Democracy or Corporatocracy?

Generally we tend to believe that, in the different countries, those who hold power are the officials that make up the entire structure of the State; presidents, senators, congressmen, judges, ministers, diplomats and an infinity of other bureaucratic positions, and this is partly the case, but in practice the State is not the only one that holds power, there are certain institutions that are of vital importance and that they possess power or influence by themselves, as for example; the media, corporations, banks, among many others. All power groups have interests, and they generally use their power to influence the decisions of the state.

In modern representative democracy systems these power groups continue to exist, and although we think that all of them, "the rich and powerful", have the same interests, in practice this is not the case, each group has its interests and apparently each one of them naturally wants to increase their power and influence, however, in these "democratic" systems there seems to be a kind of implicit contract between the different power groups, in which they undertake to play according to certain rules, if two of these factions support different candidates for the next elections, the loser must settle for that situation until the next elections, although he will try to use his other letters to hinder the government and get his goal as soon as possible.

So, taking into account this, we must know that an individual simply by occupying a position of "power", such as the presidency of the nation, does not necessarily indicate that he has the power, really his power is very limited, sometimes he can't even do things for which he is legally authorized, hence there are more powerful presidents than others in the same country.

In the United States, for example, not all presidents have been equally powerful, it would be foolish to think that Herbert Hoover had the same capacity to exercise power as his successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the latter could magnify the state from which his power emanated legally, and managed to establish himself in the presidential chair for 12 years, only being stopped for his death, and facing before it a war in which the United States would proclaim itself as the main world power.

The same happens in the opposite way, an individual who does not have a position of power does not necessarily indicate that he has no power, or is it that someone believes that during the government of Dmitri Medvedev, in Russia, Vladimir Putin gave all the power and influence that had he gotten in the State?

For example, during the years 51 to 47 BC, the Pharaoh of Egypt was Ptolemy XIII, a twelve-year-old who had inherited the throne after the death of his father, however, he maintained a conflictual relationship with his sister, Cleopatra VII, with whom he had been forced to marry. As it is to be supposed, Ptolemy XIII was not the one who really ruled Egypt, since he was very young and easily manipulated, so it was practically controlled by three councilors; a eunuch named Pothinus, the general Achillas and the rhetorician Theodotus. Being on their advice that Ptolemy XIII expelled his sister from the throne and forced her into exile. Later Cleopatra manages to win the favor of Julius Caesar, who had had problems with Ptolemy because he ordered to decapitate Pompey, an action that was advised by Pothinus.

This historical account shows perfectly how during this period, in Egypt, the Pharaoh did not rule, but it was Pothinus who ruled by whispering in Pharaoh's ear, making him enter into conflict with his sister, to later overthrow her and send her into exile, and then by demanding Pompey's head.

The power is represented by men with weapons, because ultimately they are the ones who appear to have the power, since they have the ability to decide between taking or not a life.

But it is very important to understand the implicit psychology that is present in the social organization, because even if the soldiers have weapons, they will only use them under the orders they receive from a hierarchical structure that serves larger interests.

Take for example a company, in it you can find at the top of the pyramid the shareholders, then the president and the board of directors will come, then the managers, supervisors, and finally the employees who don't have subordinates in their charge. In this case, all the power of the president and the board of directors emanates from the shareholders, since they are the ones who have appointed them to lead the organization, their job depends on them. The power of the managers is an extension of the power that the shareholders have delegated to the managers, and following this same current, the supervisors are the same as the managers to the directors. In this way, the responsibility that comes with having power is spread as if it were a cascade. The closer you are to the shareholders, the more power in the organization you will have.

In modern society these shareholders are as present as in a company, they do not appear in the payroll, but they determine to their liking the board of directors and the president, seeking to maximize the profits to collect dividends at the end of the year.

It's what I like to call the Corporatocracy...

Don't you think it's strange how the directors and executives of the big corporations come in and out of State positions as if they were crossing a revolving door?

They are the officials of the high corporatist government, directed from the big banks, instead of noble titles they transfer power through money and the influence of large corporations. A feudal lord does not differ much from the owner of a large monopoly corporation held exclusively by laws, favors and juicy state contracts.

Throughout history organizations have had kings, emperors, dictators, aristocrats and many other forms of rulers, in all of them, these rulers took charge of their responsibilities, because like a president in a company, their interests they are intimately linked to the success of the organization.

Well, as we can read in the history books, despite his bad government Louis XVI of France faced his execution: "Gentlemen, I am innocent of everything of which I am accused. I hope that my blood may cement the good fortune of the French." Those were his words before he was guillotined.

The executioner then said: "(The king) bore all this with a composure and a firmness which has surprised us all. I remained strongly convinced that he derived this firmness from the principles of the religion by which he seemed penetrated and persuaded as no other man."

The rulers of the old school, Tyrants or not, seemed obliged to take responsibility for the actions taken during their term in office.

Very different from the current panorama, where the leaders of the increasingly decadent western democracies don't in any way be responsible for their actions, and that far from solving a problem, they are not in charge but to increase them, sinking more nations every day , without providing any real solution. These shareholders govern the social organization in the same way as a corporation, changing the leaders in favor of their interests, and if at a certain moment it is necessary, they don't mind sending everything to ruin in order to obtain profits from it. There remains for history the countless economic crises, like the one of 2008, provoked by them to obtain profits from the misery of the people.

As I said, power ultimately resides in who has the ability to apply force...

But men with the ability to use force are usually linked to certain organizations, such as the State, which through the Army and Police has a legal monopoly on violence. However, these men theoretically follow a code of ethics, and follow the command dictated by the structure of the organization they make up. But in practice, each of the men who make up all these institutions, worship and persecute in most cases the same goal; money...

If people lose their values they become corruptible for money, if they are willing to do everything for money, then they can submit willingly and serve as a vassal to those who control the source of the money.

"He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money."
Benjamin Franklin

When the divine aristocracies criticized the speculative merchants and the prostitutes, they did not criticize the work they did, as if that work were something degrading in itself, but they belittled them because the people who did those works did it exclusively for money, forcing themselves to perform unwanted work only to win the favor of those who had money, thus becoming slaves of the material.

At present, many are able to do anything for money.

I use this analogy before, it's like everybody's got a money attachment to it, and you think you don't but you do.

If I said to you; "Let me punch you in the face," you’d say no.

"Let me give you $100."

"Get out of here, what are you talking about"

"Let me give you $1,000."

"No!"

"Let me give you $10,000."

You’d say "What?"

"Let me give you $50,000 if you’ll allow me to slug you in the face."

Now you’re thinking. What was a minute ago, "Get out of here," is now like; "Where would you hit me?" So you realize that something you initially would have thought there’s no way, now there’s a way. If everyone is tempted with this amount of money, what changes in our moral levels would we allow to happen?

---

Bryan Cranston.

Most people choose money before power, they confuse one thing with other, which allows the corporatists to buy politicians and get the influence they need in the State, after all, the money is coveted by almost everyone, so having it gives some influence and status in society, but for men with real power, money is nothing more than the mechanism by which they use people.

And I don't try to say that money is negative or that it is bad in itself, cause money is only an instrument, both to trade and to enslave, you decide if you want to trade with it or subordinate yourself to it.

The greater the number of people who are subordinated to money, the greater the power of the corporatocracy.

This is how these men by controlling the monetary issue manage to seize everything, and then use the media to shape public opinion, and then use their influence in the State to make the changes they need to make, using the money to lubricate the economic and political machinery with the objective of fomenting war and seeing their interests fulfilled.

These shareholders never pay for their actions, they never put all the eggs in one basket, they finance both sides of the war and any type of political conflict, and regardless of who the winner is they will always have a debt to collect.

What I try to tell you is that the democratic political system that we suffer today is nothing more than a room of mirrors, a smokescreen, a buffoon, it is the carrot that is put in front of the horse to deceive people and that believes that it is "free" because once every four years he puts a paper in an box. Who really governs is capital, and this is not a ghostly entity that does not know very well where it comes from or where it goes, crony capitalism like international finance, they have a name and surname, they are the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs, Goldman Sach, George Soros, etc., and of all the organizations of which they are owners and lords, the International Bank, the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the IMF, the World Bank or the Bank for International Settlements, they control the money and they are the ones who really govern.

Politicians are nothing more than the messengers and officials of the corporatocracy, and although from time to time an honest politician emerges who climbs meteorically and gains power thanks to his political cunning and popular support, he will soon succumb to persuasion or threat of the corporatocracy, if he does not subordinate himself to it, then he will soon come across the wall of reality, he will not have the control of the armed men, the intelligence agencies of an autonomous nature instead of helping him, they will conspire against him , the interests of the banks will increase, the unemployment will grow and the economy will go into recession, which will force it to surrender or take extreme measures assuming that it has the support of the parliament and a few judges, in such a way that the media will try to qualify him as authoritarian or dictator, which will close international doors, which will hasten his departure from office in one way or other.

As you can see, a political position does not grant power, but power is what gives the political position, power resides in various institutions and people who have control of these institutions, many of them are not even under the control of the State, because that supposes that the politicians have the power, something that is not like that, even the most powerful institution is not even slightly controlled by the government; the money…