In the past few years the phrase “our democracy” has gained near-universal currency in the West. Politicians and media talking heads continually invoke “our democracy” when urging or discouraging action on this or that significant political initiative. Every crisis is a “threat to our democracy.” Any reformer with a conservative agenda is charged with “attempting to overthrow our democracy”. Major political leaders sound the alarm about the need to “save our democracy.”
But what does saving Our Democracy™ actually involve?
In Ukraine, to cite one example, democracy is saved by not holding elections. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s term expired a while back, but there will be no new elections until the war with Russia is over. Somehow the West managed to hold elections during World Wars One and Two, but the Ukrainians are incapable of doing something similar.
Democracy is also being saved in Ukraine by banning opposition political parties, closing down Russian Orthodox churches, and jailing Mr. Zelensky’s political opponents. Evidently democracy can only thrive in a one-party state where all dissenting points of view are suppressed.
But that’s Ukraine, which is not, strictly speaking, Western. What about the bastions of the Free World that lie further west and across the Atlantic pond?
Opposition to mass immigration is the most frequently cited “danger to democracy” in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States. Those who want to close the borders and stop illegal immigration are identified as “far right” and denounced as “populists”. But populists are political leaders who want to do what is popular, that is, what the people want. Why isn’t that seen as the very essence of democracy? What could be more democratic than the popular will?
Ah, but you don’t understand what real democracy is. Real democracy isn’t about what the people want, but what the people need. Which, unfortunately, they are too stupid and too ignorant to figure out on their own. They need the help of their betters — who are not “populists” — to determine what is best for themselves.
The esteemed worthies who make those decisions are loosely classified as “stakeholders”. The system which uses their inputs and preferences to guide public policy is referred to in WEF-speak as “stakeholder capitalism”. Under stakeholder capitalism, a group of loosely-affiliated policy wonks collectively makes the decisions about what people will produce and consume, where they may live, how they must travel, and what their attitudes must be towards various protected identity groups.
Who are the stakeholders?
Besides elected political leaders, they include the heads of central banks and the managers of investment firms and hedge funds. Among them may be found the chairmen of the boards of major philanthropic organizations and charitable foundations.
The CEOs of large multi-national corporations are considered stakeholders. University presidents, prominent media figures, and the heads of large mainstream religious organizations are also included. Certain icons of popular culture may be welcomed into the ranks of the stakeholders, provided that they are rich enough, and their political views are considered acceptable.
Leaders of various NGOs and think tanks are prominent and vocal among the stakeholders. And representatives of the shadowy world of state security services and intelligence agencies make invaluable contributions once they have retired and become private contractors.
If they were in Russia, these estimable folks would be dismissed as “oligarchs”, but since they are in the West, they are considered “stakeholders”, and are valued members of the ruling class. Their job is to guide and direct the smooth functioning of political and cultural affairs.
The stakeholders guide the allocation of capital and the regulation of international finance. They decide which enterprises will be funded, and which will be starved of capital. Above all, their foremost goal is to Save the Planet.
When the stakeholders make all these important decisions, Our Democracy™ is said to be functioning correctly. When the demos — the lumpenproletariat to whom the populists appeal — are finally educated properly, they will no longer see the need for the selfish, racist practices of the past that populist demagogues have promoted.
That’s when true Utopian Democracy will be achieved.
to quote Benjamin Franklin, “A Republic madam, if you can keep it.” Our country is NOT a democracy, (or Demoncrazy) but a Republic that is founded on a bed of laws that will not change as long as we are a Republic. So happy fourth of July nd now go forth, in July, August, September …..
Dear non-American readers, the magical chant “we are not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic!” is the Boomer version of the Plains Indian Ghost Dance to bring back the buffalo.
Ironic when the generation that grew up chanting “Trust no one over thirty” wonders why no one under thirty wants to trust them.
The Night of the Fluffy Pillow approaches, and one of its most likely victims is likely to be the Joepedo.
Will it be Secretary Clinton in the Lincoln Bedroom with a Pillow?
as a subject in the fusa, i concur, a very astute observation.
If only they would apply the same standards and raise the same demands onto their beloved alien masses they summon upon us, and reject those who won’t comply with the same passion they have for us, there would be no need for this strife. But we can’t have that, or we would be out of the most effective phony accusation, racism.
In the Stalin picture (presumably propaganda) most of those people aren’t Russian. Shows the danger of conflating Russia with the Soviet Union.
Re: “But what does saving Our Democracy™ actually involve?”
The emerging “new world order” or NWO for short, and the technocrats and billionaire ‘stakeholders’ who will run it, use a variety of socially-aware, compassionate names for their project, many of which you have already mentioned. What could be a worthier goal than saving Mother Earth? Or having compassion for the downtrodden and poor of the world?
But this veneer of compassion and kindness hides an implacable ruthlessness and cruelty beneath it. This fact is betrayed by the statements of prominent globalists themselves, such as Yuval Harari, who called the vast majority of the Earth’s population of people “useless eaters,” and then went on to say that most of the people alive today are not needed.
The cabal of ultra-rich, ultra-powerful people and institutions which aspires to rule the world is not new; it has been around for well over a century, perhaps two-centuries depending on how one interprets the historical record. It has not engaged before in such openly hostile language to the remainder of humanity, however; what has changed?
In 1824, two-hundred years ago, human technological and other advancements had not progressed to such an extent that the ruling classes could do without the vast number of ordinary people to run society and civilization. A century later, in 1924, it had made vast strides, but was still not quite there.
But today, in 2024, human technological prowess has developed to such a degree that human beings are augmented or replaced in a great many occupations and jobs, and with artificial intelligence and robotics, that trend shows no sign of slowing down.
Clearly, the NWO the globalist oligarchs and stakeholders which to create, is technology-intensive in nature. It is highly dependent upon digital and other advanced forms of technology in order to function as its designers intend.
This is plainly apparent from the mass-surveillance and remote-sensing technology used to track and monitor the people – i.e., everything from license-plate readers to close-circuit TV cameras – down to newer items such as digital currency and mass use of biometric IDs.
Clearly, without these technologies, the NWO would be more-difficult to implement, let alone sustain – perhaps impossible in the way that the globalist overlords imagine.
But leaving that aside for the moment, dramatic advances in technology clearly drive much of the agenda 2030 movement and other similar globalist initiatives.
A second factor is intertwined with these emerging new technologies, and that is the role of military affairs in driving social organization. Dating back to the dawn of human civilization many thousands of years ago, how humans choose to live and how they structure their societies has been dictated at least in part by their security needs.
Over that vast time span, humans have always been front-and-center when it comes to waging war. Of war and humans it is said, “The ultimate trade, awaiting its ultimate practitioner…” Kings, emperors and rulers have always needed warriors – groups of armed men – in their armies. No tribal leader, king or the like, no matter how formidable, could defend his realm alone.
During the Middle Ages, kings led armies of mounted knights drawn largely from the nobility, but augmented by commoners as needed. But with advances in the technology and conduct of warfare, and the formation of nation-states, kings and other rulers found that small, elite, hand-picked forces of warriors were no longer enough to do the job. They needed much larger armies, and for that they needed the aid of commoners, ordinary people to fill out the ranks.
Since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, nation-states have relied upon large armies – often drawn from conscripts as well as professional military or warrior castes – to defend themselves and their kingdoms.
Fast-forward to the Second World War, however, and the future of warfare is starting to become apparent, glimpses of it anyway. That conflict saw the use of what became the cruise missile (the German V-1 rocket), the first ICBM (the V-2 missile), the first combat use of jet aircraft, nascent developments in night-vision technology, homing torpedoes, electro-mechanical computers, and most-importantly, atomic weapons.
These developments and many others have allowed modern nations to move away from mass-conscription as a model for their militaries, at least in many cases, and toward a smaller, highly-professionalized model instead. The current conflict in the Ukraine is resisting/reversing some of these trends, at least temporarily, but without more data it is difficult to determine if those changes are permanent or not.
The larger point is that since high-tech is making many prior forms of military forces and/or personnel redundant or even obsolete – or so the globalist oligarchs believe. Whether this trend has legs or not isn’t the point; the point is that the globalist oligarchs believe that it does – and are acting accordingly.
We can see this trend in the enormous interest in and use of unmanned aerial and other vehicles (UAVs), such as miniature drones over present-day battlefields. In 1990, the U.S. and one or two other advanced nations had operable drone forces; today no first-world military would consider being without them.
Swarms of drones proved to be decisive in the recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, won by Azerbaijan with assistance from Turkey, and they have proved to be of paramount importance in the Ukraine War as well.
There is one final frontier which has not yet been crossed, at least not yet in the public eye: The vast majority of today’s UAVs and drones are controlled by a data-link to the ground or some other base-station. That data-link may stretch half-way around the world, as in the case of some U.S. drone designs, but it is still there.
No drone yet operates completely independently of its controllers or its logistical supply. Once these barriers have been overcome, it would seem that the “age of Terminators” will be upon us, a.k.a. lethally-antonymous drones, robots and UAVs.
Today, as advanced as some of these systems have become, a human-being still makes the so-called “kill decision,” the decision whether or not to engage/destroy a target. “Lethal autonomy” as it is called, is not yet a reality, but it is edging closer by the day.
Returning to the NWO, the technological advances noted above have emboldened technocratic elites to make statements that humanity is no longer needed to the degree it once was. As cruel and ruthless as such statements are, they do provide an invaluable window into the thinking of these individuals. They seem to believe that because of high-tech, they are now invulnerable to physical threats or financial ones – and therefore no longer need the masses of humanity to protect them and their wealth.
But they will still need plumbers, brick layers, firefighters etc to build their palaces, surveillance centers etc.
And a brick layer needs a supporting infrastructure of getting the resources to make bricks. And this infrastructure needs other things to function.
Abd dont get me started on the infrastructure of electronics for their surveillance network.
But (and this is the devil on my shoulder talking) let them chop it all. And lets the infrastructure collapse (may take a few years as we dont build to last and therefore it will only last till one day after the warranty expired, planned obsolence anybody?) and we end up in the stone age. And then I want to see the face of Schwab, Gates, etc when all of their toys stop working and they realize that they need certain people with certain skills but they killed them all.
In a related note, have you ever noticed how often the ruling class and its members say things like, “Diversity is our greatest strength…”?
“Diversity” being their one of their terms for the massive social engineering project they are now engaged upon, the great replacement of the people of the West from the very civilization they have labored to create over more than a thousand years.
Consider the word “our” and its meaning in the context of what the globalists wish to do. Ordinarily, when having a conversation with someone, when that person says “our,” they mean the two of you talking to one another. Or at least that is the most-common assumption. But what if something else was meant?
What is meant by “diversity being ‘our’ strength” isn’t that it is a strength or advantage for ordinary people, but for the ruling classes and their supporters.
This linguistic sleight of hand may or may not be real, but it illustrates the point that when it comes to the globalist oligarchs and “stakeholders,” ordinary people ought to be very careful when listening to or reading statements by them. Why? Because those statements often provide a lesson in how to lie or prevaricate in plain sight.
When the word “stakeholders” comes up, I think of a group of people surrounding the coffin of Count Dracula ready to plunge their wooden staves in. Sadly in this case the holders are a decadent plutocratic elite and the unfortunate victim is the half dead body of the Western public.