The Truth About American Freedom and Democracy | Shahid Bolsen

As an American, we grew up with a constant drumbeat telling us what a great country America is because it's so free and boasts so many freedoms. This is the ultimate example of a misconception: America, the land of the free. This phrase is completely meaningless. Ask an American what they mean by freedom. What do you mean by the freedom you have that others don’t? The average American citizen has less freedom than any random villager in Indonesia or Ghana or anywhere else in the Global South.

» What do you mean by the freedom you have that others don’t? «

What freedom are you even talking about? Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. For many, missing even one paycheck means being thrown out onto the street. That’s the reality. You don’t just have one master in America when it comes to your slavery. We talk about debt slavery, wage slavery, and so on. Your employer is your master. Your student loan officer is your master. Your landlord is your master. The credit card bureau is your master. Your mortgage loan officer is your master. Your insurance adjuster, your Health Maintenance Organization, the Internal Revenue Service, your credit card company—they are all your masters. In America, you are a slave with many masters, and they all have their chains on you, each with their own lash to use on your back. So what freedom do you have?

 

» In America, you are a slave with many masters. «

You have more laws and regulations in America than in any other country in the world. The average American's daily life is governed, influenced, restricted, or determined by tens of thousands of laws and regulations—upwards of 50,000 to 100,000 rules at the municipal, state, and federal levels—not to mention the rules imposed by your employer. Most of these rules exist under the pretense of making society better and protecting you, but the truth, known by any American who is paying attention, is that these rules exist primarily to generate revenue for the enforcing bodies through fines and fees. That’s the real purpose behind most of these regulations. It's not about health, safety, or security; it is just about making money off you.

And in this so-called great democratic country, you have no say in how any of that money is spent. You have no say in how the funds collected from you are utilized. So I ask again: what freedom do you really have? What freedom is so special and unique? Honestly, none. Zero. There are no freedoms you have in America, that are not available elsewhere. And there are freedoms elsewhere that you do not have in America. But they constantly tell you how free you are, implying that every other country is an oppressive tyranny where no one can do anything. 

 

» And there are freedoms elsewhere that you do not have in America. «

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Americans never leave the country, so they don’t even know what life is like anywhere else. Western civilization has never truly believed in freedom as the highest value. That’s the reality they don’t want you to know. It’s just part of the sales pitch to convince you how wonderful your society is. If you trace back to the alleged philosophical roots of Western civilization in ancient Greece, the philosophers they tout as inspiration—Aristotle, Plato—did not subscribe to this belief in unqualified freedom. The true foundation of Western thought has always been more authoritarian and classist than liberal and democratic. They prioritized order and the security of the status quo over liberty and freedom. They always believed in power being held by the elite. If you actually read these philosophers, whether they are Greek, Enlightenment thinkers, or the so-called founding fathers, you will see the lineage of thought behind the modern Western power structure. They sell the public an idea of freedom, but anyone with common sense knows that you can’t base an organized society solely on liberty and the so-called sovereignty of the individual.

 

» The entire democratic mechanism is designed to marginalize the population. «

Anyone who thinks about it for more than five seconds realizes this. How long would such a society even last? But the government and the power structure don’t even respect the population enough to tell you that. They don’t want you to understand the real system you live in. Instead, they tell you how free you are and indulge your fantasies because they perceive you as childlike. That’s why they don’t educate people properly. The level of idiocy imposed upon the public in America is astronomical. You might point to the freedom to criticize the government or to protest. But they only grant you the freedom to protest in a 'democracy' when they aren’t actually providing you with democracy. Think about it: why would you need to go out into the streets to demand change if you have a functioning democracy? If political mechanisms exist to meet your demands, why protest? Because your government ignores you. That’s why. Your freedom to protest and to criticize the government just means you have the freedom not to be listened to. In fact, democracies have perfected the exclusion of the population from policy-making decisions. The entire democratic mechanism is designed to marginalize the population.

 » Anyone who thinks about it for more than five seconds realizes this. «

Right now, they have you focused on the election, thinking about who will win, who to vote for, or who to vote against, while real power is completely removed from that process. They have distracted you from where real power lies because they have convinced you how free and democratic your society is, which, in practical terms, means you have no power whatsoever. You have no voice. That is why it doesn’t matter when you protest in the street; it matters no more than casting a vote in a ballot box. Both actions hold equal significance regarding policy outcomes. It starts from the misconception that your so-called civilization ever believed in freedom, liberty, and democracy. Those who rule over you never believed in that for a moment. What you have is the system they intended you to have—a system where power is held by the elite and the population is completely disempowered.

Quoted from:
Shahid Bolsen (October 26, 2024) - They Never Intended For You To Be Free. (video)

 

 What a spectacle.

The Sixth Wave and 2032.95 | Martin Armstrong

Here is the Economic Confidence Model at the very high end to all the questions about how high up the fractal structure can be defined.

 Martin Armstrong's Fractal Design of Time.

We are in the grand Public Wave overall that peaks in 2032.95. This is the equivalent of the wave that picked the Peak of Rome in 175 AD. So here, too, this is a wave where the government will fight very hard to hold control, for that is the dominant 309.6 character, while the final wave on the next fractal level is a Private Wave of 51.6 years. This is the people fighting back as they lose confidence in the government. The two forces are at war right now. The worse the environment becomes for the people, the more authoritarian governments will become. Each wave of 8.6 also alters back and forth between Public and Private.

This is why I warn it is time to try to reduce the amplitude by waking up. We achieved this briefly with the Age of Enlightenment. Government then fought back and reclaimed control. We replaced monarchy with ministers. Nothing changed otherwise. We will fight the good fight once again and seek to triumph with a new age of Enlightenment. Will we win? Who knows. But we have to try. What comes after 2032 is a private wave – the opportunity to reclaim our liberty once again. Here is that chart.

 

 » It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy. The people have no right to vote on critical issues.  

Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government. «

The last Sixth Wave marked the peak of the Roman Empire. Every historian has drawn the line to mark the beginning of the Fall of Rome took place with the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD. Talk about almost getting to a new age, he sent an ambassador to China. This has been revealed by books from the Tang Dynasty. The East and West knew each other. Merchants ran the trade routes. This would have been the beginning of a major global economy back in 180 AD. Marcus’ death ended the golden age and expansion of the world economy. He was followed by his crazy son, Commodus. With the death of Commodus, the Praetorian Guard actually auctioned off the position of emperor to the highest bidder. Since he was just nuts, they got to rule Rome, and it went to the heads, to the point that corruption was in the open.

 

» Our idea of managing our political-social-economy. «

I have told the story of how I used to meet with people who wanted to run for President at the behest of those in the Republican Party. Then in 1999, I was asked to fly down to Texas to meet with George Bush, Jr. I was told that this was different. They had me meet with various potential candidates to vet them out and give my opinion if they could handle the job from understanding the global economy. So what was different with Bush, Jr., was the fact they told me he was “stupid.” I was shocked. I asked why would you want to make someone stupid president? I was told he had the “name.” That is when they asked me to be the chief economist in the White House. I declined, for our business was way too global for that. They told me the plan was to surround him with good people. That is how Cheney took the role of President and moved his office in the White House.

 » The 8.6 year frequency is fractal in nature and it may indeed 

work from different dates other than the formal dates we show on the ECM. «

I have been told similar traits with Obama. He was told they would let him play with the social stuff but leave everything else to them. The bureaucracy tasted power under Bush, and they were not about to let that go. Obama missed more than 60% of his daily security briefings. Biden is, at best, a part-time president who no one believes is truly running the nation because he simply is not mentally capable of doing so. This is the Praetorian Guard running the world.

Quoted from:
Martin A. Armstrong (June 4, 2024) - The Major Fractal Wave of the Economic Confidence Model & 2032.95.

 

» By no means try to use this for a individual market unless that market lines up with the ECM. «

The Destruction of the United States as we know it | Martin Armstrong

I have studied many forms of government. I have found that Republics have always crumbled to dust because they are the most corrupt form of government one can create. Even a Dictatorship or Monarchy is never so corrupt, for they are not suspectable to bribery as Republics. The criticism of Democracy has come from the Greek philosophers who saw the people as too stupid to make decisions. Our representatives look down upon us the same way. 

 

 » If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, 

you will succumb in every battle. «
Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

Many wanted to believe that the Roman Republic was a democracy. Yet, this democracy was a total facade, for it was always under aristocratic rule – not the common people. We too live in a facade where they tell us who is the enemy and we are expected to fight and die who their pleasure. We have no right to vote should we go to war against Russia or China. Rome was the same way. The people had no real rights in this regard.

Assuming they do not take up Alexander Soros’ bold implicate to assassinate Trump so he can flood the United States with his Open Society that disregards culture, religion, and ethics, the computer is forecasting a tumultuous post-2024 election in 2025. History repeats for human nature never changes. What we will see post-2024 is the destruction of the United States as we know it.

Quoted from:
Martin Armstrong (Mar 05, 2024) - The 2024 Election – Will Your Vote Even Matter? 

 

See also:

L. David Linsky (2023) - War and Regime Change soon in the US?

The Liberal Political Theology | Neema Parvini

Neema Parvini (2022) - From the realist perspective of [Carl] Schmitt, there is no structural difference between the liberal state, the communist state, and the fascist state — or indeed any other state. The only difference is the extent to which a regime may obscure the nature of its power or else genuinely buy into myths of neutrality. Viewed in this way, a state wedded to liberal democracy is as ‘totalitarian’ as any other since, by its very nature, it will be unable to tolerate any leaders who are not always already liberal democrats. 

 

"Liberalism is to freedom as anarchism is to anarchy." — Ernst Jünger, 1977

 

Should such leaders rise, the stalwarts of liberal democracy will perceive them as ‘populists’, ‘fascists’, ‘threats to democracy’, and so on. The extent of free speech, free inquiry, free thought, and so on is a liberal delusion. In fact, the range of ‘allowable opinion’ is always exceedingly narrow and the liberal democratic state is marked by its intolerance and spectacular inability to imagine any worldview that is not its own. The dominance of liberal political theology is total. Schmitt would not have disagreed with Oswald Spengler who wrote in The Decline of the West:

"England, too, discovered the ideal of a Free Press, and discovered along with it that the press serves him who owns it. It does not spread ‘free’ opinion — it generates it. […] Without the reader’s observing it, the paper, and himself with it, changes masters. Here also money triumphs and forces the free spirits into its service. No tamer has his animals more under his power. Unleash the people as reader-mass and it will storm through the streets and hurl itself upon the target indicated, terrifying and breaking windows; a hint to the press-staff and it will become quiet and go home. The Press today is an army with carefully organized arms and branches, with journalists as officers, and readers as soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and war aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined. Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is only a willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty."

As Edward Bernays would go on to say these ‘are the invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. […] In some department of our daily lives, in which we imagine ourselves as free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power.’ The point is that viewed from the outside, liberal democracy looks just as ‘totalitarian’ as any other regime even if it relies more on subtle persuasion, nudge techniques, and other psychological tricks than coercion to obtain its results.

Quoted from:
Neema Parvini (2022) - The Populist Delusion

The Rulers and the Ruled | Gaetano Mosca

Gaetano Mosca (1896) - Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most casual eye. In all societies — from all societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies — two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

 

[...] In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in concert and have a mutual understanding simply because they are a hundred and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political community, the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the governed majority be, and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority.

"I can certainly call myself an anti-democrat, but I am not an anti-liberal;
indeed I am opposed to pure democracy precisely because I am a liberal.
I believe that the ruling class ought not to be monolithic and homogeneous
but ought to consist of elements which are diverse in regard to origin and
interests; when, instead, political power originates from a single source,
even if this be elections with universal suffrage, I regard it as dangerous
and liable to become oppressive. Democratic Jacobinism is an illiberal
doctrine precisely because it subordinates everything to a single force,
that of the so-called majority, on which it does not set any limits."

[...] What happens in other forms of government — namely, that an organized minority imposes its will on the disorganized majority — happens also and to perfection, whatever the appearances to the contrary, under the representative system. When we say that the voters ‘choose’ their representative, we are using a language that is very inexact. The truth is that the representative has himself elected by the voters, and, if that phrase should seem too inflexible and too harsh to fit some cases, we might qualify it by saying that his friends have him elected. In elections, as in all other manifestations of social life, those who have the will and, especially, the moral, intellectual and material means to force their will upon others take the lead over the others and command them.

[...] From our point of view there can be no antagonism between state and society. The state is to be looked upon merely as that part of society which performs the political function. Considered in this light, all questions touching interference or noninterference by the state come to assume a new aspect. Instead of asking what the limits of state activity ought to be, we try to find out what the best type of political organization is, which type, in other words, enables all the elements that have a political significance in a given society to be best utilized and specialized, best subjected to reciprocal control and to the principle of individual responsibility for the things that are done in the respective domains.

"Who says organization, says oligarchy. [...] Historical evolution mocks all the
prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
Robert Michels, 1911

[...] Any political organization is both voluntary and coercive at one and the same time — voluntary because it arises from the very nature of man, as was long ago noted by Aristotle, and coercive because it is a necessary fact, the human being finding himself unable to live otherwise. It is natural, therefore, and at the same time indispensable, that where there are men there should automatically be a society, and that when there is a society there should also be a state — that is to say, a minority that rules and a majority that is ruled by the ruling minority.

Quoted from:
Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Ruling Class (Elementi di scienza política).

See also:

 Robert Michels (1915) - Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie).
Vilfredo Pareto (1916) - The Mind and Society (Trattato di sociologia generale).

“Wealth will not help a pilot to navigate his ship.”

“Out of Oligarchy arises Democracy”

Plato's Republic (Book VIII - 380 B.C.E.):

[...] What manner of government do you term oligarchy? 
A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it. [...] Oligarchy is more or less exclusive; and they allow no one whose property falls below the amount fixed to have any share in the government. These changes in the constitution they effect by force of arms, if intimidation has not already done their work.

[...] How does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise?
Democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power. [...] That is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw. [...] The people, consisting of those who work with their own hands, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.