I have been having, what I think, is an interesting discussion with Socialismsuckz. We don't agree on a whole lot of things, but I think that on many of those items we aren't as far away as it seems. One thing that it seems we always come back around to is the issue of the corporate elite and its role in controlling world events. We disagree on some elements of that, but on that overall thing, we agree on. If you also agree, then I hope you read this and add to the discussion of what to do about it.

First a summary of other things we discussed:

I hope he will correct me if I have this summary wrong.

We both agree that Islamic states are bad and generally abuse their citizens as well as supporting terrorism outside their borders. But, on the other hand, we agree that the Muslims we personally know are fine people, good Americans.

We agree that the issue of transgender children is problematic. We differ though on underlying issues. I tend to think that the desire of some children to be a different gender is real and intrinsic. I believe there is significant research to support that. I also believe that there is a research that shows ignoring that or trying to force a child into natal gender roles can lead to depression and even suicide. Of course, no child should be encouraged or pushed into adopting a non-natal gender role, that would be equally and maybe even more damaging to the child. But if gender dysphoria is a real thing, then we as a society need to support those individuals who have that issue. That's my opinion. Socialismsuckz believes it's more an issue of social programming or pressures from outside the family encouraging or pushing children into gender dysphoria. I haven't seen research on that, but if someone has some, then please I'd like to see it. But overall, though this is an important issue for the sake of the individuals caught up in it, it's not an issue that is personal to me. I'm concerned that it be handled correctly, but ultimately, I can leave it to professionals and don't feel a need to be personally involved in it.

We have some disagreement on Second Amendment issues. I support gun ownership, was raised by an ex-Marine and we had lots of guns around our house, a Springfield, numerous .22 rifles and pistols, a Colt Commander .38, a few shotguns, some old six-shooter with an ivory handle, a Mexican Revolution era Remington of some kind...just all kinds of stuff. My friends and I would go out in the woods and set up a shooting range, buy a bunch of bullets at Wal-mart. A lot of fun. Probably not very safe. Anyway, yes, so I support things like Red Flag laws as long as there is reasonable due process to back it up. Socialismsuckz sees them as a sneaky away to take everybody's guns away.

So you can see sort of the break down on this. But I don't want to debate those things in this thread. I would like to see a productive thread discussing how to deal with one thing we both agree on:

There is a corporate elite (and I would say it is a transnational elite) that exerts undue influence on public policy in ways that harm the public. We might disagree on the harms. This is what I see:

*the corporate elite maintains economic systems that allows the rich to get enormously richer while the working class stagnates or gets poorer. Look at the intrinsic contradictions between the interests of the elites and the rest of us (the 99%). Elites want to cut labor costs which leads to stagnate wages, off shoring jobs, automation. That means we don't have jobs or we have jobs that don't pay well. What do we, the people, do about that?

*the corporate elite meets regularly to design systems to continue to maintain that power. I believe that by and large, they do this publicly (for the most part), but of course, they talk outside of large conferences and meetings and whatnot. We're not part of that decision-making process even though we have a nominal democratic republic. What can we do to have more power within this system that is controlled by the elites?

*I see these policies harming the public in ways such as getting us involved in "forever wars" in which the elites make bank on non-competitive government contracts, by paying off politicians to continue policies that are leading to environmental catastrophe, etc., etc. What should our foreign policy be based on? When should the US get involved in armed conflicts? Are there other ways to address our national interests (not to mention defining those national interests)?

I see all these other things like whether we teach about slavery in school (its part of our history, that's just a fact), concerns about transgender children, etc, as distractions, ways to divide all of us while the corporate elite just keep doing their thing.

So, what I would like to know is: what are some specific ways to address corporate rule in the US (if not globally)?

Lin Wood recorded a message in which Michael Flynn stated adamantly that he believes Q is a CIA disinformation campaign. Yesterday, I started reading reading John Coleman's "Conspirators' Hierarchy" in which he states:

I pursued my investigations, pressing on in the face of severe risks, attacks on myself and my wife, financial losses, continual harassment, threats and calumny, all part of a carefully-crafted and orchestrated program to discredit me, run by government agents and informers, embedded in the so-called Christian rightwing, the "Identity Movement" and rightwing "patriotic" groups. These agents operated, and still operate, under cover of strong and fearless outspoken opposition to Judaism their main enemy, they would have us believe.

To me, just the way it played out, it seems clear that Q is a psy op being used to distract us. From what? Personally, I believe there is dominionist conspiracy to trash the Constitution and do away with our freedoms and liberties. Notice how strong the Christian rightwing that Coleman warned us of, is within this current movement, including Q and the bogus "stop the steal" movement.

What do you all think?

Hi Everyone. I should have titled this "Authoritarianism Ends Freedom." I'm not talking about like Soviet era totalitarianism. I notice that my posts get deleted often here (not necessarily this community). I'm not trying to put up stuff that I think is hugely controversial and it certainly isn't leftist. Nor am I a "glowie." I am not a FED. I AM NOT A FEDERAL AGENT nor a state agent, or any kind of agent, foreign or domestic. I'm just somebody that calls things as I see them.

I don't believe in most conspiracies. Not that conspiracies don't happen, of course, they do all the time. But many of these sensational conspiracies I don't buy.

Israel was not behind 9/11. It was not a false flag. An alien space craft did not crash in Roswell and the government is not hiding evidence of alien contact with Earth. Democrats do not drink baby blood (but both Democrats and Republicans could well have been customers of Jeffrey Epstein). Wayfair is not a front for child trafficking. Trump did not conspire with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Biden did not conspire with dozens of state election officials around the country, many of them Republican, to steal the 2020 election.

Some I'm willing to consider: There was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy (but I think Oswald shot him). Reagan conspired with Iran to delay hostage release.

But there is ONE conspiracy that is happening NOW and is a threat to the freedom of every single American.

There is a conspiracy to end democratic rule in the United States. Yes, I know, "we're not a democracy." But we are. We are a Republic, which is to say, a representative democracy. Being a republic and being a democracy are not two different things. Republicanism is just a form of democracy, the only kind of democracy that really works with large populations. That is what we are. That is what the Founders envisioned. We have expanded the idea of democracy that the Founders had, but if we hadn't, many people who extol our freedoms today would not have the right vote under their original vision of democracy.

But around the world, liberal democracy, by which I mean, democracy that is based on individual freedom, is under threat. Many countries are enamored with Russia or Hungary. Why? They are neither powerful nor rich. Their people are not better off than the western liberal democracies and yet for some reason, there seems to be an attraction to these more authoritarian governments where neither individual liberty nor democracy are maintained. Don't take my word for it, check the ratings at Freedom House, a conservative, virulently anti-communist organization.

But even many conservatives are being drawn to the idea of these authoritarian style governments which only have a facade of democratic rule. For example, Tucker Carlson went to Hungary and extolled the virtues of that country's political system. Hungary has a score of 69 out of a hundred, a rating of "Partly Free," with a political rights score of 29/40. The USA is 83 (32/51). Why would he want to look at Hungary as an exemplar? In Hungary, the GOVERNMENT mandates masks for everybody.

The problem is that he's been taken in by a conspiracy to take away the rights of Americans. To end political and civil rights in the United States. Note: in Russia they do NOT have the freedom to bear arms. Hungary's gun laws are much more stringent than those of the USA. Why would these supposed "conservatives" be turning to the likes of Russia or Hungary?

And look, if we keep following people like them down this path, it's a small step to authoritarianism. Do you think you will have more rights under an authoritarian government? If you do, you are living in a world of make-believe. You will NOT be the favorites of these people. Anybody who values independence and freedom will be a direct threat to authoritarian rule. We will have no rights at all.

Please, before this gets deleted, just think about this. I welcome comments below.