“They rigged the elections in Italy and Scotland”
[Martin Armstrong quote]
Evidence? 
1 Like
Open, up voted transparent search that can’t be manipulated will bring the transparency (truth) we need because we hold all the data ultimately. Its up to us to realize it and start processing it openly.
Somewhere on the site is a thread about factor tree upvoting to make stuff truly representative in a way that preserves privacy anonymity. We will become the authority in each others lives in more open face to face societies based on organic relationships and these flattening tools will help us do it.
1 Like
I did not see any evidence for his opinion presented in the article.
For me, with humans…you listen, observe, interact and make a decision whether you like, love or trust that person. There is no black and white and we don’t ask people we have taken on board to verify every statement they make.
For me… Martin Armstrong has demonstrated enough understanding in the field in which he moves…to make me feel comfortable to reproduce his words here.
When we are talking about manipulating elections, were talking about the political class, where power is the aphrodisiac…and like he says, they don’t want to give it up…and maybe I wouldn’t either if I had a taste.
The EU system made a big mistake in creating a political union and not creating a fiscal union simultaneously. So now this failing has come home and they cannot afford even one country to break away.
Jean-Claude Juncker (former European Commission President): ‘When it becomes serious, you have to lie’
Really looking forward to this movie:
2 Likes
Lol…I didn’t call him a conspiracy theorist, I was just poking because you said he wasn’t…I actually wondered why you brought conspiracy up in earlier post. 
“Rigging the election,” sounds a bit extreme and suggests a deliberate interference with the process, rather than manipulating tha electorate via propaganda. That was the distinction I was making - if that is indeed what Armstrong was describing.
Agreed, Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don’t believe Govt per se (ie all members) are corrupt, but the system has been hijacked by the Banks/Corporations. I just diverge a little as to where the true allocation of blame lies, which would be the Capitalist System really, than the system of Govt.
It seems to be a high stakes International Finance game now, the first countries to break from the system due to debt just get eaten alive to feed the remaining players.
.
I would argue that the problem is much simpler than that… Governments have a bias to govern, because that is what they do. Regulators regulate, police police, legislatures legislate, regardless of what should be done… People do their jobs even if their job isn’t a very good idea to do.
Naturally the bias tends to bend towards the loudest voices who put the most at stake because they care a lot about an issue, while the general public may be effected but only shallowly… Visa and mastercard are going to have a much bigger effect than you or I simply because they have a lot at stake and are going to yell the loudest. Money may be part of it, but only part of it.
1 Like
Whether through outright or accidental corruption, money is the means that makes their voices louder, and is the motivation for wanting this influence. Interesting that you choose financial companies yes? 
3 Likes
Not quite sure what you mean…do you mean have a tendency to bureaucracy, Paternalism or Authoritarianism? I would say they have a mandate to govern, rather than a bias
I would say these jobs still need doing, but I take your larger point that there can be a tendency to quangos and bureaucracy developing.
This would be the Lobbyists for Corporations.
The people that care about issues, I would say are the Electorate. The Corporations don’t particularly care about issues, only insofar as policies/legislature affect profits.
No…simply because they have so much TO stake on lobbyists.
99% of it I’d say.
.
1 Like
Here’s the thing. If you wanted for example to regulate agriculture, who is going to care? The big Ag companies. Who is going to go out of their way to be at those meetings? The big Ag companies. Who is going to know the most about Ag, Ag polices, and it’s effects on the supply chains etc? The Ag Companies. Who is congress going to listen to? The Ag companies. Yah, I buy groceries. I still care. But I am not going to Washington, and even if I do, nobody is going to give me much ear…
Same goes for every other industry. Those who are in the business care a lot more about the issue than those who don’t. they are going to go out of their way to be heard, and they are going to have the knowledge to be listened to. Money may play some role, but if you cut donations out entirely, chances are the same route would be followed.
Congressmen are idiots compared lo lobbyists. Congressmen know very little that they are not told by folks wiser than themselves – For good reason – 99 percent of nearly every industry is minutia that only those within the industry care about.
Remember the government is just a tool to maintain the oligarchy.
These people only “care” about their profits. The people who care about the issues are the small farmers/grocers/public etc - ie the Electorate.
I explained why I think this is above.
You are advocating that Congressmen should listen to Lobbyists, rather than their advisors or the Electorate because they know best?
lol…that’s what I’m saying it’s becoming.
I work in ag and I disagree… Those folks are by and large constituents to one another with interests more or less aligned. You cannot dice the electorate up and say “if you are this big you are greedy bastards But if you are only x% as big you are a perfectly non-greedy middle class deserver of all you earn…” We are all intertwined, and by and large the growers interests are aligned with the pickers, packers, shippers and retailers because the whole chain needs to be successful for anybody to make money.
And government isn’t going to know much about any of it, because why would it? They are going to know what they are told by the people who tell them — And nobody is going to tell them anything without an agenda…
[quote=“Al_Kafir, post:29, topic:3278”]
You are advocating that Congressmen should listen to Lobbyists, rather than their advisors or the Electorate because they know best?
[/quote] No – it is just a simple fact – Congress knows nothing that it isn’t told by somebody in the know. Because every business is complicated and people who work their entire careers in most fields don’t know all the answers. How can you expect a congressmen to know what is right after a half day hearing?
The simple truth is that decentralization is almost always the best answer. Government is mostly in the business of maintaining the oligopolies, and it is nearly inseparable from doing such because of the reasons I laid out. There is too much to know for an unbiased non-specialized legislator to grasp in nearly every industry. Anyone educated enough to inform them has an agenda.
Direct Democracy doesn’t help because the voters are even less informed than the congressmen, and anyone who is going to educate them also has an agenda…
Which is what I am waiting for for my own new party in Australia: Life Extension, Science and Technology Party - I believe this will be a critical part of the organisation going forward.
1 Like
I believe one of your policies would be to offer pre-death Cryonic Suspension; Would this also include “post-mortem” Cryonics and how would this policy be funded, considering the very high costs and highly speculative nature of Cryonic “revival” - would it be private or State funded? Obviously if state, then you will face many objections.
I have no problems myself ethically, but I’m sceptical about the motivations of those charging such high fees.
As an aside, this reminds me of the story of a group of Athiests who had the brilliant idea to insure religious believer’s pets from the coming “Rapture.” As the Athiests would be “left behind” with the pets, they promised to look after them…they made a killing, so to speak
In the UK, this is just not true - take the Dairy farmers for example…the retail giants are squeezing them out of business …there’s no profit in it. This tends to lead to things like Govt subsidies to keep farming alive. This is something I’d guess you don’t want and also I’d hazard a guess that your answer would be “buy from abroad” etc etc and we’d end up in another Left/Right thing.
Because it has a Ministry staffed with personnel and is informed by advisors and industry representatives. The problem is the large Corporations having the loudest voice via lobbying to the detriment of competition, often from smaller entities within the same industry or part of the same “food chain”.
No arguments there.
In the normal situation, people pay for their Cryonics “Suspension” with a life insurance policy - although there are a few who are able to pay cash up front sometimes. I think the same method would operate, whether it would be “pre” or “post” mortem. Although there is a valid economic argument for the state to support “pre” suspensions (as long as they are not compulsory!) - people who have the last decades of their lives as a miserable existence usually need a LOT of medical care - personally I would rather be frozen sooner rather than later than to be in that situation - which also saves public health a LOT of money. ALL the current Cryonics facilities are non-profit.
As an Atheist myself - I wish I had thought of that idea!
1 Like
Agreed, I’m all for voluntary Euthanasia.
Personally, I would rather be left in a black bin-liner on the pavement…even cheaper Only joking - medical Science and then incinerate left overs for me.
Fundamentally though, I think we all have the right to choose when and how to end our lives (with sensible safe-guards in place)…
Actually, there is little need to regulate the small players out of the chain. Economies of scale and efficiency make them rather inconsequential to the big players. The little guys aren’t going to get the Wal-mart, Costco, Kroger accounts in most cases.
For the most part companies lobby to get reasonable regulation in place because if they don’t the pseudo-sciences and fear-mongers will ‘educate’ the public and get all kinds of nutty regulations put into place that may or may not even be possible. Lobbying usually isn’t an aggressive act – it is a defensive act.
The evidence in Australia supports @Al_Kafir on this point - do you have evidence / examples for what you say?
Thanks.
Your question is to vague to answer, I am afraid.
I know that the labeling and traceability initiatives within the produce industry have been proactive… The industry settled on and implemented the standards before the government could invent something horrendous.
Then in hearings when asked “what are you doing” the answer can be “a lot” …
By and large, In America, congressional aides are educated by the lobbyists. “Educational travel Junkets” are big business – They surge and wane with the coming and going of various scandals. but knowing people who have been on both sides of that lobbying/legislating racket and hearing their stories – I am convinced that there is a massive amount of “regulatory capture” The regulators are educated, wined, dined, and appointed by insiders, and would be rather worthless without the education provided by them by insiders. The tail wags the dog.
Exactly, but that seems to contradict what you said earlier:
In a similar example to what @Al_Kafir gave, the two big grocery stores in Australia have been screwing the farmers by forcing their prices down - and they can do this because they essentially control the market - what you said earlier sounded like this was OK because it keeps the “herbal” types under control? Of course I support regulations that prevent people and organisations from selling “snake oil” but that is not the main issue here . . it is: how do your prevent the rich and powerful from manipulating the system for their own benefit and at the expense of smaller operators and consumers?
1 Like
I see big companies like Walmart, Kroger, Costco etc put a lot of “regulations” on their suppliers, but they don’t need the government to do that.
So I don’t think there is a contradiction there. By and large -they lobby to protect their interests against other interests that are outside of their industry.
Government doesn’t protect people from the rich getting their way. The government is owned by the rich. And the solution isn’t more government to prevent that because more government by nature fails to prevent that.