Well, they never asked me anything.
I see America taking up weapons to destroy one country after another...Afghanistan, Irak, Lybia... and the ultimate goal seems 'to bring 'Democracy'.
All people take it for granted that this is a good thing.
Why does America want to bring democracy in so many countries? (*)
The answer is easy if you take a close look at the American government.
A democracy can be ruled by the Media.
And if the Media don't do the trick, then the campaign money will do the trick.
And if that is not enough, then the Lobbyists will do it.
Now we are in jewish territory: Media, money and lobbying.
After ages of Talmud studies and a tradition of brilliant students marrying the daughters of rich men, jews have bread a group of people with a verbal IQ of 128.
That is why they have so many good journalists and authors.
I believe that almost all jewish journalists are honest people.
Not at all part of a conspiracy.
But everybody can be steered and influenced. If you are given the impression that it may cost you your job, you may forget about an article, or change some lines.
(Dan Rather, Investigator Pilger, Donahue, Derbyshire)
It is an undisputed fact that virtually all Media in the West are owned by powerful jews, and if they are not then they are owned by goyim who know very well that to criticise jewish power will undoubtedly lead to their end.
Not to mention Jewish Power and not to criticise Israel will, on the contrary, strengthen every Media enterprise that is owned by a non jew.
(So far for the question if Rupert Murdoch is jewish. It's not important. As long as he is pro Israel, he's a winner. Alan Hart had a fine article about that).
Journalists are not very often censored, but being critical about jews does their career a lot of harm. ( Derbyshire)
A journalists who wants to find out the truth about 911 is also making a very bad career-move. No more than 2 articles per year about the 911 Truth movement, that is all that can be tollerated.
As long as the truth is mentioned very few times, and the lies are repeated often enough, people will believe the lies. ( onderzoek 10%, evolutieonair beter om de massa te volgen )
I have read once that already around 1850 the majority of newspapers in America were controlled by jewish people. Around the same time a German author, Wilhelm Marrs, wrote that the German papers were jewish dominated.( MacDonald) ( Marr)
But it is not only the journalists, but also academia that is very much influenced by the jewish point of view. Read Israel Shamir's Masters of Discours. ( Citation 1.)
One example: After 100 years it has become completely unknown that the Russian Revolution was a jewish initiative, done by jewish people with money from American bankers. In the 1920 it was common knowledge. Now we all think that the jews were the biggest victims of communism. All evidence shows us that it is just the other way around. ( Blog) ( Slezkine ; Solzhenytzyn.)
Another example: Everybody knows that 6 million jews were gassed in Nazi Germany with Zyklon B, and that only fools will doubt this. The reality is very different. It is probable that jews were gassed, but probably less than 2 millions, and most by diesel exhaust. Most jews died from exhaustion and contageaous illnesses. If you would start to read about it you would be very surprised how little evidence there is. There are hundreds of witnesses that have seen or worked in gas chambers in concentrationcamps of whom we now know that these camps never had gaschambers. So all these eye-witnesses cannot build real proof. ( David Cole. Donahue; Peter Myers. Fritjoff. )
So these 2 examples show that the Media can form our world view, but although every normal person we know has the same view, it can still be a completely false view.
Lets keep that in mind.
Bertrand Russels formulated it like this: "There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action".
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: "Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask: by whom has it been elected and to whom is it responsible? ( Speech at Harvard, 8 juni 1978.)
I say: be warned.
So, if your friends own the Media, then a democracy is a perfect state-system for them.
You can induce any opinion that you like, just by promoting it. Or by villifying people with the opposite opinion, as they did with people who questioned mass immigration in the seventies and eighties: they were all secret fascists. (Adorno.)
But still you will have to have members of the public ( who are not all of them insiders in your group) that will be chosen. How can you prevent them from harming your goal ?
Well, the jews in America have found a solution to that problem.
It is very clear to every member of Parliament that if he would criticise Israel or utter criticism on 'the jewish case' in America, it will be the end of his political career.
What they will do is this: at the next elections they will support the opponent of this MP with such a lot of money, that he will always win. They will fund smear campaigns to this critic of Israel. They will invent sexual misbehavior or suspicions about this MP.
In a Dutch documentary this mechanism was explained very clearly by a few people, also by the famous jewish historian Tony Judt. (Massing ; Judt )
And finally: in a democracy the lobbyists have a lot of influence. This means: money will have a lot of influence, not the happyness of the public, or the interest of the voters.
In a democracy it is possible thast after 12 years of lobbying at a cost of 300 million $ ( which is 500.000 $ per MP and Senator, the law is changed and the Glass-Steagal Act is repealed. The repeal of this Act ( that was installed after the Great Depression in 1932) made the 2008-2012 crisis possible.
This crisis which made the bankers rich and taxpayers all over the world poor, was not a mistake. It was meant to happen. It brings many countries under the power of the bankers. See the documentary ( oscar winner in 2011) 'Inside job' by Charles Ferguson.
So, in general, when your own people have huge verbal IQ,and when your own people have a lot of money that they can use to 'steer' politicians, democracy is your best bet.
There is of course also another possible reason.
If not to 'bring democracy', what other seemingly noble cause could these American agressors use to invade a country ?
George Soros had this idea about 'Responsability to protect ', but in the case of Libya NATO decided to protect people that were not attacked. The 6000 dead people as a result of a bombing were never proved.(Robert Gates) It was a lie just like the incubator babies who made the first Gulf War possible. (Wiki) ( Video) And the WMD's which made the destruction of Irak possible. ( Israel) ( Rome CIA) ( CIA Rome) ( Wesley Clark ) ( Neocon philosophy: red text.)
Libya by the way, was not as much a dictatorship as we think it was. Ghadaffi had given enormous power to the committee's of the people. He himself was 'the guide of the people'. Not long ago Ghadaffi was fed up with the corruption in his country and decided to give the oil revenues directly to the committee's. I am not sure if it all was as nice as it looks here, but we know that life for the Libyans was a lot better than for half of the Americans: every Libyan has a house, good scholing for free and free health care.
Lets look at it from another angle.
If you don't have a democracy, you may have a dictator, or a political party like in communism.
In a dictatorship and in a communist society it is obvious that 'the people' are not deciding what is going to happen. People have the idea that they are not in controle of their own lives.
In our countries we have the idea that we are free, and that our press is free. So we have all the time the idea that we are partly in controle. We are therefore partly responsable if it goes wrong. So even now that it all goes wrong, no demonstrations happen in the streets.
This is an enormous advantage of this so called democratic system.
The founder of neoconservatism was pro democracy, but also gave politicians the advise to mislead the people: all in the people's own interest, of course....... ( Neocon philosophy: red text.)
That is why they went to Iraq in 2003 for reasons that were all lies.
Was this in the interest for the American people? Or was it in the interest of the Neocons, an essentially jewish organisation with many dual-citizin members ( American and Israeli) .
This is what one of them said very candidly : Zoellick: Why would Iraq attack America...
(*) Note that they do not want to bring it to their good friends in Saudi Arabia, or Bahrein, or Kuwait.
Note also that they want to eliminate Hamas and Iran's government, although they were chosen by democratic elections....