In 2015, after a few years of Facebook citizenship, I decided to take a break. Primarily because of non-stop posts about football, Jade Helm, and the end of the world. I found myself in a constant state of aggravation wanting to argue about sports, outdo someone with a conspiracy theory, and be the first to post a breaking news story amongst the 250 or so “friends” that I had.
I would chide people I didn’t know about their football team, envy people who could post “I just sneezed” and immediately get 95 “likes”, wonder why nobody could see the world the way I did and praise me for my amazing knowledge, foresight, and priceless contributions to the world of Facebook.
One day I woke up and realized I must look very foolish to some people, very smug to others, and very weird to everybody. And in a moment of clarity I had lacked before in my time on the social media, I realized I didn’t need it. That, for me, life would probably be better without it. And it was. (Not to mention I avoided that whole 2016 election, football kneelers, and Tide pod challenge.)
When I began writing this blog last year, to fulfill some pseudo-intellectual exhibitionist need I have, along with also always having enjoyed writing, I began posting links to my blog entries on the Facebook. That was it- log-in, post the link, log-out. I didn’t look to see if anyone had liked or commented on recent posts- it wasn’t about Facebook but promoting Bondo- the real deal.
But after awhile, it sucked me back in. In the past few months, my involvement incrementally grew. But on the advice of my wife, I decided to take a new approach- lighten up, be more positive, and remember “nobody cares about politics.”
So I determined to stay out of controversy, be more mature, and not take the world so seriously. I didn’t argue with anyone about anything. I just posted memes for the most part- inspirational quotes, funny animals, non-controversial commentary on this crazy life we are going through. The 150 friends I still had seemed to like the new approach.
But I am still, at heart, a politico. And, our dysfunctional political system is a fertile field. There was a small group of my Facebook buddies who were like-minded, so I dropped a few of those too. Then I decided that one day a week- Friday- I would be political. “Political Friday.” What the heck.
It was, to me, pretty tame, fairly mainstream and the latest stuff everybody else was discussing. (From a conservative viewpoint, of course.) I didn’t dare post some of the stuff I see- not for fear of being banned- but I’m just not into offending anyone anymore. If someone didn’t like something I posted, and commented so, I would diplomatically acknowledge their opinion, and move on.
This new approach worked well until last Friday, when I posted this:
A few minutes later I got a notification that my post had violated Facebook’s “Community Standards” and had been removed. Huh? That? I had seen things a hundred times worse posted everyday.
Although slightly annoyed, and puzzled more than anything else, I continued “political Friday.” A bit later, I posted this:
Within a few minutes I was advised once again that I had violated “Community Standards” against hateful and offensive speech and could not post again for 24 hours.
I’ve heard of this happening but had never experienced it. It is real. There was an option to have this decision reviewed so I clicked it.
After a short period, the “appeal” came back and they upheld their ban. They provided a box for comment on this action. I figured the comment would be either ignored or read by a robot- but in the odd chance a real person would read it I advised them that they “were the real Nazis”.
You see, I know these people very well. I know how their small, little minds think. To them, there is nothing worse in all this world than a “Nazi”- and, to them, a “Nazi” is a conservative. Being white and Christian is also bad, but being a white Christian Conservative male is the pinnacle of Nazi-ism. In their Facebook-moderating world. So I knew, if an actual person at Facebook did see that I was telling them they were the real Nazis, it would make them angry.
Considering Facebook has literally billions of accounts, I didn’t really think my comment would be viewed by an actual person. I was just venting to make myself feel better.
Well, once my 24 hour punishment had expired, I discovered that real people do read your feedback when I tried to post again. I was re-directed to a page that advised me that I couldn’t “go live”- which apparently means post and comment- for 29 more days.
Take that and learn your lesson Bondo- you hater. No explanation, and no box for comment this time either.
I decided not to wait out the 30 days like some grovelling addict, and figured my account was now “flagged” anyways- meaning I would probably never get to have much freedom of expression anymore, so I deleted my account.
I wondered for awhile if I had been caught by an algorithm or if somebody had reported me- and neither one made much sense. I had been posting memes for a few weeks that were similar. I wanted to warn others, and know for myself for future reference in case I decided to ever come back.
And then, when I googled the Gillibrand meme for this article, I got my answer:
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here.
Share The Facts
Viral meme- A meme claims: “Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says that she wants to give Social Security benefits to illegal aliens.”
My Gillibrand meme had already been fact-checked. If you read carefully, it’s not false- it “distorts.” Making me a violator of community standards. Posting a statement Hitler- not me- said, makes me a “hater.”
I ask again, who is the real Nazi?
So, what do we learn? Posting true and factual information is not allowed if it is not the truth according to Factcheck.org.
This is behavior modification, nothing more, nothing less. Facebook is a “ministry of truth”.
Facebook recently dropped their slogan “it’s free and always will be.”
Good thing, because that statement wouldn’t pass a fact check. Not if you’re talking about speech.
The other night, I did a show about how it appears that those who wish to push the new green deal are also pushing towards a lifestyle of where authorities expect you to accept the wisdom of repugnance in order to fight scarcity – it is the idea that in order to reduce carbon we must be forced into eating like peasants with as protein sources will diminish by mandate and soon we will be eating insects and as some scientists suggest eating human flesh.
The idea of eating crickets and cockroaches, of course, doesn’t sound all that appealing but make it into flour and put it in a biscuit or cracker and it soon will be seen as cool cuisine. The terrifying part is that if we can grind insects into flour for consumption – humans might not be too far away, thus, the concept of Soylent Green is not at all out of the question.
I mean, what is anyone to do with the bodies that need to be culled in order to curb overpopulation?
We do know that there are certainly “population overgrowth” concerns expressed by so-called philanthropists like Bill Gates and one answer according to extreme environmentalists is to somehow initiate a culling process that arguably can be carried out through scarcity, plague, and war.
We certainly live in a time where abortion seems to be a part of the culling process.
Bernie Sanders during a town hall meeting that he would support the idea of poorer countries using abortions as a form of population control as giving these women access to birth control.
He couched it in the doublethink of woman’s right to choose.
But how many women in these poor developing countries really have a choice when it comes to having babies, having them aborted, or even killed?
What kind of choice do they have when it comes to health care for the child?
While controversial ideas have always plagued Bill Gates, there have also been under-reported activities that question whether or not his foundation is implementing a modified Malthusian approach to global sustainability.
Back in 2011 the Malawi Voice, reported that at least 131 Malawian children were vaccinated at gunpoint after having previously fled the country with their parents to avoid them because of religious beliefs.
Reports indicate that a number of children and their parents belonging to Zion and Atumwi Churches fled the southeast African country of Malawi to neighboring Mozambique in order to avoid a measles vaccine campaign.
Upon returning, officials apparently learned of the unvaccinated children’s whereabouts and, with the help of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation forcibly injected them at gunpoint with the vaccines.
Bill Gates once spoke at TED Talks that we can reduce the carbon footprint in many areas using vaccines and selected health care for developing countries.
Again, the idea that the “Soylent Green” scenario is the science fiction—nightmarish version of the Socialist Green Deal does not seem too farfetched at least this is what I am seeing.
Of course, cynics will say that what comparing this to a dystopian story is an alarmist political move and I can acknowledge the appearance but we must confront how science fiction is now becoming precautionary revelation demonstrating what extremism has embraced and how human behavior has turned into dark desperation because of apocalyptic climate and overpopulation fears.
I have done this before with stories like 1984 and Brave New World which certainly were never meant to be blueprints for the way we live now.
Soylent Green coincidentally has “green” in its title and so the comparison to a desperate Green Deal in a dystopia seems to fit for the moment.
I first saw Soylent Green when I was about 9 or 10. It was one of those forbidden films that we are told we are not supposed to see because PG or back then GP films were not for us kids. Where I was from the film rating system was enforced. That is of course if you were to see it in a theater. My parents only did drive-ins when I was a kid; in fact, the first film I saw in a theater was Star Wars in 1977.
Soylent Green was a dark and terrifying movie. It certainly gave me the impression that everyone in the future would be stuck in a rut of sweaty desperation. There were riots in the streets and people fighting for food. It was like a zombie film but the people were not looking for brains—they were fighting for the crusts of bread and the green crackers that had that secret ingredient we talked about a few days ago.
What I thought at the time was quite disturbing was the character Solomon Roth played by the aged Edward G. Robinson who was laying in a bed at a Euthanasia Center.
In Soylent Green’s near future, euthanasia is legal and it’s implied it’s even encouraged.
Sol decides to visit a clinic where he can simply sign in, lie on a table, be injected with euphoria-inducing drugs, listen to classical music and view scenes of nature from his past which no longer exists before the fatal injection.
Before he takes his last breath Sol complains “How can anything survive in a climate like this? A heatwave all year long, a greenhouse effect. Everything is burning up.”
It is later discovered that the “surplus population” is being fed by recycled deceased humans, not a few of which are generated by the euthanasia clinics.
I hope that in 2022, we never have to live through these extreme conditions but if we leave it all to the extremists and to the uncaring bureaucrats that simply wish to eliminate the surplus population with their lack of concern for the sick and afflicted.
Today, I was reading about the case of 41-year-old Canadian Sean Tagert who was killed by assisted suicide after health officials decided to cut the funding for his in-home care hours.
Mr. Tagert suffered from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). His illness reduced his ability to move his body, eat or speak, however his mental awareness remained unaffected. Doctors recommended 24-hour in-home care to support Tagert.
However, Vancouver Coastal Health, initially only offered Tagert 15.5 hours of care a day, which was then raised to 20 hours a day, meaning that Tagert was forced to pay $263.50 a day for the remaining care that he needed to survive.
On social media, Mr. Tagert wrote a status which explained that two Vancouver Coastal Health officials visited his home and confirmed that they were cutting funding for his already inadequate care hours.
After receiving this news Mr. Tagert wrote a number of devastating social media status’s which read: “So last Friday I officially submitted my medically assisted death paperwork, with lawyers and doctors, everything is in proper order. It’s been a month since I submitted my appeal to the Vancouver Coastal Health patient care quality department. They didn’t even respond….Welcome to the great Canadian healthcare system.”
Mr. Tagert was killed by assisted suicide on August 6th.
It has been said that Canada has some of the most sinister euthanasia laws and assisted suicide laws.
As even those without a terminal illness or those suffering from a mental illness are eligible to be killed by a medically assisted death.
Since Canada legalized euthanasia in 2016, there have been at least 6,749 cases of medically assisted deaths, with over 803 dead in the first 6 months of legalization. 2018 saw Canada’s euthanasia figures soar with over 3000 Canadians killed by their doctor.
In England, a poll was taken that showed nearly half of the British population is concerned that if the option of ending one’s life was made legal, some people would feel pressured into killing themselves.
It is becoming increasingly evident that suicide laws could lead to vulnerable people seeing suicide as a treatment option, so as not to be a burden to others or even a burden on the environment.
It’s a disturbing thought but not a new one. State-assisted mass suicide has been a recurring motif of postwar science fiction. As the impacts of pollution and resource pressures multiplied, it became easy to imagine a future hostile to the comforts and pleasures of old age – a future where the young see the old as a liability to climate and the survival of the planet.
The novel upon which “Soylent Green” is based, Harry Harrison’s 1966 “Make Room! Make Room!” depicts a state of open generational warfare.
Its opening pages find a gangland version of the AARP called “the Eldsters” marching in protest from Madison Square Garden to Union Square. Their 65-year-old leader, Kid Reeves, urges militant protests against cuts to their rations of plankton-protein stores. Food riots in the city ensue and the older generations feel that they are being singled out for death because of resource depletion.
Overpopulation didn’t turn out to be the Bomb some predicted in the 1970s. But the steady extension of life spans now have created dilemmas that lurk in the growing national conversation about assisted suicide.
Even as our natural environment is allegedly caving, we continue to make medical advances lengthening human life.
As our bodies are fixed up and kept charging by one intervention after another, often the mind continues to decay.
There are some that believe that excessant experimental processes to extend life is not worthy of the investment and that people who are using these treatments to extend their lives should consider compulsory euthanasia as a way to make room for the rest of us.
There was a controversial article that showed up in the New York Magazine written by Michael Wolff – in it he openly wished for the death of his demented mother.
He basically opened the taboo subject of saying that there are people that he calls “the stub” population. By 2050 there will be 50 million Americans that will be living in what he calls “the stub” period in their lives.
The stub period according to Wolff is where human beings are given the provision of basic, often zoo-like care that will cost $1 trillion dollars annually, which he says will consume an ever-greater share of the federal social budget, more than half of which currently goes to those over 65. Wolff ends the piece by stating his intention to plan and execute a timelier exit. He pleads others to do the same.
He encourages people that have illnesses that will put a burden on resources to voluntarily check out in order to leave room for others.
The Green Way of thinking is not to participate in what is called “Death Terror Management.”
It is said that when confronted with a terminal illness people facing the terror of death will demand costly emergency techniques for survival. It has been reported that the irony is that those who allegedly believe in an afterlife seem to be the most hostile when confronted with the advice of allowing for death to come without costly life maintenance.
You may remember the controversial plan in Obama Care where people were terrified that in it were also mentions of end of life counseling and the fear of death panels were part of the political conversation.
It is also interesting to note that end of life issues also include DNR requests from people who tell doctors that if reviving them meant a bad quality of life – that they are not at all supposed to attempt to revive the patient.
That is how my father passed away – he was told that he needed a feeding tube and a tune to help him breathe in order to survive. He told the doctor’s he did not want to live that way and that he opted to take his chances. The doctors told him that without the assistance he could die within an hour. When the tube was removed he called me to say goodbye. I told him I loved him and he said he loved me too. When my uncle arrived to give a family prayer my father joked “With all of this fanfare I hope I die quickly.” He died twenty minutes after they removed his tube.
I really don’t have a problem with the end of life choices, especially when it is voluntary and the quality of life is in question.
There are liberal euthanasia laws in Oregon and Washington, and in the mainstreaming of hospice care.
Many people do not know that Hospice care used to be a fringe idea in the medical profession. Before, Americans were expected to stay in the hospital until the end, stuck full of tubes.
Few people left the hospital or forewent staving interventions to enjoy the last moments with family.
At some point, the euthanasia conversation will expand to include healthy people who do not suffer from terminal illness – people who voluntarily check out in order to curb the public surplus.
This is something that I believe will probably be an issue in the future. If a person just wants to check out without any health malady – should he or she have a right to do so and should a doctor assist in the death procedure?
Science fiction anticipated all of this.
In the film, Children of Men, there are ads for a suicide aid called Quietus. In the book, elderly and infirm citizens have become a burden; nursing homes are for the privileged few.
The rest are expected and sometimes forced to commit suicide by taking part in a “quietus” (Council-sanctioned mass drowning) at the age of 60.
The issue is actually more of a drug that is recommended by the government.
A man named Theo visits his old friend Jasper. We are then introduced to the blue kit, open on the coffee table between them. Theo reads out of a booklet that comes with it, “Is there a chance it will not work for me? There have been no cases of anyone surviving who has taken the preparation.”
In the subsequent scene, when Theo is woken up by an alarm on his television, an ad for Quietus is playing. In it we read the tagline, “You Decide When,” and read three benefits being sold by the ad.
The Quiteus Company will pay Up to £2,000 to your next of kin if you take it.
Painless transition guaranteed. Illegals are welcome to use it as well.
The visuals include a man determinately drinking some clear blue liquid in a glass with a Quietus logo, before standing up and walking across a beach toward the surf, only to fade away.
In a deeply moving scene among many in this film, Jasper eventually uses the kit to kill his longtime-unresponsive wife Janice.
Quietus is a narrative prop that helps us understand the world of the story. It helps us to understand that people are so desperate and depressed they are willing, at a mass scale, to consider suicide. It helps us to understand that the government is facing such a terrible lack of resources that it has to incentivize this suicide to keep its population to some manageable level, to those who can still press on.
In the Soylent Corporation’s government contract there was a clause that encouraged people to commit suicide to reduce their “carbon footprint” was, of course, a satirical observation on the outrageous lengths people would go when swayed by ideology.
Is it too far off the mark?
Back in 2008, a study from the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development argues that males have a disproportionately larger impact on global warming because “women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men and thus considerably less climate change.”
The answer was to find ways to eliminate men and reproductive restrictions on male babies.
Being obese and having children also increased people’s carbon output.
These behaviors obviously have to be curtailed, if not voluntarily, then at some point by force – the force of law, of course.
It is chilling to think that there might be enough deeply concerned volunteers to pull the load for the rest of us.
Until then we will have the pushers of the green government demanding that we eliminate our carbon footprint and none of them are willing to fall on their own sword for the cause.
Conspiracies are nothing new. The USS Maine, the Hindenburg, Roswell, JFK, Gulf of Tonkin, Bermuda Triangle- we freaking love conspiracy. And that is just a tiny fraction.
But, 9/11 is different. I remember the first time someone mentioned to me about the impossibility of a jet-fuel fire melting the steel beams- and I didn’t want to hear it. “Well it did it anyways” I remember annoyingly retorting.
9/11 is the conspiracy of our time. Before you sigh and say “not that again!” let me just tell you this is not that kind of stuff. Nothing about melting points of metal or free-fall collapse or controlled demolitions- just remembering ‘all the other stuff’ that was reported during that event. There were a lot of strange, seemingly unrelated events that occurred at that time.
There are many reasons why there is such a strong aversion-especially in the immediate few years right after- to 9/11 conspiracy. But I believe the main reason- and it was my reason- to deny the obvious suspicious facts, is because to admit that the 9/11 attacks were anything other than an Islamic terrorist attack means admitting the existence of a very dark, very powerful evil. An evil that cannot be explained or understood.
Let’s go back and recall the events that were reported at that time:
-September 10, 2001- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that a Pentagon audit revealed $2.3 trillion is unaccounted for. Rumsfeld was due to testify before Congress September 13. The attack on the Pentagon destroyed many of the records and Rumsfeld and his astounding revelation faded from the news cycle forever.
-During the attacks, the Northeast air defenses were coincidentally tied up in a NORAD drill- “Vigilant Guard” (no kidding)- which included simulated radar and air traffic which “sabotaged” air defense screens. Forty-eight minutes after Boston air traffic control notified the military that a hijacked plane was headed to New York, pilots and controllers were still receiving simulated data.
-After President Bush was evacuated out of Florida on Air Force One to return to Washington, the Whitehouse switchboard received an anonymous phone call wherein the caller stated there would be an attack on Air Force One and recited valid nuclear launch codes. Bush was diverted to Louisiana before going to STRATCOM, the headquarters of the nuclear arsenal in Nebraska, to ensure he was still in charge of the nation’s nuclear weapons.
-A week after the Twin Towers, the Anthrax attacks began. Several prominent people, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, received the anthrax-laced letters. The anthrax used in the attacks was military grade weaponized bacteria. The attacks continued for several weeks, ultimately killing 5 and seriously sickening 17. The case was never solved. The FBI closed the case in 2010, blaming an Army biologist who committed suicide in 2008.
-Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the Saudi’s arranged for the numerous members of the bin Laden family living in and scattered throughout America to be secured by the FBI and flown out of the country. Osama bin Laden was not identified as a suspect until two weeks later by the FBI.
-The hijackers, especially Mohammed Atta, had been identified numerous times by a military intelligence task force- Able Danger- in the months and years prior to the attacks. Attorneys with the Clinton administration refused to allow the information to be passed on to the FBI because of concerns over fallout from the Branch Davidian raid in Waco. This stance continued in the Bush administration because Atta “had a green card.” The files relating to Able Danger were deliberately destroyed by the Pentagon in 2008.
-the “terrorists” did not possess the experience or skill to pull off the complicated piloting that was required- especially the attack on the Pentagon which required a sophisticated degree of maneuvering of a jet- an aircraft that none of them had been trained to fly.
9/11 was an attack by radical Islamic extremists? Extremists patsies. Like Lee Harvey Oswald.
First published November 27, 2018
Update- September 2019:
Monumental University Study Finds “Fire DID NOT Bring Down Tower 7 on 9/11”
There are trends which have unfolded in politics that cannot be repaired and reflect the decline in confidence in the government which is dominating the future into 2032. We face not only the polarization of politics which is emerging into hate politics, but we are also witnessing the attempt to subvert the political system for political power.
The loss of Hillary in the 2016 election has set in motion such hatred it is unbelievable. She blamed Russia for her loss, Comey, Trump, and anyone else she could point to by herself. The polarization in American politics she set in motion has gone so far, that this is clearly contributing to the model’s forecast that not merely will the United States decline and fall, but we can see how the 2020 election is shaping up which will be a real political war.
All the media is on board and are in full swing to desperately try to defeat Trump. There has been no president in American history who has been so attacked it is really astonishing. The press is doing what they accused Russia of – trying desperately to influence the people for 2020. The problem with this has been the polarization of politics. It is boiling down to the point where this is all about retribution and vengeance. That is only inspiring the hatred on the other side. The recent threat of the Democrats to stuff the court with their people is just an example. So if they get control and put in 9 of their justices, then when the cycle swings and the Republicans gain control, they stuff in 20?
The 2020 elections will be the most violent we have witnessed since the ’60s. We can see the country being torn apart at the very seams. This nonsense of the Democrats to create open borders and then allow them voting rights is just off the wall. This is a political ploy to change the voting population to seize the power of the United States.
I have told the story of how I was given the mandate from Hong Kong to negotiate with Australia to try to first buy land for Hong Kong to move to create a new sovereign nation. I negotiated with former Prime Minister Paul Keating. I was getting nowhere. I suggested Hong Kong be allowed to set up in the northern territory and formally become a state within Australia and that was rejected. It was finally just frustrating. I asked if this was a racial thing since I could have paid off Australia’s national debt? The response was no! If they allowed the people from Hong Kong to migrate to Australia, they were fleeing Communism and would change the demographics in Australia and that meant they would never vote for Labour – which was his party in power. They feared allowing the people from Hong Kong to migrate to Australia would turn the country conservative.
Based upon my personal experience, I see this position of the Democrats in the same light. What they are really doing by allowing as many people in from South America is to hopefully change the political demographics. They believe these people would then vote Democrat and they will be able to crush Americans and impose all their policies that they have been unable to secure at the ballot box. AOC and Rep. Ilhan Omar of the squad go as far as making this even racial saying that it is people of color that are being denied access which is a code word for this entire battle over immigration.
The US has stiff immigration laws. We have people from many countries that work in the company and having to deal with visas just so they can come even to our US conferences requires explanations. We cannot hire someone from overseas to work in the USA without proving they have special skills we cannot find in the USA. So I know first hand what is involved and the problems. Yet AOC and the Squad want open borders with Mexico with no skills which contradict everything we have to do with people from Asia or Europe.
The Democrats in California have rejected any test for citizenship and have said that illegal aliens can not only enjoy the Sanctuary status of California but can even hold a position on government committees. It appears the way to secure power is to use immigration.
The recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton have re-ignited efforts to pass “Red Flag” laws, which allow the government to take away a person’s guns without due process, and expanded background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun. Some supporters of these measures acknowledge they would not have prevented the Dayton and El Paso shootings, but they think the government must “do something,“ even if that something only makes it more difficult for average Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The fact that one of the shooters may have been motivated by anti-immigrant views has led to calls for government surveillance of “right-wing extremists.” There are talks of developing computer programs to search social media and identify those whose extreme views supposedly make them likely to commit violence. There are also calls for legislation giving the government new powers to prevent “domestic terrorism.”
Proposals targeting individuals based on their political beliefs — no matter how noxious they are — are a step toward criminalizing those beliefs. If the government gains new powers to treat those with abhorrent beliefs as potential criminals, it will not be long before those powers are used against anyone who challenges the welfare-warfare status quo.
The current use of “right-wing extremism” as a justification for expanding the surveillance state is the mirror image of the use of “Islamo-fascism” to justify the post 9-11 infringements on civil liberties. That is why it is distressing to see progressives and Muslim advocacy groups pushing for new federal authority to crack down on “domestic terrorism,” just as it was disappointing when so many conservatives who opposed Bill Clinton’s attempt to expand the surveillance state endorsed the exact same proposals when they were included in the PATRIOT Act. It is ironic that progressives are supporting new laws against domestic terrorism while simultaneously protesting FBI targeting of Black Lives Matter activists as domestic terrorists.
This is not to say there are not those with extreme ideologies who threaten our liberty and safety, but they are the Republicans and Democrats located in Washington, DC! The most obvious example of DC-based violent extremism is the war party propagandists who spread falsehoods to build support for regime change wars. By the time their falsehoods have been exposed, it is too late: America is stuck in another no-win quagmire and the war party has moved on to its next target.
Demagogic politicians also fan fear and hatred to protect and expand the welfare state. Right-wing nationalists scapegoat illegal migrants without distinguishing between those who come here to take advantage of the welfare system from those who come here seeking economic opportunity — while left-wing progressives demonize the wealthy without distinguishing between those who made their fortunes in the market serving consumers and those who made their fortunes by manipulating the political process. These extremists use scapegoating and demagoguery to gain power and keep the people from focusing on the real source of their discontent: the welfare-warfare state and the fiat money system that makes it possible.
As the welfare-warfare-fiat money system collapses, we will see increased violence. This will result in an increase in police state power. The only way to avoid this fate is for good people to unite and replace the extremist ideologies of the mainstream of both left and right with the ideas of liberty. A good start would be applying “Red Flag” laws to remove neocons from any influence over US foreign policy!
Abstract: The political system in the United States has become a divisive tool that no longer works on behalf of, at the behest of, or with the best interests of the American people as the sole determining factor for the policies and decisions that are made at the federal, state, and local level. “The people’s representatives”- which was the intended role of elected officials envisioned by the Founding Fathers who put in place a representative democracy- have become beholden to political parties, monied special interests and corporations, and have succeeded in creating a dynamic whereby they now rule rather than represent the American people. There are three substantive reforms that, if enacted, would serve to eliminate the major causes of corruption, dysfunction, and oligarchical tendencies of the American political system that has replaced the United States Constitution: the elimination of “political parties” and affiliations, mandated term-limits, and external non-governmental ethics and oversight committees that have the authority to mandate removal from office, release of information, and ensure certain issues are made available to public consent.
Introduction:
Anyone who has an interest in the cult of personality political system that has taken over our country understands the problems and shortcomings of our current political climate. Unkept promises. Divisive rhetoric. Special interests and lobbyists. There was a saying when I was young (and I do paraphrase but the sentiment is intact)- “America is a country where anyone can grow up and become the President.” I don’t hear that anymore. It isn’t true and everyone knows it. Another sentiment that people once believed in was the notion that our government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Does anyone still buy that? I don’t think so.
I have begun calling myself a “political atheist”. I didn’t coin the term- it is a phrase I heard trends forecaster Gerald Celente use and decided it was appropriate for me. It doesn’t mean I don’t follow politics or care about them- it is just a personal recognition that this great sham that calls itself our political system, “our government”- is a dysfunctional cabalof merry men and women that are bought and paid for by globalists and corporations. “Politics” is nothing more or less than a scripted theatrical production designed to make money. That’s all.
Prove me wrong.
Who profits from this system? The globalist corporations. The political candidates who go to Washington DC as humble (mostly) lawyers and return home as very wealthy well-connected players. Everyone knows this. Yet, hope springs eternal that the next schmuck we send up there is going to reform the system, make a difference, drain the swamp.
It’s not going to happen. It just keeps rolling along, becoming progressively more oppressive, oligarchical, and dangerous. No matter which party you vote for, the globalist agenda continues, just with different nomenclatures. Electing the “right people” is not the solution. It isn’t even a viable option anymore. The whole system has to be reformed. Then, electing the “right people” within that framework, is the only hope we have of having a voice in our government again. There are three concrete steps that can be taken to start returning the will of the people to the people:
Discussion:
Eliminate political parties
The notion of a viable “third party” has been a part of the discussion for a long time. I myself voted for Ross Perot way back in 1992. Another option to the “two sides of the same coin” Republican/Democrat” paradigm has always been a theorized alternative to the entrenched political duopoly. This sort of system exists in some form in many other democracies- often dubbed the “parliamentary system”- where a coalition must be formed for a governing majority.
As attractive as a third party is, I believe instead of creating a third option, it would just create a third side to the same coin. Who would be attracted to a third party? Would it reduce political problems or create more? I think it would cause 33% more division than currently exists. More need for campaigning. More need for “compromise”, another tier of political wrangling. Look at the countries that have third (and fourth and fifth) parties. I don’t see better choices or representation. I see more chaos. On an exponential level.
If we could eliminate the parties, we eliminate a layer of beholden- a “loyalty” people claim in order to receive the endorsement and money of an established political machine. Parties are a banner candidates hide behind. In spite of stated “platforms”, electing a “D” or an “R” is no guarantee that the supposed platform will be followed. Greg Abbott is the Republican governor of Texas and William Weld is the former Republican governor of Massachusetts. There is no similarity in the policies or ideologies of either.
Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy were both Democratic presidents- and there is no similarities or consistency between their policies while in office. President Kennedy was confronted with missiles in Cuba and told the Soviets you will take the missiles out of there. President Obama was confronted with the threats of nuclear weapons in Iran, and sent them billions of dollars- in cash- to allegedly halt that program. During Ronald Reagan’s presidency several Democrat Senators switched to the Republican party. Senator Arlen Specter switched from Democrat to Republican, and then several years later, back to Democrat again. They don’t have ideology or ideas they believe in- they follow the money and the best chance of getting re-elected.
We should elect people based upon their beliefs, standards, and principles. Without a party banner to hide behind, we remove assumptions, false ideologies, and a layer of “party loyalty” that is detrimental. Candidates should have to state what they believe- not what party they belong to. What they are going to do- not what their party is working to do. We don’t need meaningless empty rhetoric about “partisanship” and “bi-partisanship.”
And it will cause people to actually learn a little about these people they are voting for- rather than just what meaningless letter is behind their name. That would be the biggest benefit of all.
Term limits
I used to be very much against term limits. I thought that voters should be the determiner of term limits- at the voting booth. If you have a good representative- as we did in our district when we had Dr. Ron Paul- it would be a shame to force them out. But, unfortunately, the opposite is more common. You get these bad politicians and you can’t get them out. It’s easy to shrug and say “well they keep voting for Maxine Waters so they deserve it” but it’s just not that simple.
One, I don’t think a lot of these politicians are really winning these elections- at least not fairly. We are learning more and more about voter fraud, election rigging, and ballot manipulation all the time. Oftentimes, once you get them in there, you just can’t get them out. Like the old Soviet expression goes- “it’s not who votes that matters, it’s who counts the votes that matters.”
Two, referring back to topic one- elimination of political parties- it doesn’t matter if you win the election, it matters if the party LETS you win the election. Bernie Sanders supporters learned about this in 2016. The parties have a hundred tools at their disposal to ensure THEIR candidate is the winner.
Three, saying “well that is THEIR problem” (unless, of course it is your district affected) simply isn’t true. The entire country, not just Arizona, is affected by boneheads like John McCain, who cast the deciding vote to stop the repeal of Obamacare. And there wasn’t a damn thing anyone outside of Arizona could do about it.
Give them all six years. That’s all they need. If they know that going in- maybe we will get some people interested in making a difference instead of making a career.
Non-governmental ethics and oversight committee
Remember the #MeToo movement? It was a thinly-veiled attempt in the frenzied, panicked days following President Trumps election to set a precedent and justification for his disqualification. Although the “movement”- lacking credibility due to the duplicitous moral character of its’ mouthpieces- was unsuccessful in getting Trump, there were some politicians and public figures who were taken down by the attempt. One of those was Senator Al Franken, who was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women. Under pressure to fall on his sword, Franken resigned. But he clearly wasn’t happy with being compelled to do so.
Franken said he believed an investigation by the ethics committee would have cleared his name.
And I believe he was correct.
We have a ‘fox guarding the hen house’ situation with our elected officials. One of the things that came out during that “scandal” was the revelation that Congress has a slush fund to pay off victims of sexual misconduct by members of Congress.
Many years ago, there was a House banking scandal- “Rubber-gate” which revealed that House members could basically write hot checks on their accounts without fear of penalty. I could list all the types of ethical violations those folks in DC are involved in, but it would take too long.
People also believe that there are no more secrets due to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This too is a scam. Some people never get a response, one interviewee I saw on a show one day said he once got his information EIGHT YEARS after the request, and most often, what a requester receives is a highly redacted, worthless document. Generally, the requester is told that the information cannot be released due to “national security.”
We need an Oversight Committee that is completely independent of government. It would operate like a Grand Jury. People would be selected at random like jury duty, and serve on the committee for a year. They would be paid for their service, and their employers would be required to restore them at the end of this duty.
This committee would have the authority to review and fulfill FOIA requests, investigate ethics violations and have the authority to remove egregious violators from office. And, most importantly, this committee would have the authority to determine which issues are of such vital importance to the citizenry that they should be removed from the jurisdiction of representatives and put to a direct vote of the citizenry.
An example of this would be war. If the President or the Congress wants to go to war- they must get the approval of the ones that bear the burden of this action in terms of human lives and treasure- The PEOPLE.
Do we need a border wall for national security? Let the people vote on it. Should the members of Congress get a raise? Let their employers- the people- decide.
Conclusion:
The elitist notion that “We the people” are too stupid, uninformed, and lacking in sophistication to make important decisions is wrong, outdated, and dangerous. Perhaps we are too passive, trusting, and apathetic- but we are also being deceived and “played” by a well-funded group of professional politicos. They do what they do because they can.
They are successful largely because they have succeeded in dividing Americans into a false paradigm of two competing ideologies. These political parties are self-serving and exist to create the illusion of “choice”. They are archaic remnants of a true political competition, and should be eliminated.
The politicians and their political machine have perfected a deception that elections are valid and fair. Presently- except for “landslide” results- most elections can be manipulated and managed in a way that the desired candidate is “victorious.” The rare exception to this managed result will soon be a thing of the past with technological advances in propaganda and incontestable election results. The only antidote to this election fraud is term-limits.
Lastly, the political machine has been successful in removing itself from public accountability and consequences. It is a self-policing, hidden agenda organization, that has been able through deceit, prevarication, and delay/distract methods to avoid responsibility, disclosure, and oversight. A non-governmental, independent committee made up of a cross-section of unaffiliated citizens is the only way to bring accountability to, and deter future betrayals of the peoples’ trust.
