Direct Democracy:
The Alternative to Globalist Plutocracy? Part 1

4,493 words

“The directors, when they meet, hold private discussions. In the case of such a powerful body there is also a central body which lays down basic policy. The influence of that central body, to say the least, must be great in our economic life. Nobody knows, however, what they discuss there. In the course of his speeches, Mr. Oppenheimer, the leader, makes political statements; he discusses political policy, he tries to exercise political influence. He even supports a political party. . . In other words he has political aims; he wants to steer things in a certain direction. He can secretly cause a great many things to happen. In other words, he can pull strings. With all that money power and with his powerful machine which is spread over the whole country, he can, if he so chooses, exercise enormous interference against the Government and against the state.” [1]

—Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, Prime Minister of South Africa

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [2]

—David Rockefeller

 “[T]oday we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites, but now they are composed of international businessmen, scholars, professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries, their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and as was true in the Middle Ages, it is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook.” [3]

—Zbigniew Brzezinski

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank…sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world. . . [4]

—Dr. Carroll Quigley

Western elites say we need to tolerate our corrupt, dysfunctional, and unrepresentative governments because democracy is better than all other forms of government that have been tried. But what if we haven’t actually tried democracy?

• The majority does not support anti-white identity politics.
• The majority does not support globalization and deindustrialization.
• The majority doesn’t want to compete with the Indian subcontinent for jobs and housing.
• The majority doesn’t want single-family housing to become an unaffordable investment vehicle for international real-estate speculators.
• The majority does not support bailouts for investment banks and billionaires.
• The majority does not support foreign military adventurism in the Middle East.
• The majority does not support the political persecution of dissidents or restrictions on free speech.
• The majority does not support affirmative action or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
• The majority does not support mass replacement migration. Nobody wants millions of Somalians in Minnesota or East Indians in Texas.

Majorities in essentially all Western nations have consistently opposed mass replacement migration for decades, but Western elites have consistently lied to their constituents and opened the floodgates to demographically transform their nations against their will.

Liberal internationalism does not enjoy majority support, and yet liberal internationalism is precisely what we get. Why?

Well, western governments are not democracies. They are liberal democracies, and as it turns out, this is one of those weird situations where the qualifier is much more meaningful than the word being qualified.

“Liberal democracy” broadly means a mixed constitution that incorporates elements of popular participation—i.e., elections—with liberal “rule of law” constitutionalism. While every liberal democratic state has its own constitution with its particular idiosyncrasies, this generally means legislative supremacy, an independent judiciary, the constitutional guarantee of civil liberties like property rights, an open multi-party political system with political and opposition rights, and various institutional checks and balances engineered to weaken the executive branch and prevent elected leaders from interfering with the rule of law and the so-called “open society.”

While Western states claim to be governed by the will of the people, the idea of democracy is really little more than a useful slogan that politicians exploit during electioneering. In practice, it is the liberal “rule of law” elements that are far more important. It is really the so-called rule of law and separation of powers that is why liberal democracy became the hallmark of the British and American empires, which spread liberal-democratic institutions around the globe specifically “to open [foreign] markets to trade and . . . investment.”[5]

This state form specifically traces to the English constitutional consensus established through the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when England’s parliamentary oligarchs expelled King James II and invited the Dutch banking dynast Prince William of Orange to rule in his stead as a limited monarch according to the terms of the Bill of Rights of 1689. Affirming the principles of parliamentary sovereignty, England officially became a “liberal protodemocracy. . . with a constitutionally constrained executive, an independent parliament with substantial influence over domestic and foreign policy, a mostly free press, and a relatively open economy.” As political science professor Kevin Narizny explains, this institutional arrangement was then spread around the globe by British joint-stock companies like the British East India Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company, seeking resources to exploit for their shareholders in the City of London, because they sought “to create an environment in which British firms would have the same institutional protections that they had at home, including the rule of law, an independent judiciary, an incorruptible civil service, and stable political rights.”[6]

America has since assumed this role as the principal promoter of liberal democracy throughout this past century. The principal thrust of American foreign policy, aside from destroying and destabilizing countries that pose a remote threat to Israel, has been promoting and stabilizing liberal democratic institutions around the globe. Throughout the 20th and 21sd-century the American State Department, the United States Agency for International Development, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, Freedom House, and the Soros Open Society have sought to topple so-called authoritarian regimes and replace them with liberal democratic institutions. The American empire claims to do this for altruistic reasons, but this is simple propaganda; rather, by spreading liberal democratic institutions—which means a weak state and open markets—America is really trying to fold these countries into the liberal international order so that the Wall Street investment firms and vulture capitalist hedge funds that control the policy of the United States government can have unrestricted access and influence within these markets.

America began this process in earnest when Woodrow Wilson sought to make the world “safe for democracy”—which, according to mainstream journalist Nomi Prins, meant destroying the Central Powers on behalf of Wall Street to protect American investments in England and remove economic barriers between nations so that Wall Street and American financiers could extend their interests deeper into Europe.[7]

More recently, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq (which killed around 1,000,000 people according to higher estimates), the American-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) implemented the so-called Bremer Orders. These edicts privatized all Iraqi-state owned assets, laid off some 600,000 Iraqi-state employees, eliminated all import and export restrictions, and rewrote the laws to allow foreign corporations to own 100% of Iraqi assets, which led to the sale of Iraqi assets to international vulture funds and mass unemployment. The CPA then sought to stabilize the Iraqi market by installing a democratic parliamentary state with open elections, a permanent national assembly, and the rule of law and judicial independence, which they hoped would offer long-term protection for the rights of international investors.[8]

So, why does the West promote liberal democracy?

Aside from serving as a convenient casus belli for imperialists and neocons, one of the most obvious reasons is that the banks and corporations that control Washington think it’s good for business. International firms want stable, enduring, and predictable property rights. Just recently after the Trump administration kidnapped President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, international oil giant ExxonMobil informed President Trump that the firm will remain reluctant to do business in Venezuela until “significant changes [are] made to [its] commercial frameworks, [and its] legal system . . . [to ensure] durable investment protections,” so there are long-term guarantees that their assets will not be nationalized or expropriated by the Venezuelan government.[9]

On a deeper level, however, liberal democracy also means that the state is open to interference and manipulation by private entities. Unrestricted rule of law and universal civil rights means the unlimited freedom for private civil society organizations—like the business community, corporations and banks, and the various entities that they own and fund like the media, NGOs, and lobbying firms—virtually unlimited freedom to organize, exert pressure against the state, and capture public institutions.

This is why the Soros Open Society Foundation and USAID work alongside the American State Department to promote democratization abroad and topple foreign states, including through promoting domestic insurrections and revolutions. Former US Secretary of State and director of the CIA Mike Pompeo recently confirmed what conspiracy theorists have suspected and Wikileaks disclosures have revealed about Western-backed color revolutions, stating:

Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also to every Mossad agent walking beside them. [10]

However, these exact same organizations that seek to destabilize and democratize foreign nations, simultaneously spend hundreds of billions interfering in elections by lobbying and bribing politicians, both at home within America and abroad. General Michael Flynn recently claimed that a joint project between the Soros Open Society Foundation and USAID pumped more than $2.5 billion into swaying the 2020 election alone. The Soros Open Society Foundation also pumped hundreds of millions into the Black Lives Matter movement that fueled the totally peaceful Floyd riots of that same summer. [11]

Through Elon’s abortive DOGE project last year, the public also discovered that USAID was spending hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars on funding protests and rigging elections abroad, including interfering with Right-wing parties in Europe and weaponizing media to engage in cultural programming and social engineering to make populations susceptible to globalization, under the guise of promoting liberalization and human rights by combating discrimination, racism, and xenophobia. As revealed even earlier by Wikileaks, the US Embassy in Estonia was working to indoctrinate Estonians about the “benefits of diversity,” which included pressuring authorities to introduce hate speech legislation and pro-diversity curriculum in the schools, and working with civil society organizations like local film festivals and “the Press Council of Estonia and the Estonian Newspaper Association for training journalists on issues related to racism and racial discrimination.” [12] In France, the US State Department was seeking to “press France toward a fuller application of the democratic values it espouses” [13] by encouraging the political representation and promoting the influence of minority groups like French Muslims.

These globalist organizations cannot easily manipulate the state in socialist or single-party authoritarian states like China, where corruption is harshly punished, opposition parties are banned, and foreign interference is not tolerated. There was a tremendous outcry from Western governments in 2015 when the Russian state banned George Soros’ Open Society Foundation from operating in Russia. Recently, Western governments heavily pressured Georgia into dropping its “Foreign Agents” bill, which would force media and NGOs that receive more than 20% of their funding from foreign sources to register with the government as “agents of foreign influence.” Western NGOs were afraid that this bill would “have a serious negative impact on the already shrinking space for civil society and independent media in the country,” and that it “would have a serious chilling effect on groups and individuals working to protect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.” Translation: the legislation would prevent American state intelligence and international finance from interfering against the Georgian state and people.

When Western governments attack a state like Iraq, Iran, Serbia, Hungary, Georgia, Russia, or China as “anti-democratic,” what they really mean is that the country is not permitting international organizations to agitate, subvert, and enslave their populations to international finance capitalism.

Consider how the CCP in Beijing is currently “constructing a human capital firewall” by systematically purging “naked officials”—party officials with spouses or children residing abroad or other attachments that might make them vulnerable to coercion by the West—to eliminate the possibility of foreign interference in the Chinese state and prepare for confrontation against the West. [14]

By contrast, Western states—which are organized under the liberal democratic model—are thoroughly compromised by all manner of private special interest groups and foreign states, that have proven exceptionally effective at compromising legislatures by installing their assets and bullying their opponents into submission. In our United States House of so-called Representatives, you can scarcely find a congressman willing to utter the words “America First” for fear of offending the Israel lobby. Rep. Thomas Massie was the only congressman to oppose the House’s resolution on combatting anti-Semitism, which succeeded 420-1. [15] Donald Trump and his billionaire Zionist allies like Miriam Adelson—who Trump strongly implied is far more loyal to Israel than America—are launching a massive campaign fund devoted solely to unseating Massie due to his opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza and his efforts to force the administration into releasing the Epstein files. [16] As Trump himself stated (while demanding certain members of Congress to be less “anti-Semitic” for opposing Israel foreign policy interests in Washington): “the most powerful lobby that there is in this country is the Jewish Lobby. It’s the Israeli lobby.” [17]

The situation is similar in England, where Parliament, the Home Affairs Committee, and the UK Foreign Office are literally riddled with Zionist operatives.[18] The names of the previous generation of British politicians, like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and Peter Mandelson, are also littered throughout the Epstein files.

The situation is also much the same throughout the broader West. And this is a direct outcome of our political institutions being open and susceptible to the manipulation of the most motivated and organized private interest groups.

As John Mearsheimer explained in his study of the Israel lobby (which nearly resulted in the destruction of his career), the Zionist lobby controls the American government because of the:

[w]ide-open nature of the American political system. The United States has a divided form of government, a well-established tradition of free speech, and a system in which elections are very expensive to run and where campaign contributions are weakly regulated. This environment gives different groups many different ways to gain access or influence policy.

Bibi Netanyahu himself confirmed Mearsheimer’s observation, having stated on camera in an interview while discussing undermining the Oslo Accords: “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in the way.”

“[T]he American political system is of necessity an open one,” similarly explains journalist Peter Dale Scott, “and thus increasingly susceptible to the growing influence of money and intelligence penetration from abroad.”

Multi-party representative democracy, where private citizens and parties cycle in and out of the government in short-term cycles, just means the institutionalization of private conflicts of interest within the state. Globalist organizations promote liberal democracy, the rule of law, and unlimited civil liberties because they are interested in promoting an open political system that is subject to the manipulation of highly organized, well-funded private interest groups. If globalists can establish liberal democratic institutions with open markets, term limits, and open elections, they can quickly buy out the media sector and fund opposition parties to capture key public institutions and rapidly transform a nation into a captive outpost of international finance and Zionism. Wall Street and globalist billionaires want liberal democracy because liberal democracy means that everything, including the state, is for sale. Liberal democracy simply guarantees that powerful, unelected groups have unlimited leeway to abuse their legal privileges and gain state power through illegitimate means.

So where does “democracy” fit into this equation?

Ironically, for ideological proponents of liberal democracy within the West itself, popular participation is at best a bothersome nuisance that must be tolerated and managed through public relations and perception management, while ironically at worst a potential existential threat to liberal institutions and the “open society.” The political “insiders” and cosmopolitan financial elites—or so-called “managerial overclass” or “power elite” that “simultaneously dominate the governments, corporate suites, universities, foundations, and media of the Western world”—are drawn from the wealthiest families and most elite universities, clustering in large cosmopolitan global cities such as London, New York, Paris, and San Francisco. [19] This class of financial elites have a profound liberal internationalist bias, and are consequently incredibly hostile to democracy, because they fear that ordinary voters will reject the liberal open society if given the choice at the ballot box. This occurred throughout Europe in the 1920s and 1930s when millions of Europeans elected nationalist dictators that promised to overthrow liberalism. More recently, the reawakening of similar sentiments led to Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and insurgent Right-wing populist parties throughout Europe and the Anglosphere.

Many of these so-called “power elites” that control the most powerful civil society organizations and public institutions can hardly conceal their contempt and hatred of ordinary white people because of their propensity towards illiberalism and reactionary instincts. In America, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump’s white working-class supporters “deplorables,” CNN’s Don Lemon called them “toothless” rednecks, and Reuters called “white guys” in the era of globalization “discarded human capital.” [20] Jewish Democratic Committee chairman Richard Fochtmann celebrated large waves of deaths of despair amongst white men, [21] stating: “Today I saw a thing and it said a lot of men, white men, were committing suicide, and I almost thought, ‘Yeah, great.’” Then, to the laughter and applause of his audience, he continued: “Then I thought about it a little more, and I thought maybe I shouldn’t say that out in public.” [22] Fochtmann later justified his comments to the Daily Caller because white working class people are bigots: “I thought the point of the joke is that it won’t be long, and that this won’t be a majority white nation, and I think that’s a good thing.”

Mark Potok of the SPLC, an organization devoted to attacking and terrorizing right-wingers who criticize anti-white ideology and mass replacement migration policies, was caught gleefully tracking the decline of the “non-hispanic whites proportion of U.S. populations” on a chart in his office.

As Paul Krugman stated:

A lot of the real craziness comes from rural White Americans who feel that they are losing their country, they are losing ownership of the country. They’re right. We are becoming more diverse, more multicultural, and they are, in the end, not in the future. The power they still have will go away but it’s a very difficult time until then. The future is Mayor De Blasio of New York, but Ted Cruz of Texas is still out there with the ability to do a lot of damage. [23]

After Trump was elected, Time Magazine considered the liberal hostility to democracy vindicated, accusing “White America, writ large, [guilty because they] supported the candidate” that ran on an implicitly ethnonationalist and explicitly xenophobic platform, promising to ban immigration from Islamic countries, build a wall on the southern border, and deport illegal immigrants. “[L]et’s not lose sight of what happened on Nov. 8. White America made its last stand, and it’s not going to be an easy death.” [24]

Ironically, while support for immigration and immigration amnesties is typically associated with the Democrats and Leftists, these policies actually enjoy bipartisan support from elites on all sides of the political spectrum. However, because they try to appeal their economic policies to a racially neutral coalition that ostensibly includes white America, Right-wing elites have been better at concealing their anti-white animus, although it creeps out from time to time. Speaking at an American Enterprise Institute conference, Bill Kristol laughed as he stated “I hope this thing isn’t being, like, you know, videotaped or ever shown anywhere,” before calling the white working class “decadent, lazy, spoiled,” and arguing that they should be replaced with Mexican immigrants. [25] Speaking about white working class areas that have been suffering from the decline of manufacturing jobs, conservative commentator Kevin Williamson similarly stated that “the truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.” [26]

Describing the psychology of the global liberal ruling elites, Clare Ellis notes that they “have a combined sense of intellectual superiority, moral arrogance, and existential insecurity, often involving fear of ‘natural groups.’” This manifests as a profound hostility against ordinary white people, who they regard as backwards, reactionary, and threatening to liberal constitutional values like cosmopolitanism and the open society. [27]

This is why 20th-century liberals have adopted what they call “defensive democracy,” which means protecting the state and its liberal values by, ironically, depriving its critics of democratic rights.

Policies justified according to so-called defensive or “militant” democracy include the political surveillance of Right-wing radicals, bans of Right-wing parties, and even the cancellation of elections, as occurred in the 2024 Romanian election, where the Constitutional Court annulled the election results after it became apparent that the nationalist Călin Georgescu was polling too successfully.

• German lawmakers are also considering banning the AfD, the only major anti-immigration party in Germany.
• In Greece, the government has imprisoned the leadership of the nationalist party the Golden Dawn.
• In Slovakia, the government has imprisoned the leaders of Kotleba’s Slovakian People’s Party.
• In Australia, pro-white activist and Australian nationalist Joel Davis is being denied bail and held in solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison for insulting the feelings of a Jewish politician on X.

In response to the rising influence of The National Socialist Network (NSN), the Australian parliament just rushed the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill—a 319-page omnibus bill proposed by the Albanese government—into law without any public consultation whatsoever. The bill, which grants extraordinary and vague powers to the government, provides that members of groups designated as “hate groups” by the home affairs minister may receive criminal sentences of up to 7 years in prison, or up to 15 years for their directors, recruiters, and financial funders. The bill also criminalizes “hate” speech and so-called “extremist” communications.

The bill, which is intended to protect the Australian Jewish community, was rushed into law so quickly that the public has been left in the dark about what sort of speech attracts criminal liability under the legislation. Labor politicians are being deliberately vague about the effects of the bill. However, one senator has stated that the legislation is worded so broadly that criticism of Israel, the Israeli government, Benjamin Netanyahu, or Israel’s genocide in Palestine could qualify as “inciting racial hatred” against Jews under the legislation. [28] It also almost certainly criminalizes criticizing the Australian government’s immigration policies or calling for remigration.

Australia seems to be speedrunning towards the situation in the UK, where the government is already prosecuting and imprisoning thousands of people like Samuel Melia for social media posts criticizing mass immigration and for pro-white political stickering.

Notes

[1] Quoted in Kerry Bolton, “Apartheid: Lest We Forget (Or Never Knew),” Counter-Currents, 2011.

[2] David Rockefeller,  Memoirs (New York: Random House, 2002), 405.

[3] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1970), 28.

[4]Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), 324.

[5] Kevin Narizny, Anglo-American Primacy and the Global Spread of Democracy: An International Genealogy (World Politics, 64(2): 2012), 341-373

[6]   Ibid.

[7] See Prins, Nomi. All the Presidents’ Bankers: The Hidden Alliances That Drive American Power (Nation Books, 2014).

[8] Naomi Klein, “Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neo-con utopia,” 2004.

[9] Darren Woods, “Our perspective regarding the situation in Venezuela as shared with President Trump,” ExxonMobil, Jan 2026.

[10] Quoted in Simon Speakman Cordall, “Iran accuses foreign intelligence of being behind protest movement,” Al Jazeera, Jan 2026.

[11] Ron Kampeas, “Soros foundation to give $220 million to Black groups advocating racial justice,” The Times of Israel, Jul 2020.

[12] “Estonia: Embassy’s Efforts to Promote Racial Tolerance,” WikiLeaks, Jun 2006.

[13] Kerry Bolton, “The Rivkin Project: How Globalism Uses Multiculturalism to Subvert Sovereign Nations, Part 3,” Counter-Currents, March 2011. “Embassy Paris – Minority Engagement Strategy,” WikiLeaks, Jan 2010.

[14] Youlun Nie, “Beijing Accelerates Clearance of ‘Naked Officials’ from Top Ranks,” Jamestown, Jan 2026.

[15] Philip Elliott, “The House Passed a Resolution Condemning Anti-Semitism. It Wasn’t Unanimous.,” Time, May 2022.

[16] Alex Isenstadt, “Pro-Israel donors unload on Trump’s toughest GOP critic,” Axios, Sep 2025. Daniela Altimari, “Thomas Massie says he’s ready for pro-Trump onslaught in 2026,” Roll Call, Dec 2025. Al Jazeera Staff, “Who is Miriam Adelson, the pro-Israel donor Trump lauded at the Knesset?,” Al Jazeera, Oct 2025.

[17] Jacob Magid, “Trump: Congress ‘becoming antisemitic’ as ‘Jewish lobby’ no longer the most powerful in US,” The Times of Israel, Dec 2025.

[18] Skwawkbox, “Parliamentary committee that whitewashed Maccabi Tel Aviv almost entirely made up of ‘friends of Israel’,” Canary, Jan 26. Kiran Stacey, “Alan Duncan attacks Tory party after being cleared over antisemitism claims,” The Guardian, Jul 2024. Matt Kennard, “Former British minister: ‘The Israelis think they control the Foreign Office. And they do!’,” Declassified UK, Jun 2021.

[19] Michael Lind, The New Class War: Saving Democracy From the Managerial Elite (Portfolio/Penguin, 2020), 47.

[20] Chris Reed, “CNN’s Don Lemon Refers to Some Trump Supporters As ‘Toothless Republicans’,” 710Keel, Nov 2020. Lauren Silva Laughlin, “China Inc will recycle used white guys,” Reuters, Dec 2020.

[21] Stephanie Mencimer, “What’s Killing the White Working Class?,” Washington Monthly, Apr 2020.

[22] Christopher Burns, “Trump calls Maine Democrat an ‘animal’ after video of him joking about suicide resurfaces,” 13WGME, Dec 2019. Douglas Ernst, “Richard Fochtmann, Maine Democrats at ‘Values and Vision’ meeting laugh at white male suicide,” Washington Times, Apr 2017.

[23] Guillaume Durocher, “The Krugman Scam,” The Occidental Observer, Feb 2016.

[24] Time Staff, “Donald Trump and the Abyss of the Value Gap,” Time, Nov 2016.

[25] Jason Devaney, “Bill Kristol: Replace ‘White Working Class’ With Immigrants,” NewsMax, Feb 2017.

[26] Kevin D. Williamson, “Chaos in the Family, Chaos in the State: The White Working Class’s Dysfunction,” National Review, Mar 2016.

[27] Clare Ellis quoted in Andrew Joyce, “The Transformation of Europe as an Elite Project: Review of The Blackening of Europe,” Unz Review, Aug 2020.

[28] Tom McIlroy and Jordyn Beazley, “Criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu may be an offence under Australia’s new hate speech laws, Greens claim,” The Guardian, Jan 2026.