sure, sooner or later someone will come up with a working idea that's easy enough to actually do it and the more we talk about it, the more likely and the sooner we find it.

[Mister Mister]

I'm not sure how this answers my question - you seem to just be saying that if we organize a strong enough movement of people who advocate for policy changes, then we can affect policy.  Obviously this is true, but like I pointed out, far smarter people than you, such as Rothbard, with an organized political movement with lots of people and money and energy behind it, with sensible ideas, have been at this for longer than you and I have been alive, to no avail.  This is because most people will act in their own short-term material self-interest rather than listen to reason or act on morality.  And this is in America, which in many ways should be the most fertile ground for libertarian ideas.  So unless you know something I don't, I can't really see what you're adding here.  If I'm wrong, go start a movement and prove it.

Are you involved with your sisters' children?  Is she on board with peaceful parenting?

[Thomasio]

What I'm adding here, or rather what I would like to add here is a bit more incentive to get changes done rather sooner than later.

I'm aware I'm not adding anything new to the movement, I'm just trying to participate and push a bit for action rather than wait and do nothing.

I AM actually doing things (as far as I can), i.e. I'm writing books about it and publish them.

It might not be of any use for you, because it's all in German, but at least there's an introduction and a summary on my homepage in english:

http://www.piranhazone.com/index.php?language=1&page=wohlstand

 

My sister lives 1500km away from me and her children are grown up by now, so I'm not much involved there anymore, other than some normal family contacts.

She never was anywhere near authoritarian, but appears to have a natural talent for explaining to her kids how the world works without applying any force, meaning even though she isn't actively involved in peaceful parenting, she got it right by herself.

 

The US and the most fertile ground for libertarian ideas ......... I don't think so.

The US has one of the strongest political systems in the world with the least choice for voters.

A 2 party system, consisting of an authoritarian right party and an authoritarian extreme right party, that leaves so little room for any progressive ideas that someone who doesn't have anything in common with either of them has no chance to get anywhere, unless he joins one of them.

Why would someone like Bernie Sanders join the democrats while his ideas are way off anything the democrats have been doing so far?

 

Take a look at the political compass

http://politicalcompass.org/usstates?ak=on&az=on&il=on&ny=on

even though that's 8 years old.

Check the boxes for all the blue states and you will discover, there literally is NONE anywhere outside right wing authoritarian.

In fact you will discover, on average blue states are closer to libertarian ideas than red states are.

There literally is no choice.

 

The by far more fertile ground for libertarian ideas you find in the so called tax heavens, the small countries, like Luxembourg or Malta, who have the financial freedom to do many things bigger countries can only dream of.

[Mister Mister]

I just don't understand why you would push for political action here, of all places on the internet.  How's it been going for you?

[Thomasio]

On a personal level I have adjusted to the circumstances.

I've realized that most likely there won't be any change in our political system until it collapses.

It may switch between center right and far right once in a while, but it will remain authoritarian and that's about it.

My wife mostly shares my point of view and we are prepared for the unavoidably coming collapse of the fiat money system, while at same time living within it.

Before you get that wrong, no, I'm not one of those so called "preppers", I'm one of those who believe in hard assets.

We own our house, the loan is paid off, we're retired, receive a small pension and our savings are invested in real gold and silver.

 

Aside of that I engage in political discussions wherever I can find one.

This isn't limited to the internet, the web is just one place where I speak up.

You will find me in the opposition of our city council, where I can't reach much as long as my opinion faces a vast majority of (bribed) people who believe in the eternal future of our current system, simply because they benefit from it, but over the years my wife and me did make a few differences, which got us the respect of the people in the neighborhood.

 

The reason why I'm in this particular forum is, I was curious about libertarian ideas.

Before I got here, I had not heard about the extreme libertarian position of abolishing all government.

When I got that idea, I again got it wrong on start, thinking libertarians want instant revolution, where later on I discovered at least in this forum here most people plan on spending half an eternity under the current system before getting to what they want.

Furthermore on start I thought libertarians should stick together against authoritarians, but during the last months I had to notice, there are quite a few people in here who prefer right wing authoritarians over left wing libertarians.

All together gives quite a mix of opinions, where I personally believe, something in the middle of all of that may be the best thing.

 

Last but not least, when I'm in a discussion, I kinda like a bit provocative statements, not too harsh, just enough to get some arguing going, because I believe that's an atmosphere in which progress is made.