It kinds of make things more interesting when a person says what country they are talking about. If you will get a bullet to the back of the head for speaking your mind then it might not be worth responding to this thread at all because you'll probably get caught anyway.
'corrupt politicians' seems to be a common thread. I wish people would dig a little deeper to understand the mechanics of how and why they end up with corrupt politicians.
My analysis is that this eventuality is pretty much assured under a debt-based fiat monetary regime, and especially one which is effectively controlled by entities who are not in any sense part of one's country. We Americans suffer from this phenomonon with the (non-)US Dollar system as I see it.
Its quite simple, most politicians arent corrupt just like most cops arent evil, however people only remember the bad ones and they think all of them are the same. Power corrupts people, you, me, we have no power, we cant be corrupt even if we wanted to but maybe if we had that kind of power we would be corrupt too,
it has nothing to do with conspiracies.
I will not reject your hypothesis out-of-hand. You have a theory which could be tested, and I don't have the time/interest to do so.
My 'perception' is that in the U.S., the higher one goes up the political chain, the more likely they are to be corrupt scumbags. There almost certainly IS something to explain that since the phenomenon is to strong to ignore. Your (perfectly valid) point of view seems to be that it is the 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' phenomenon.
My point of view is that there is probably more to it. I suspect that the real powers don't normally play on the political stage. They tend to animate people who will, and usually use money to do so. I also strongly suspect that said powers communicate and, to a degree, cooperate with one another without publicly advertising their communications. If true, that is
by definition a 'conspiracy'.
One need not look very hard to see evidence that groupings of people support politicians, and the politicians do what said groupings want if they received help from such groupings. For instance it is often said that without AIPAC support it is damn difficult to obtain a political office at the federal level and even more difficult to keep it. Everything I can see tells me that this is exactly the case, and it is the case that such politicians inevitably support AIPAC priorities.
