Elected Officials or Oligarchs? Who Is In Charge?

SGUK Ep 146      

Elected Officials or Oligarchs?

 

Who is in Charge?

What are the common denominators, if any, in the following – or is it all coincidence?

These are the topics in question:-

* The UK leaving the European Union – produced very public utterings of nationalism. where people looked the same skin colour as Brits, they were deemed. acceptable. Any other hue soon found themselves under scrutiny and found wanting. Any other skin colour was denied to be one of the reasons to be treated like a 2nd class citizen.

* politicians of all parties in the uk were showing increasing public utterings which pointed to RW views. It no longer was hidden. in the first few years it was whispered now they shout from the hill tops.

* Media in increasing parts of the world is becoming bold in the rhetoric they use about certain people. The majority ownership in the UK and USA is RW. Increasing nations only have that stance now and Elections sound democratic but the reality is the complete opposite in some cases.

*  organisations like The Heritage Foundation are not officially politicians. but they have been working behind the scenes from the USA and in the UK since Margaret Thatcher days. UK media is openly RW / televised and printed.

* It seems like politicians of increasing number of countries demonstrate their responsibility and rationale for the way they vote, and support major things is because they work for major organisations who have extreme wealth, and not for the people who elected them into office. In the uk, it is clear that some of those politicians including senior politicians such as the Prime Minister, look increasingly uncomfortable with some of the rhetoric they use as well as many of the decisions they are making. All to the detriment of the most vulnerable people. A previous PM in the uk showed little regard to the plight of pensioners and other vulnerable groups and with the death rate increasing unofficial Euthanasia is occurring in this country easily the last two decades, if not longer. That PM used the phrase “pile the bodies high”. It is happening in other countries now too. It has been happening in many regimes around the world too. One common denominator seems to be rich oligarchs controlling outcomes from behind the scenes. Govts are not leading. they are just the face. The figureheads. Dictators are springing up again. The Uk Monarchy are RW in all but name.  It has been known for centuries and nothing has changed in the last 100 years, except even they have let the mask slip now and again.

Abusers target mainly women and POC in a variety of ways. Most people are not shocked. Some people are paid on social media platforms to target certain people or groups and concentrate their activity on their given target. Often based in another country. some of those targets are no longer with us. one media giant recently admitted that his newspapers acted illegally for decades. phone hacking. breaking into homes of targets. putting trackers in their vehicles. obtaining medical records.

My question:- what are the denominator/s here that seems to have this whole planet, run by rich elites in societal tier one in many countries. politicians are not strong committed people anymore. they are pawns in a dangerous game. USA has Nazi leaning people at the helm. WW1&2 was clearly not a deterrent. what has spawned all this?  where is it leading. the USA president and vice president answer to others who do not all even reside in the USA and not all are USA citizens. some powerful billionaires appear to be running Earth. where is it all leading?

o0o

The topics outlined encompass a wide range of complex socio-political issues that appear to have some underlying common denominators. Here’s an analysis of the broader themes and concepts that might serve as common threads in these issues:

1. Nationalism and Populism: Many of the topics mentioned highlight a rise in nationalism and populism. This phenomenon often includes exclusionary rhetoric, whether based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, and is seen in policies and attitudes that prioritize “native” populations over others.
2. Influence of Wealth and Power: There’s a recurring theme of wealthy elites or oligarchs exerting significant influence over politics and media. This influence often comes at the expense of democratic principles and can lead to policies that favor the rich and powerful over the general public.
3. Right-Wing Ideology: A shift towards right-wing ideology in various sectors, including politics and media, is evident. This includes economic policies favoring deregulation and limited government intervention, as well as socially conservative policies.
4. Media Manipulation: The role of media in shaping public opinion and political outcomes is another common thread. Media ownership concentrated among a few powerful individuals or corporations can lead to biased reporting or manipulation of information to support certain political agendas.
5. Globalization and Its Discontents: The backlash against globalization, which has brought economic changes and cultural shifts, has fueled nationalist sentiments. People who feel left behind economically or culturally might support more protectionist or nationalist policies.
6. Technological Impact: Social media and technology have enabled rapid dissemination of information (and misinformation). This has empowered new forms of influence and manipulation, affecting political and social outcomes globally.
7. Weakening of Democratic Institutions: There seems to be a concern about the erosion of democratic institutions and norms, as certain leaders and governments accumulate more power, sometimes undermining checks and balances.
8. Fear and Uncertainty: Economic, social, and political uncertainties contribute to fear and anxiety among populations, which can be exploited by those in power to push certain agendas or concentrate power.

The culmination of these factors contributes to a world where decisions might seem to be increasingly guided by the interests of a few wealthy and powerful individuals rather than the democratic will of the people. It could lead to increased polarization, erosion of trust in institutions, and potential conflicts as competing interests vie for control and influence on a global scale.

Money not competence seems to do the talking.

 

Erosion of Trust in Institutions and the Potential Conflict of Interests

The scenarios described, characterized by erosion of trust in institutions and potential conflicts of interest, could lead to a range of outcomes. Here are some potential consequences:

1. Political Instability: With diminishing trust in governmental institutions, citizens may become more disillusioned or apathetic towards political processes. This could lead to decreased voter turnout, increased civil unrest, or the rise of extremist movements.

 

2. Authoritarianism: In places where democratic institutions are weak, the erosion of trust might pave the way for more authoritarian regimes. Leaders who promise stability and security, even at the cost of personal freedoms, might gain support.

 

3. Social Division: Increased polarization could lead to further division across ethnic, racial, and socio-economic lines. Societies might experience heightened tensions and conflicts as different groups vie for influence and resources.

 

4. Economic Disparities: If policy-making increasingly favors the wealthy elite, economic disparities might widen, leading to more societal friction and possibly radical movements aimed at redistributing wealth or changing the economic system.

 

5. Global Conflicts: As countries focus on nationalism and protectionism, international cooperation could weaken. This might result in trade wars, diplomatic conflicts, or even military confrontations. I think it is reasonable to say that some nations are moving in this inevitable direction, because balance is not present in much of the scenarios mentioned earlier.

 

6. Environmental Neglect: With global attention diverted to power struggles, crucial issues like climate change might be neglected. This could have long-term detrimental impacts on the planet’s health and viability.

 

7. Technological Surveillance and Control: Powerful entities might exploit technology to increase surveillance and control over populations. This could lead to intrusions on privacy and personal freedoms.

It’s important to note that while these outcomes present significant challenges, they are not                       inevitable. Civic engagement, political reforms, and efforts to increase transparency and                           accountability can help mitigate these issues. Building strong, resilient institutions and fostering a             culture of inclusivity and cooperation can counteract some of these negative trajectories.

8. Emergence of Parallel Societies: If certain groups feel permanently marginalized, they might form parallel societies or self-sustaining communities, challenging the traditional nation-state model.

 

As stated earlier, we need less chasing people around the world with the aim to destroy their spirit or worse.  We need less people getting up each day with the sole purpose of posting hateful rhetoric online, with the hope that it will upset enough people to foster engagement, so that they can earn money on the back of someone’s pain. No one should be losing their life because they cannot stand to be on this planet a moment longer – the suffering is too much to bear.  Human beings need to find a way of fostering a culture of inclusivity and cooperation that can counteract some of these negative trajectories.  People need to come together and find common grounds on ways they can move forward together. We should have developed into a species that has moved on from trying to destroy whole races of people.  Too many have suffered from that, and it is not progression to return to such actions.  Time for a reset

Future generations deserve much better than what various Oligarchs have in mind for the majority of people living on plantations around the world, under the guise of being described as free countries. Not everyone has fallen asleep whilst all these shenanigans are going on.  Sections of the population are sitting back and watching the infighting continue elsewhere, whilst we are planning our future lives so that future generations of our families have something healthy to inherit. Wealth does not automatically give you common sense.  Those of us who are not in the oligarch category, can more than hold our own, and we have common sense in abundance

 

Lessons That Could Be Learned

It is the Invictus Games for the next 10 days. A truly inspirational event which has been going now since 2014. More nations joining every year. Wounded Veterans from around the globe, out of the armed forces due to the outcomes of warfare and who now have found purpose and a coming together with veterans and their families. ongoing assistance takes place daily in between the Bi annual games in their respective home countries. They are one international family every day of the year, whilst living their lives in their own countries and being side by side with those who have never been in the armed forces but they coincide. There is a message in there somewhere. The British Royal Family ignore the Games every year. it never wishes the uk veterans anything before they leave for the games or when they return. never acknowledges the IG is taking place. nothing. All because the family member who founded it is not in line for the throne. He was the Spare. Brought into the world in case anything happened to the first born. That is how the Monarchy works. To see it become more successful each year is like salt in BRF wound. Imagine the UK Monarch ignores its Veterans but yet the BRF play dress up in uniforms and plastic badges/medals and the only member of the BRF that served (10 years) they ignore because he dared to step away so that his black wife did not end up like his mother.

I think there are some lessons and golden threads of actions for Oligarchs and plastic fake leaders of nations. Both groups are looking out for self interests.  The rest of the government officials are merely figureheads. None of them recognise that by destroying international and national institutions and rules of law etc that we could end up in a Mad Max type of scenario. What then did Veterans suffer for and when will ‘the people’ recognise that the answers lie in events and ethos of The Invictus Games.

 

Conclusion

The Invictus Games represent a powerful symbol of resilience, unity, and the human spirit’s capacity to overcome adversity. Founded by Prince Harry, himself a veteran, the games have become a global movement showcasing the achievements and strength of wounded veterans. The ethos of the Invictus Games—celebrating perseverance, camaraderie, and purpose—offers several lessons that can resonate beyond the veterans’ community.

1. Unity and Empathy: The Games emphasize bringing together people from different nations and backgrounds to support one another. This unity and empathy are crucial at a time when societies are increasingly divided by politics and ideology. It reminds us of the power of coming together to overcome shared challenges.
2. Resilience and Recovery: The stories of veterans who find purpose through sport and camaraderie highlight the human capacity for resilience and personal recovery. They inspire others to face adversity with courage and determination.
3. Community and Support: By focusing on the support systems that help individuals thrive—family, comrades, and communities—the Invictus Games highlight the importance of social connections and mutual support, which are foundations of healthy societies.
4. Purpose Beyond Conflict: Veterans in the Games often share how participating gives them new purpose beyond military service. This theme suggests a broader message about finding meaning and contributing to society even after personal or professional transitions.

 

Regarding the lack of recognition from certain segments of the British Royal Family, it highlights the complexities and politics that can exist within institutions. It underscores how decisions can be driven by factors other than merit or contribution to society—such as traditional hierarchies or personal conflicts.

The apparent indifference of some institutions and leaders towards initiatives like the Invictus Games might mirror a broader focus on self-interest and preservation of image or power rather than genuine service, leadership, or recognition of others’ contributions.

The Invictus Games demonstrate values that could guide society towards a more inclusive and supportive future. These values contrast with the self-interest and division seen in other scenarios. As people observe and appreciate the impact of such events, there may be steps toward broader societal changes that emphasize cooperation, empathy, and genuine leadership. It serves as a reminder that positive change often starts with small, values-driven actions that inspire broader movements.

 

Final words

In “Spare,” Prince Harry reflects on his ten transformative years in the Army, expressing a profound kinship with veterans around the world—bonds that, in his words, often provide more authentic connections than those within the British Royal Family itself. The Invictus Games, founded by Harry, stand as a testament to this enduring brotherhood among veterans, illustrating the resilience and strength that can arise from shared experiences and mutual support. Beyond the biennial competition, the Games foster an ongoing community and support network, offering daily care and solidarity for veterans globally. This ethos presents a powerful lesson for oligarchs, presidents, and prime ministers alike: true leadership and societal progress stem from empathy, unity, and commitment to those who selflessly serve, rather than self-interest and division. The Invictus Games not only celebrate the indomitable spirit of veterans but also challenge world leaders to embrace these principles in their governance and policies.

 

Ivy Barrow

9^th Feb 2025