Angelo John Gage

@Leo Gura how rich are you? we need to see your income for transparency purposes

@Anderz and then their products could be heavily tariffed. so they would lose so much business when their products would become virtually unaffordable or unprofitable. kind of like a boycott for cucking America.

@Elisabeth I think the laws should be this: No American company can outsource any labor for any reason whatsoever. No company can hold any funds outside of the US for any reason whatsoever. None of them will not pay taxes. However, personal wealth, sure. IF a CEO wants to put his money in a tax haven, fine, but his company cannot. Unless we want to go far as not allowing any citizen to hold money elsewhere.

Also fo those who don't wish to read Gaddafi's green book, he's the truth about the govt he had which was literally a direct democracy of the people. 8 mins long

@Serotoninluv if a man is recorded on a security camera killing your mother with a machete, with his face clear as day, his DNA on the weapon, his intentions to kill your mother on Facebook, his admission to the court he did it… That is 100% certainly and there is no question to his guilt. You could not refute the evidence if you tried. In this case, death penalty. He either did or didn't do it. There can be no he did it and didn't do it at the same time. I cannot write this sentence and not write it at the same time.

@lmfao all of these people are using philosophical arguments while claiming philosophy is useless lol

@Anderz I do not see a society that operates without such a medium? There has to be a middle man function between people.

@Anderz money is just an exchange of labor. It is more useful that the barter system. Nothing evil about money.

I few idea I've had myself. @Leo Gura 1. What if all companies were non-profit, only being allowed to pay their employees and keep the services running? Those companies who want to be competitive would perhaps have to pay their employees less but would make up in volume? Idk if this would work but an idea nonetheless. But maybe there should a profit cap on all businesses? And those who wish to compete, have to lower their profit margins within that cap? But then again, the argument would be that labor value should be determined by the worker. 2. Why don't insurance companies pay back remaining non-claimed funds to those who did not use their services, (minus the salaries of their employees who work in the company of course). So supposed there was a insurance pool of $500 million, and of that, only $100 million of car accident claims were made, the amount of (X) which was for the labor of insurance employees would be subtracted from the remaining 400 million, lets say 100 million, leaving 300 million left to be sent BACK to the people who did not make insurance claims. That would be a really fair system. 3. Tax Selection: I am all for complete and total tax selection. We need to reduce govt agencies to only a few categories and decide where ALL our funds go to. Anything the people do not want, like war for example, would drastically shrink by natural selection, while other areas would increase. Representative should have ZERO say where our taxes go. I don't think 10-20% is enough, I think 100% decision to where your hard-earned money goes, or at minimum, 50% 4. Prison labor camps: I think all prisons should not be for profit, but should all factories that utilize criminal's labor to create products for people. At least with this, we get back something for our investment in prisons. Along side with what you mentioned, compassion and education. Anyone who cannot be rehabilitated, that has committed murder, rape, pedophilia, govt corruption, and treason, should face the death penalty. 5. Death Penalty: Yes, why am I in favor of it, because as Leo even admitted, there are some elements of our society that cannot be rehabilitated. Since we will all die anyway in time, it makes no sense for the tax payers to keep such people, who committed the above crimes, alive and pay for the remainder of their existence. The death penalty should be painless and remove person from this earth (security/defense measure) while simultaneously removing the burden of their kind from our society. I know many people here would be against the death penalty, but I am not at all. The way I see it, such people are a cancer. You would not take out the cancer that killed your mother and put it in a petri dish and force fellow tax payers to pay for its food and housing for 30+ years, until it eventually died. We should remove the cancer and dispose of it. I also argue it is humane to eliminate such people instead of keeping them in a box for 30 years. Another point is that death is a HUGE deterrent to crime. Imagine if the penalty for corruption in govt was death? NONE of these scum would run for office because they would not put their lives on the line. Only people literally willing to die for the country would put themselves up and serve the people. They would do so because they wouldn't screw the people over. Remember, most people are afraid to die (unlike us) and the death penalty would be the most powerful deterrent. Sure there will be some psychos willing to die but many people would probably not take the risk. A rapist for example, would probably not rape if he knew he would be killed for it. But hey, going to a prison for 10 years where he can rape men, why not? And lastly, the death penalty would ONLY be used when evidence is 100% irrefutable. Should their be a case where someone MAY have committed the crime but the evidence is not certain, they will be sent to life in a labor camp. If evidence comes up that they were innocent during their stay, then they will released and be compensated for their time in labor camp. So to clarify, a person who commits a murder on camera is 100% guilty and should be executed within 72 hours, a person who may have committed murder, if put in camp. So in the larger view, the death penalty would be used way less than we imagine since it is very hard to always prove something with 100% certainty.

@Leo Gura few others objections (not many since 99% of video I agree with 1.) "Free everything" isn't really free, as you know it would raise taxes to insane amounts, especially if you want to throw in free gyms (I love the gym) but perhaps the only free things should be those that are necessary for human life (water, shelter, medical care etc). To make free gyms, we would remove all small businesses that are gyms. We don't' need the govt to make gyms for us, although that should be a BIGGER part of our children's school curriculum. I do believe that the government could provide "free stuff' but a private sector should also exist to provide better of the same services if they can. I feel both free and private health care should exist, for example. 2.) Inheritance tax (and the likes): the issue I have with this is that if a family spends more time working hard to ensure their children have a better future, their hard work and whatever they accumulated should not be "stolen" and handed out to others who have done less work and clearly didn't do more for theirs. This is my main problem with excessive taxing. Our labor should be ours. It is our life energy that we put into work that should be immune to tax. I am against income taxes for example. Tax whatever else you want, but hands off our labor and what we have accumulated for our prosperity. I don't think its fair, nor would you, that if Actualized.org became a 1 billion dollar industry, and you had kids, that your accumulation of wealth to ensure their future would be so heavily taxed that what you have worked for would be essentially stolen to create "equality" when those people who failed to do what you have done, were not working equally as hard or achieved the things you have. 3.) Rental properties: As much as landlords seem to be parasites, they do provide service: housing for people who cannot afford to buy homes at all. Landlords invest their money (risk) into properties which cost a lot to maintain. Mao was against landlords and had them executed in mass lol. Many of these larger housing communities were put together by these billionaire scum who have the funds to create them. The US govt wouldn't do so great at all to be frank. I lived in the Marine barracks for four years. We had BETTER food in Iraq when civilian contractors were feeding us. 4.) Frivolous luxuries (Ferraris). Although I am no materialist, I believe such luxuries, like Ferraris and crazy watches are part of human ingenuity. I don't think that someone should be taxed MORE because they buy something we deem to be pointless or whatever. That is not equality. Equality would be a flat tax on all purchases. Here in NJ, the sales tax is 6.29%. Now, take that number and throw it at a 500k car. That's a shit ton of money. I don't think it would be fair at all to tax 50% for an item. Doing so would also eliminate entire unessential so-called luxury businesses. And besides, luxury is essentially subjective. I could argue some children's toys are overprice luxurious items. I think its stupid for some arts to cost 10 million dollars. Human beings determine value. Diamonds are another stupid luxury, which by the way, is a manipulated, bs market on fake scarcity, but people are dumb enough (as I was) to pay a few grand for a rock to get married (lucky my father's friend was a jeweler got a great deal.) But ultimately, the reason why luxurious things cost so much, like a Ferrari, is, for example, it is HAND BUILT and extremely difficult to assemble with top of the line parts. Compare that to a Prius. So although I myself wouldn't be so stupid to spend 500k on a car, it would be unfair to discriminate against those who would for buy a higher quality car. 5.) Tracking income: On hand you said you want to pass legislation to protect people's personal data, on another, you want people's entire personal salaries exposed to the public. This one really struck me as wrong. I am all for transparency, but having a data base of people's salaries would make them easy targets for criminals. "oh look, bob makes 100k and he lives down the street." I just feel its an invasion of privacy. The govt needs to be transparent, not we as individuals. We have a right to privacy to protect ourselves from others who would be jealous and wish us harm. We are private citizens, we are not drones of a hive. 6.) Global military: Such a military would ensure tyranny 100%. Look at our country, we act like a global military and go around destroying countries because we disagree. Such a global military would be the same. Any sovereign nation not playing by the global government would be eliminated. This violates sovereignty. Also, who exactly would a global military be going to war with if not such people? Suppose a country disagrees with a global policy and wants out? Brexit would be suppressed by military force, even when the very people voted to get out? Such a force would be the oppressor of any progress or divergence from the plan. Too dangerous. Besides, I don't' think its even possible to create a world army; as it would be too large and impossible to command. That's really it. I look forward to your responses. But ultimately, the was a great video and I will do what I can to spread those ideas I certainly agree with.

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states. The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: " HAMILTON To the People of the State of New York: THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. 1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for. It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty. Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice. All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office. The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: ``For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,''yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration. The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter. The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President. PUBLIUS. " I will say though, what the founders did not see, is that the electoral college can be corrupted as it is today, since lobbies and special interests have literally bought almost all our politicians. So I see your point but the thing is, such a minority would ALWAYS lose and NEVER be represented if every single vote was 1 for 1 based on popular vote. If you wish to implement conscious politics, you know people who are unconscious vastly outnumber those who are and would always lose to the lower consciousness masses (for now). Perhaps there should be a voters who meet certain requirements to be able to have the right to cast a vote. Sounds messed up, but if we have to get license to drive a car, I think we should have a license to drive our country. Another crazy idea floating around by Bernie and others is to lower the voting age to 16 years old. Is a 16 year old mature enough? If anything voting age should be raised. I even don't think 18 year old these days are wise enough to make choices that change the course of our nation. Perhaps in a nation where your policies are enacted and people become more aware, sure, but not these days lol.

Btw, Gaddafi wrote a book about his idea of government. This was before he was taken out by us and our proxies. Its a short work but interesting : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://openanthropology.org/libya/gaddafi-green-book.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj76MDlu-3jAhXGUt8KHeWBBfYQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2mk5iRoOpup6a3Fgw71-Fj&cshid=1565067792122

Also if you missed the biggest issue is that our monetary system is ass backwards based on debt. The federal reserve shouldnt even exist as we borrow our own money at interest and keeps driving out currency to the ground. Our money should be based on our labor, not speculation. Its should be immune to inflation. Also, usury should be illegal.

Electoral college is to protect smaller states from being ruled by a handful of super populated states. Our country is a republic not a mob democracy and the electoral college was designed to make sure the mobs do not rule. Furthermore, to eliminate the electoral college you'd have to eliminate the states themselves. In other words it would only be fair if America was just a single state with no electoral college (wouldn't be necessary) instead of what it is, a union of states with their own unique laws. I'm gonna jot down a list of other objections that i may have as i continue watching but so far I agree with almost everything you're saying especially in regards to dealing with govt and lobby corruption, greedy corps, and military industrial complex Great work friend. @Leo Gura

Part three was like music to my ears. Exactly how i feel about it all.. balance. @Leo Gura looking forward to the policies.

I always had an idea of this kind of organization, and not kidding, this is the exact name I was thinking of, so when I googled to see if they already existed, well, they do... check this out. I think this would resonate with ALL of us https://www.capitalizehuman.org/

Last weekend I had a bad day, got into a fight with my wife so I left the house to chill with my buddy. We played some video games and cooked dinner and starting chatting about the issues I was dealing with. His advice, coming from similar situations and being a similar person, literally clicked and changed my life. I made a video about it here. It helped me, so I hope it helps you.

@Shaun Did you watch the video yet? It's only 8 minutes and it will help. It doesn't deal with WHY but HOW to get out of this. You already know why.

@PretentiousHuman No problem, im glad it helped! Will we be able to COMPLELETELY remove this voice? no...but we can tell it to stfu and it will when we take charge of our mental space

@Shaun I know where you are coming from. Maybe this video I made will help you. In fact, I'm highly confident it will since I haven't seen anyone break it down on a white board like this.

@Shadowraix and I would say even if something did work, do those people wish to live that way and under such policies they would not agree with, regardless of their efficacy.

@RichardY @Revolutionary Think would these people be the considered the first "Whiggers" (drum break)

@Shadowraix indeed. But then we have to eliminate the bad policies those two have, because their entire platform isn't perfect either. I'm a big fan of taking what works, (from whatever stage) and discarding what doesn't (from whatever stage)

@electroBeam I don't think there is a purpose at all. I think, that one must do what they love. IF you are doing what you love, for the sake of doing that, it is not work. With that, you will give back to the world in a positive way. If you are grinding away at a job you hate, then I can assure you, you are serving someone else's purpose, but not of your own. you are giving back to society in a way, but not how you would love to. I've tried many fields and things which I felt empty. The only thing I love to do is help people become better people. That's it. And I don't get paid to do it. I also try to expose corruption, which I do on Twitter. I accept that I may die as some average Joe and never be a world influencer as I feel like I should be. But since I love what I am doing, it wouldn't matter if I changed the lives of millions, or billions in the end, because I love doing it regardless. Doesn't matter if I am paid or not either. Of course you need to survive, so you may work a job you hate so then you can do what you love on your free time. Most people are in that boat; rarely do people have a job they love to do. I'm sure Leo loves his Job and is living his dream, while getting paid for it. So what do you love to do? If you don't know, then you haven't found that yet.

I tell you what, I am hopeful that @Leo Gura will present some Conscious Politics policies in his last video. That would be interesting to see. I believe he mentioned he would? Either way, that would be a PRACTICAL step to get those ideas out in the public, especially IF they are new and not left vs right partisan ideas.