Corporate Counter-Democracy

You have people in The United States who have tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars on the line when it comes to what American policies are going to be. They have so much at stake. If you imagine for a second that they're going to leave the decision for who's going to make policy up to the general public, you're out of your mind. And if you think that the one that the general public selects is actually the one who determines what the policy is, you're out of your mind. They have done everything they can to prevent there being any kind of democracy in The United States.

This is what I'm trying to explain. They never believed in democracy. They never believed in this because it's a very bad idea. No one ever believed in this. They believed in in democracy in terms of who gets to select who the leader will be.

That that should be pulled from a very small group of people. The The people of influence in the society decide who will be the leader. That is the system that they always believed in and that's the system that they have. If you actually believe that these people whose influence in society and whose stake in what policies are going to be, if you imagine for a moment that they're leaving that up to you, well, you're out of your mind. It's all a charade and all the the the only thing that can keep it going.

And the reason that they wanna keep it going is particularly so that you never look at where the real power is. So that you always think that you're a participant and its power of the people and so forth. Precisely because they have disempowered you and that's what they've always believed. So no. It's not that they that they that that democracy is the best system for the West or it's the best system that we have and so forth.

They never thought it was and that's why they don't have it. And they've done everything possible because they did put it on paper. They did put it on paper. So they found every means of avoiding it. They found every means of evading it and preserving or or rather rescuing power from ever being at risk of democracy actually breaking out in The United States.

Theoretically, the myth goes, you know, that someone who's a a very average normal blue collar American, can potentially be president of The United States. Well, that's, you know, that's as likely as you be it's it's even less likely as you becoming a Olympic gold medalist. You haven't had an American president who was not a millionaire since Harry Truman. I think at more than half of the of the US Congress, there were millionaires. And the rest of them, the other the other 49% or 48% or whatever of the US Congress, they're in the top 5% income bracket in The US.

And they were before they were politicians. You have to be rich already. You already have to be rich if you wanna be a politician. If you wanna be a so called representative of the people, you have to be someone who has nothing in common whatsoever financially with the rest of the population. You don't have a chance.

I mean, look at what's going on now just with Jill Stein and how impossible. Everyone everyone knows she's not gonna win. Everyone knows she can't even get on the ballot in in several states. This is your democracy. South Africa is a far far more democratic system than America, far more democratic.

In reality, it's more democratic than The United States. You have multiple parties. Even Malaysia or Indonesia, you have multiple parties that can run for office, and you don't need millions upon millions of dollars to run a campaign. I mean, you need hundreds of thousands of dollars just to run a campaign on the local level. Forget about on the national level.

If you're running on the national level, you need millions. You need tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Because again, this is this is an example of who's actually making the decisions, who's actually making the policy. If the people who've got the hundreds of millions and the billions of dollars and the the reason why they even bother spending that money on controlling your politicians is because, as I say, they have a much higher stake in the way policy is going to go, and there is no way in the world that they're gonna leave that, to the rank and file American citizen to decide what policy is going to be or who is going to be the one who's in the, office to, determine what policy is going to be. They don't even trust the one that they put in office to be the one to determine what policy is going to be.

They have to tell him or her, dictate to them what the policy is going to be. They have to make sure that we can buy them off completely to make sure that they will be loyal to our interests. And like I've talked about many times, America does nothing but interfere with democracies or with elections rather all around the world. Since 1945, they've interfered in in in dozens upon dozens of elections. What makes you think that they're not controlling the outcome of the election in The United States?

Why that's not intelligent. If you think that they're not, running the election in The United States and determining what the outcome is when they determine the outcome in country after country after country all around the world, You think that it's that that they that they have a hands off policy in the most important election, the most the the the election that has the most impact on their interest, but they're but they're making sure that they determine the outcome of an election in Micronesia, but they're not gonna bother about what the outcome of what what the outcome of the election in The United States? No. This is just very foolish. You're incredibly naive and gullible.

If you think that there's any conspiracy theory aspect to the most powerful interest in The United States controlling the outcome of an election, when we know that they control the outcome of elections in country after country after country and always have, but somehow you think that they have a hands off policy in America. Well, that's just not intelligent, I'm afraid.