Poke the the U.S.A. with a fork, we're done!

[Kwaka]

To make things easier, the corrupt system needs to be truthful about how the it actually functions and stop pretending to follow the laws as written.

It would make things easy, but it goes against the corruptness of it all. When a government cracks down, a black market surfaces. As long as people don't make too many waves the money keeps rolling.

It is a part of the spiritual battlefield we are all on, The easy road or the hard road, matters of life and death. How we choose to express our self determination. It was good when there was only a few laws, kept things simple. Now with governments trying to regulate every kind of human interaction that does go on is getting a bit much. Sure there are a lot of good lessons from hard mistakes in a lot of regulation, some of it does go too far, like those late night bills passed on a public holiday with just a few people in the chamber.

How bought out Canberra is by the global lobbyists does make it harder for the rest of the nation.

[UltraBudgie]

If you can justify your actions and way of life based on the founding documents and Western values, then you can ignore the PTB and the fantasies they feed you to try to keep you passive and under their control. Even with corruption ruling form the darkest recesses of Hell, I'd at least have respect for their evil if they laid it all out in the open. I might even join the legions of demons and help with their evil plans if they were honest about what was really going on. If we can't beat them, then at least we should have an opportunity to understand and honestly make an informed choice.

Is there not enough 'soft disclosure' for you? Your objection to secrecy reminds me of this quote:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies…but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p950 (PDF, 1367 pages)

Yet, as can be seen, openness about this is still intellectually unacceptable to some, and as you point out, such an admission is poisonous to the current idea of egalitarian multiculturalism. That remains a necessary illusion. Would you rather the masters implement ethic nationalism?

And I'll add a note that I think the dynamic Quigley describes has existed well before the Round Table groups united the Atlantic power centres. Indeed, the American Civil War can be seen as a struggle between the covert/overt approaches he describes: one group of masters wanted overt ethnic-based chattel slavery, the other to have the proletariat covertly enslaved based on monetary system control and market dominance. The latter won, and consolidated their power through the "robber baron" era of the late 19th century, leading into their alignment with European powers in the early 20th century, evoking WWI and establishing the Federal State in American, spawning the transnational apparatuses of 20th century economic governance (the 'rules-based international order'), etc, etc...

[covent]

 

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" Tacitus
 
Tacitus, 1st century Roman political analyst and historian perceived this, just as 21st century plebs do. 

The "state" is not just the government and their quangos or other state apparatus. The well funded lobbyists and the corporate interests they represent all form the overarching and over-reaching means of control.

Gentile & Mussolini envisaged the fascist state as being led by a single authoritarian leader serving commercial and industrial interests. They did not foresee globalism where state leaders come and go but the status quo and hidden power structures are maintained. 

All over now, we see authoritarian government. We all saw (during global lockdown) how austensably free societies are in fact, police states, governed and ruled by ignorant autocrats easily influenced by self proclaimed experts. 

They (Gentile & Mussolini) also did not foresee the ever present and overwhelming influence of artificial intelligence, both in terms of coded communication and of actual AI, designed to eradicate human thought and creativity. 

I totally agree with you, this is a spiritual struggle for the human soul, to control or destroy it. The true face of hate is not the red-raging face of overt aggression, it is the supercilious, quietly polite and concealed face of a vampire, never seen in the light.

[UpIsNowDown]

Can you explain exactly what that would do? 

Most elections now are decided by less than half the elegible voters actually voting. Even less voting will make no difference. Only those upset enough to actually go vote do so. Funny how most don't even bother.

So far in the Uk all general elections are still above 50% (only just) which elections are you refering to that have less than 50% turnout, as in my mind whatever they were voting on should not be allowed to be dictated by the minority, whether i agree with the vote or not the majority should win not the minority

[BeyondKnowledge]

So far in the Uk all general elections are still above 50% (only just) which elections are you refering to that have less than 50% turnout, as in my mind whatever they were voting on should not be allowed to be dictated by the minority, whether i agree with the vote or not the majority should win not the minority

Most elections in the USA. Especially local and mid trem ones where the voters mostly can't be bothered to go vote. 

If only elections with more than 50% precipitation were decided to be valid, nothing and noone would be voted in.

Ok, how can we fix that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_tu..._elections

If you look at the first chart in the above link, several US states were below 50% in presidential elections. The voting percentages are much lower in other elections.

[argentus]

So far in the Uk all general elections are still above 50% (only just) which elections are you refering to that have less than 50% turnout, as in my mind whatever they were voting on should not be allowed to be dictated by the minority, whether i agree with the vote or not the majority should win not the minority

If the electorate is the minority, should they not dictate their wishes?   In other words, if enough people do not avail themselves to vote, should their view count for anything?

ETA:  

[UltraBudgie]

If the electorate is the minority, should they not dictate their wishes?   In other words, if enough people do not avail themselves to vote, should their view count for anything?

The alternate view is, participation implies consent. Voting implicitly legitimizes the pretense of "representative democracy", when in fact none of the choices really matter at a systemic level and the process is strictly gatekept by hidden powers. If you play that game, you buy in to the make-believe.

[argentus]

The alternate view is, participation implies consent. Voting implicitly legitimizes the pretense of "representative democracy", when in fact none of the choices really matter at a systemic level and the process is strictly gatekept by hidden powers. If you play that game, you buy in to the make-believe.

I hear you.   Participation implies intent, imo.   I choose a course because I can vote.  Do I think my representatives will honor my views?  Hardly.  They will enrich themselves.   So.  I choose carefully, as we all should.   I am not sufficiently naive to believe that our collective wishes will be done, however, those that bow out and choose not to vote, what weight should be placed upon their ghost vote?  None at all.   At least when people vote, they make a difference, and they have the possible ability to hold their elected members to task.  Hey, it's an imperfect system.   I'm not aware of a better one.  

If my country would just agree to make me King, everything would be fine.   Until, of course, I was assassinated.

[UltraBudgie]

I hear you.   Participation implies intent, imo.   I choose a course because I can vote.  Do I think my representatives will honor my views?  Hardly.  They will enrich themselves.   So.  I choose carefully, as we all should.   I am not sufficiently naive to believe that our collective wishes will be done, however, those that bow out and choose not to vote, what weight should be placed upon their ghost vote?  None at all.   At least when people vote, they make a difference, and they have the possible ability to hold their elected members to task.  Hey, it's an imperfect system.   I'm not aware of a better one.  

If my country would just agree to make me King, everything would be fine.   Until, of course, I was assassinated.

Yes at the very least it is an interesting exercise in self-projection. If you're in to that.

"Not aware of a better one"? Well, certainly viable alternatives that pop up don't seem to last for very long. Perhaps because they notice the obvious superiority of our system of civil participation. Just kidding! It may have something to do with the hundreds of military bases the US has around the world, though. Ah, colonialism: "your system is inferior because you lost".