Arthur R. Thompson, Trump, NAFTA & the Elite's Globalist Agenda

[openfire]

Arthur R. Thompson, CEO of the John Birch Society: Trump Threatens Elite's Globalist Agenda

[afwjam]

I listened to the whole thing and I agree with most of it including his pointing out that they don't endorse any candidates and that Trump has a lot of issues. One thing that always strikes me about the old timer Liberty types is how their perspective is defined by national sovereignty. I believe the reasoning goes like this: nationalism>globalism, our Constitution will then take it to the individual from there. I think this is a mischaracterization of the situation stemming from outdated knowledge. First off the Constitution failed and though I will continue to fight for it, I don't believe we are getting it back. The globalism has moved past national boundaries and global economic monetary control long ago, they are fighting for minds now. It is the communication that they seek to compromise and control now. I am an optimist though, I believe like McAfee that the Internet has empowered us as cryptocurrencies will go where global fiat currency can't and the Internet will empower global nations of ideas to wage communication warfare with those that wish to box us in and control us.

[Mach]

I listened to the whole thing and I agree with most of it including his pointing out that they don't endorse any candidates and that Trump has a lot of issues. One thing that always strikes me about the old timer Liberty types is how their perspective is defined by national sovereignty. I believe the reasoning goes like this: nationalism>globalism, our Constitution will then take it to the individual from there. I think this is a mischaracterization of the situation stemming from outdated knowledge. First off the Constitution failed and though I will continue to fight for it, I don't believe we are getting it back. The globalism has moved past national boundaries and global economic monetary control long ago, they are fighting for minds now. It is the communication that they seek to compromise and control now. I am an optimist though, I believe like McAfee that the Internet has empowered us as cryptocurrencies will go where global fiat currency can't and the Internet will empower global nations of ideas to wage communication warfare with those that wish to box us in and control us.

Contemporary knowledge is best, huh?

Outdated?

Newer is not necessarily better.

[afwjam]

Do you disagree with my characterization of the issue? Or do you just not like new things?

[erowe1]

Contemporary knowledge is best, huh?

Outdated?

Newer is not necessarily better.

But in this case, if newer means less likely to fall for Trump's silliness, then it is better.

[otherone]

LOL.
Trump would seem to be a darling of the Birchers.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

No, local country boundaries are still important. It's the attempt to subvert the states to be part of one overarching country all over again, so we have one country instead of a lot of individual ones in a federation - an issue a number of people on here don't understand any better then they do what direct democracy is.

We were infinitely better off when the States were the primary form of government in the United States. When you didn't like the State you were in, you could move to another state. States competed, and if one acted badly, people and businesses moved to another. It acted as a check between the States, which itself acted as a check against one national government. That check disappeared between the civil war and the 17th Amendment, and now no one can get away from the feds in the United States.

In a world government, there will be zero places you can move to get away from it. Power will be complete, in one tyranny. If it is bad now with having little say in the government, you will have none then. You can see where this is happening right now in the european union. People have no say there, central planners do whatever they want - top down. Things like NAFTA, NAU, the UN, and alliances like NATO are all designed to put us in, or lead us to similar unions, and eventually one world tyranny.

Trump is right to campaign against entities like the UN and Nato. They directly lead to subversion of our liberty, and are an unnecessary expense and cause of wars that don't interest us as well as an excuse to have wars without getting a declaration of war from our elected congress.

[afwjam]

I agree we should continue to fight for and follow the Constitution. This includes protecting our borders and does not include things like the UN or NATO. What I'm saying is that it's a terrible place to moore the Liberty blimp because we need to be more flexible and ahead of them who have already moved well past our borders. With a communications platform like the Internet, it allows us to subvert their power and build a global coalition for Liberty, yes democratizing it by taking it straight to the people, but not through a democratic government or force at all. We already have plenty of overseas Liberty allies and I don't see a boarder between us. I see a collective unity through respecting individual rights, open and honest communication and trade. True individual sovereignty>nationalism

[Mach]

Do you disagree with my characterization of the issue? Or do you just not like new things?

I took it as your general overview of everything, which you then used in this (JBS) circumstance.

[afwjam]

I took it as your general overview of everything, which you then used in this (JBS) circumstance.

I don't see how ones knowledge should limit ones tools for the fight in the future.

[Mach]

I agree we should continue to fight for and follow the Constitution. This includes protecting our borders and does not include things like the UN or NATO. What I'm saying is that it's a terrible place to moore the Liberty blimp because we need to be more flexible and ahead of them who have already moved well past our borders. With a communications platform like the Internet, it allows us to subvert their power and build a global coalition for Liberty, yes democratizing it by taking it straight to the people, but not through a democratic government or force at all. We already have plenty of overseas Liberty allies and I don't see a boarder between us. I see a collective unity through respecting individual rights, open and honest communication and trade. True individual sovereignty>nationalism

So, what you're really wishing for is a consolidation of world power.... no matter how hard you wish and hope for it there is never going to be a spiritual unity on this planet. Why not deal with reality first and then work on the next foreseeable well planned out steps with at least some chance of success than to allow them their way, which is to herd us into one giant stock and then do as they please..... you act like you're so positive, but seem more like a wishful reactionary.

[afwjam]

So your saying instead of using technology to outsmart and outtrade our global masters we should get government to setup a protectionist economy and isolate ourselves from those that would do business with us?

[Natural Citizen]

It's the attempt to subvert the states to be part of one overarching country all over again, so we have one country instead of a lot of individual ones in a federation - an issue a number of people on here don't understand any better then they do what direct democracy is.

Is likely more productive for you to share with us this wisdom more thoroughly if you're of the position that we do not understand rather than caricaturing.

Anyway. I'll put up a few descriptions to get you started. Of course, with your solution comes its own set of problems. Problems which you've failed to recognize. We can do that if you like, too.

The Federated System of Republics in America

Limited Government

Decentralized Government

An Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic

[erowe1]

In a world government, there will be zero places you can move to get away from it. Power will be complete, in one tranny.

And who would be that tranny? None other than...

[LibertyEagle]

This isn't the forum member pic thread, erowe. Go post it there.

[LibertyEagle]

So your saying instead of using technology to outsmart and outtrade our global masters we should get government to setup a protectionist economy and isolate ourselves from those that would do business with us?

Because it makes so much more sense to keep managed trade deals that favor the other country over our own.

[erowe1]

This isn't the forum member pic thread, erowe. Go post it there.

That's a picture of Donald Trump.

[Bryan]

Mr. Thompson is completely wrong here. Yes, Trump has spoken out against NAFTA, but his message is a 180 from what Mr. Thompson is talking about here. Is Trump talking about the legal entanglements and subversion of national sovereignty with NAFTA? No. Is Trump talking about ending managed trade for the type of free trade Mr. Thompson is talking about? No, it's just the opposite, Trump is pushing the mainstream narrative that NAFTA is about "free trade" and what we need is "fair trade", which is just another form of government control.

Here's some examples:

During an interview with 60 Minutes, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump was questioned about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), calling it a “disaster” and saying America needs “fair trade,” not “free trade.”

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/do...not-free-trade

“Wisconsin has lost 15,000 jobs to Mexico since NAFTA,” Trump charged about the North American Free Trade Agreement. “Kasich…he voted for NAFTA.”

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/cr...-in-janesville

He said it wasn’t that long ago when the country had millions and millions decent wage manufacturing jobs that have now fled overseas due to bad trade deals like NAFTA.

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/tr...ca-great-again

Horrible trade deals such as NAFTA, which Mr. Trump has consistently opposed, have shipped manufacturing jobs overseas, and crippled the area economically.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...eadership-team



So while Trump may be opposed to NAFTA in its current form, he is saying nothing that would threaten the global establishment.

I am changing the thread title as the assertion in it has no foundation based on the scope of arguments presented in the video.

[LibertyEagle]

I think you are wrong, Bryan. Trump has said many times that a problem with NAFTA, et al., is that the trading criteria are not equal on both sides. It's no different than what Perot said on this, who was against NAFTA from the outset. While it may not be all that we wish, he is the ONLY person running calling these horrible trade deals out. I would personally rather do away with them entirely. But, I would certainly take renegotiating them such that U.S. companies are not on the short end of the stick.

And being against the TPP is a very good thing. The rest of the candidates are FOR it.

So while Trump may be opposed to NAFTA in its current form, he is saying nothing that would threaten the global establishment.

Since NAFTA, CAFTA and all the rest, are being used to bring down our country, yes, anything he can do to, at minimum, make the trading rules the same for the U.S. as their trading partner and to reject any additional ones, like TPP, IS sticking a log in the spokes of the global establishment.

Trump is against Common Core and also wants to abolish the Dept. of Education and send education back to the local communities. One of the problems we have is that the public schools are creating good little cultural marxist globalists. We do not stand a chance until we stop this propagandizing of our youth.

Sorry, but I'm not throwing out the good and waiting on my ass for the perfect.

[Bryan]

Trump has said many times that a problem with NAFTA, et al., is that the trading criteria are not equal on both sides.

I understand that. My point is that it's a major stretch to take Trump's position on the trade deals and spin it that he is threatening the global establishment, even if that happens to a degree.

If NAFTA was addressed to resolve Trumps issues it could still be done in a manner that is favorable to the global establishment. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but what he's doing is not attacking the establishment, he just wants to tip the balance more in the favor of the American faction.

There are many shares of gray here, and if Trump takes office we would certainly want to push him to go after NAFTA as he has said.

[Petar]

I understand that. My point is that it's a major stretch to take Trump's position on the trade deals and spin it that he is threatening the global establishment, even if that happens to a degree.

If NAFTA was addressed to resolve Trumps issues it could still be done in a manner that is favorable to the global establishment. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but what he's doing is not attacking the establishment, he just wants to tip the balance more in the favor of the American faction.

There are many shares of gray here, and if Trump takes office we would certainly want to push him to go after NAFTA as he has said.

Any US President that wants to work towards the interests of the USA is necessarily threatening to the interests of the globalists.

These people are out to sink the USA and merge it into a global system.

[LibertyEagle]

Any US President that wants to work towards the interests of the USA is necessarily threatening to the interests of the globalists.

These people are out to sink the USA and merge it into a global system.

Yes.

[Bryan]

Any US President that wants to work towards the interests of the USA is necessarily threatening to the interests of the globalists.

These people are out to sink the USA and merge it into a global system.

I think this @GunnyFreedom post pretty much applies here too..

Goals are not distributed along a 1 dimensional line. Goals vector off in at least 3, and maybe 4 dimensions. Just because off-stage Oligarch Trump is travelling outside of his lane and pissing off his on-stage oligarch colleagues, does not mean that the direction an on-stage oligarch Trump is going to take us, will be anywhere remotely helpful.

This idea that "If my enemies hate it, then it must be good for me" is an illusion created by relying on overwhelmingly linear thinking. Whatever a player plans to do is not restricted to a single, back and forth line, but designs can spiral off in any direction, a lot of them are even more unhelpful to us than the current incarnation of the oligarchy.

[LibertyEagle]

I think this @GunnyFreedom post pretty much applies here too..

The first paragraph, maybe; the second paragraph, no. Yes, there is the possibility that he could be harmful, sure. That same possibility exists with virtually anyone, however. However, the other candidates offer NO UPSIDE, whatsoever. They WANT what the globalists want. Trump does not appear to agree. So, if you compare a might be fairly good to a definite rotten, I'll go with the former, every time.

He doesn't espouse purist positions. You are right, he does not. But, then again, neither did Rand.