Not a bad Ventura

Yesterday in the general garble and recreational time wasting affair of Youtube, I discovered an ex-wrestler, who used to be a navy seal who went on to be embroidered in American politics. He ran as Governor of Minnesota for a term of four years (1999 – 2003) and since then has made many appearances in the political sphere pertaining to the abhorrent corruption in America; by looking at the political body. His name, Jesse Ventura.

I instantly liked him. He wasn't afraid to rock the boat and say it as it was, and could go toe to toe with any news anchor bully whose tactics rely on intimidation.

Key policies:

Knocking down borders and not building them up. He feels that when you, as a country, endeavour to discriminate between people of class and race, then you compromise the stability of the country as a whole and actually move more towards an East Berlin situation. Freedom and liberty would at that point be an illusion and the best cause of action would be to remove the statue of liberty entirely – for it would be far removed from freedom.

The political system is ran by two parties and they are as bad as each-other; Republicans and the Democrats. They have run the country for 150 years and in the process have destroyed individual freedoms and put the country in a mountain of debt. The political parties put their party above all else, and when this happens it destroys things around it; the country and the people. Candidates should represent themselves and not be the face of the farce of a political party. The problem is that the parties are entitled; they are 'conservatives' or 'liberals', so people know who they are voting for before even thinking about it. The parties in truth are much the same and the vote is largely pointless. Pointless because the candidate has likely been pre-decided before elections to win, but also because a vote between two bad candidates is a failure on behalf of democracy.

Comparisons of the country to a fascist enterprise; a follow on from the idea that the government is bought and paid for by the corporations who actually run the show. In truth, the government wields no power and acts as a smoke screen to delude the citizen into thinking they're living in a democracy.

He's pro 2nd amendment. But his reasons are rational. Because of the previous two points about governmental totalitarianism as a pawn of the conglomerate corporation, eventually there will be a point where they push the people too far, and it's at that point that the only thing the people could do would be to stand up for themselves and overthrow the government. He lists several revolutions which ended badly for the citizens because of tight gun control. Despite the problems guns have, they are a necessity to liberty in a world of guns. He does concede however, that if the gun market of trade between countries was stopped and the military was reduced, then the need for an individual to bear arms would be reduced.

He is not shy to bring forward doubts and question the 'facts' divulged by the government. One aspect in particular which tends to give him a lot of heat is when he brings up 9/11. Virtually every time the discussion is brought up it becomes an offensive assault on Ventura, calling him a radicalist, anti-American, insensitive to the victims families, pro Muslim and insane. The simple act of asking questions, to research the tragedy, to enquire deeper than the government wants leads to outrage by the majority. Why is this? Simple, two reasons: One, They have been so mind-washed about the incident that the very act of questioning it is in complete violation of the people of America. They see it as an insult of the highest order to the people who lost family and friends in the tragedy, and hear instant alarm bells about those questioning it. Particularly because a large portion of people who have questioned the trade centre bombings have been made to look insane. In most cases they purposely choose people who are unusual to highlight the distinction between 'rational' and 'irrational'. And two, To think that the government orchestrated the bombings is to question everything about the country you live in. If you are of the opinion that you are living in the best country in the world, that simple question is so disturbing that you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears than listen to the implication. To consider that the government is willing to go to such lengths to control and profit from people's liberties being taken away, is to know how vulnerable you are. The counter argument would be; if they are willing to go to such extremes to do this, what will they do to those who disagree?

In many ways he holds onto a lot of the values that Ron Paul has, and in many ways i admire the man. One problem I have with him though, is that he supports Trump. Why oh why?