What Globalist Billionaires and the New York Times Mean When they Use the Term Democracy

Executive Summary

• The term democracy has a technical definition. However, this is not what Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat-aligned media mean when using the term.

Introduction

Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat-aligned media constantly uses the term “democracy” when describing whether an event or election is suitable or bad for democracy. However, if one uses the technical definition of democracy, their assertions do not make sense, and this is why one must adjust the meaning of democracy to understand their articles.

Let us review an article in the New York Times that shows what the Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrats mean when they use the term democracy.

The New York Times Article on the Le Pen Victory

The following few quotes from an article in the oligarch controlled New York Times explain the different meanings of the term democracy or democratic when used by oligarchs or those employed to write by oligarchs. This article is about the French election Between Macron and Le Pen.

A Fair Election Shows a Fissure in Western Democracy?

WASHINGTON — U.S. officials are anxiously watching the French presidential election, aware that the outcome of the vote on Sunday could scramble President Biden’s relations with Europe and reveal dangerous fissures in Western democracy.

This is a misuse of the term democracy, and a republic is a correct word for a system where representatives are voted for. However, the elites constantly use the term “democracy” to show that political systems are more controlled by the public than they are.

Secondly, the US is not a democracy; it is also categorized as a republic, and the term democracy does not appear anywhere in the constitution. Elites use enormous amounts of money to influence elections with high degrees of success. Therefore, the US questionably meets the standards of being a republic. A proper republican government would remove money from the equation and allow unadulterated voting for representatives.

Calling Countries That Are the Opposite of Democratic, Democratic

Since the middle of the 20th century, most countries have claimed to be democratic, regardless of the actual composition of their governments. – Wikipedia

This is what I described earlier. This shows enormous inaccuracy on the part of the speaker or author and an acceptance of enormous inaccuracy on the part of the listener or reader.

Saudi Arabia routinely kills political prisoners, as is shown in this video when they killed 81 in a single day. Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy makes claims that it is moving towards democracy, and the US, which is aligned with Saudi Arabia defends this view. 

A Look At Governments Worldwide

Graphic Above From Wikipedia

This is an accurate depiction of governments worldwide. Do you see any of these listed as democracies?

You do not, and this is because there are no democracies in the world.

What is referred to as democracies are presidential or parliamentary republics. Most people consider some countries to be republics like the UK, Canada, Australia, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Japan, and New Zealand are not even republics but parliamentary constitutional monarchies.

Two questions arise from this map.

Question #1

Why is the term democracy constantly used if there aren’t any democracies globally?

The answer is that the elite use the term democracy is used to make it seem like countries controlled by elites are more controlled by the public than they are.

Question #2

If democracy is considered a good thing, then why haven’t any countries rolled out democracies as their political system?

All that would be necessary is to set up a system of referendums, where the public votes, and each person’s vote counts as one vote. This is easier than ever with the Internet, something the 4th to 6th century BC Greek states did not have, would allow for direct voting on referendums, and would be done in a very low-effort way. The description of the referendum would be placed online, and all citizens of age in that country could vote.

This would eliminate the need for politicians, and the government would then simply facilitate the will of the people as voted on by referendum. However, it would mean that the vote of an oligarch and the vote of an unemployed person would count the same. A proper democratic system would disallow the use of money to influence the votes on referendums. This would be a system by the people and for the people. So no advertising would be allowed.

With modern Internet technologies, this system would be very simple to roll out. However, this has not happened anywhere because the elites in each country do not want this to happen.

What is curious is that from the same Wikipedia page where I found the official map of government categories above, I also found this definition of democracy.

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratiā, from dēmos ‘people’ and kratos ‘rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation (“direct democracy”), or to choose governing officials to do so (“representative democracy”). Who is considered part of “the people” and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries, but over time more and more of a democratic country’s inhabitants have generally been included. – Wikipedia

Notice that Wikipedia, which is an elite Democrat party-aligned member of Big Tech, has changed the definition of democracy so that it is undifferentiated from a republic.

This means that the term “the people” can be the most elite members of society, who are voted for in a republican form of government, and in a way where the representative dismisses the interests of the people in favor of the interests of their donors. The term “representative democracy” is an oxymoron, and an attempt to cast republican forms of government as democracies.

Understanding the False Claim of the Elites Being “The People”

The representatives cannot be “the people” as the representatives are the elites. This is obvious because in the original Greek democracy in Athens and other Greek states, there was direct voting — albeit by a fraction of the population. However, the democracy under Athens did not have representatives.

This is explained in the following quotation.

The goal of Athenian democracy was that all citizens should have equal political rights and the ability to fully participate in either the council or the Assembly. – Short History

Citizens were the public when excluding women, slaves, foreigners living in Athens, etc. This is “the people.” The people cannot be misconstrued as being the elites.

This is further explained in the following quotation.

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, romanized: dēmokratiā, from dēmos ‘people’ and kratos ‘rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation (“direct democracy”), or to choose governing officials to do so (“representative democracy”). Who is considered part of “the people” and how authority is shared among or delegated by the people has changed over time and at different rates in different countries, but over time more and more of a democratic country’s inhabitants have generally been included.

Athenian democracy developed around the 6th century BC in the Greek city-state (known as a polis) of Athens, comprising the city of Athens and the surrounding territory of Attica. Although Athens is the most famous ancient Greek democratic city-state, it was not the only one, nor was it the first; multiple other city-states adopted similar democratic constitutions before Athens.[1][2] Ober (2015) argues that by the late 4th century BC as many as half of the over one thousand existing Greek city-states might have been democracies.[3]

Athens practiced a political system of legislation and executive bills. Participation was open to adult, male citizens (i.e., not a foreign resident, regardless of how many generations of the family had lived in the city, nor a slave, nor a woman), who “were probably no more than 30 percent of the total adult population”

Estimates of the population of ancient Athens vary. During the 4th century BC, there might well have been some 250,000–300,000 people in Attica.[4] Citizen families could have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 would have been the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. In the mid-5th century the number of adult male citizens was perhaps as high as 60,000, but this number fell precipitously during the Peloponnesian War. – Wikipedia

This shows that even in its purest form, participation was never more than 30% of the total adult population, something generally left out by those that use the term.

Obviously, there were many slaves in the democratic Greek states, and they could not be allowed to vote. And of course, women did not vote either, as is explained in the following quotation.

Athenian men believed that women were less intelligent than men and therefore, similarly to barbarians and slaves of the time, were considered to be incapable of effectively participating and contributing to public discourse on political issues and affairs. – Wikipedia

National Geographic Makes the Same Deliberate False Claim as Wikipedia

Notice this explanation of democracy found in National Geographic.

The first known democracy in the world was in Athens. Athenian democracy developed around the fifth century B.C.E. The Greek idea of democracy was different from present-day democracy because, in Athens, all adult citizens were required to take an active part in the government.

If they did not fulfill their duty they would be fined and sometimes marked with red paint. The Athenian definition of “citizens” was also different from modern-day citizens: only free men were considered citizens in Athens. Women, children, and slaves were not considered citizens and therefore could not vote. – National Geographic

This is much like gun ownership in the US colonies and the earlier parts of the United States, which is that in Athens, voting was not a right, or not only a right, as much an obligation.

The degree to which Athenian democracy opposed permanent politicians is explained in the following quotation.

Each year 500 names were chosen from all the citizens of ancient Athens. Those 500 citizens had to actively serve in the government for one year. During that year, they were responsible for making new laws and controlled all parts of the political process. When a new law was proposed, all the citizens of Athens had the opportunity to vote on it. To vote, citizens had to attend the assembly on the day the vote took place. This form of government is called direct democracy. – National Geographic

The operations of the government were not managed by elected individuals, but by citizens chosen at random, and then returned to the citizenry after a one-year term. This illustrated that the Athenian democracy prevented the accumulation of power by the government officials, as they were constantly turned over.

Now notice the false claim made by National Geographic.

The United States has a representative democracy. Representative democracy is a government in which citizens vote for representatives who create and change laws that govern the people rather than getting to vote directly on the laws themselves. – National Geographic

No. That is called a republic. A system where politicians are elected and represent the voting public is called a republic.

Voting and Vote Counting

The method of voting and vote counting was also amusing.

As usual in ancient democracies, one had to physically attend a gathering in order to vote. Military service or simple distance prevented the exercise of citizenship. Voting was usually by show of hands (χειροτονία, kheirotonia, ‘arm stretching’) with officials judging the outcome by sight. This could cause problems when it became too dark to see properly. However, any member could demand that officials issue a recount.[38] For a small category of votes, a quorum of 6,000 was required, principally grants of citizenship, and here small coloured stones were used, white for yes and black for no. At the end of the session, each voter tossed one of these into a large clay jar which was afterwards cracked open for the counting of the ballots. – Wikipedia

The Critiques of Athenian Democracy

Excluded from normal discourse on democracy is the poor reputation of democracy after it had been tested in the Greek states, as is explained in the following quotation.

Plato and Aristotle criticized democratic rule as the numerically preponderant poor tyrannizing the rich. Instead of seeing it as a fair system under which everyone has equal rights, they regarded it as manifestly unjust. In Aristotle’s works, this is categorized as the difference between ‘arithmetic’ and ‘geometric’ (i.e. proportional) equality.

In 399 BC, Socrates himself was put on trial and executed for “corrupting the young and believing in strange gods”. His death gave Europe one of the first intellectual martyrs still recorded, but guaranteed democracy an eternity of bad press at the hands of his disciple and enemy to democracy, Plato. From Socrates’ arguments at his trial, Loren Samons writes, “It follows, of course, that any majority—including the majority of jurors—is unlikely to choose rightly.”

While Plato blamed democracy for killing Socrates, his criticisms of the rule of the demos were much more extensive. Much of his writings were about his alternatives to democracy. His The Republic, The Statesman, and Laws contained many arguments against democratic rule and in favour of a much narrower form of government: “The organization of the city must be confided to those who possess knowledge, who alone can enable their fellow-citizens to attain virtue, and therefore excellence, by means of education.” – Wikipedia

This is curious. Plato is very highly regarded. Therefore, why are his critiques of democracy undiscussed? I have heard and read the term democracy an untold number of times. Yet before performing the research into this article, I had never heard of Plato’s critique of democracy. I have never read Plato, and so I would need others to bring such a thing to my attention.

Back and Forth Between Democracy and Oligarchy

The ebb and flow of democracy in the Greek states are explained in the following quotation.

The longest-lasting democratic leader was Pericles. After his death, Athenian democracy was twice briefly interrupted by oligarchic revolutions towards the end of the Peloponnesian War. It was modified somewhat after it was restored under Eucleides; the most detailed accounts of the system are of this fourth-century modification, rather than the Periclean system. Democracy was suppressed by the Macedonians in 322 BC. The Athenian institutions were later revived, but how close they were to a real democracy is debatable.

In the wake of Athens’s disastrous defeat in the Sicilian campaign in 413 BC, a group of citizens took steps to limit the radical democracy they thought was leading the city to ruin. Their efforts, initially conducted through constitutional channels, culminated in the establishment of an oligarchy, the Council of 400, in the Athenian coup of 411 BC. The oligarchy endured for only four months before it was replaced by a more democratic government. Democratic regimes governed until Athens surrendered to Sparta in 404 BC, when the government was placed in the hands of the so-called Thirty Tyrants, who were pro-Spartan oligarchs.[18] After a year, pro-democracy elements regained control, and democratic forms persisted until the Macedonian army of Phillip II conquered Athens in 338 BC. – Wikipedia

The Reputation of Democracy in the Time Of Athens and the Other Democratic Greek City-States

What is lost to contemporary writers who invoke the term democracy is that the democracy developed a poor reputation when it was originally tested in the Greek states.

This is explained in the following quotation.

After the demise of Athenian democracy few looked upon it as a good form of government. No legitimation of that rule was formulated to counter the negative accounts of Plato and Aristotle, who saw it as the rule of the poor, who plundered the rich.

Democracy came to be viewed as a “collective tyranny”. “Well into the 18th century democracy was consistently condemned.” Sometimes, mixed constitutions evolved with democratic elements, but “it definitely did not mean self-rule by citizens”.

It would be misleading to say that the tradition of Athenian democracy was an important part of the 18th-century revolutionaries’ intellectual background. The classical example that inspired the American and French revolutionaries, as well as English radicals, was Rome rather than Greece, and, in the age of Cicero and Caesar, Rome was a republic but not a democracy. Thus, the Founding Fathers of the United States who met in Philadelphia in 1787 did not set up a Council of the Areopagos, but a Senate, that, eventually, met on the Capitol. – Wikipedia

Yes, the US is not constructed as a democracy. And this is because the founding fathers did not esteem democracy. They esteemed republics. And they preferred to institute a republic. One major clue that the US is not a democracy is that it has a senate (and a house of representatives). A senate and a house of representatives are bodies of elected representatives, which democracy does not have.

The Oligarch Co-Option of Democracy

In this way, Wikipedia and oligarchs around the world, coming to the term democracy with plutocracy so that they become interchangeable. If “the people” can be anyone, then the people can be oligarchs and under this logic, a democratic election can dispense with the public, who are not really any longer the people, as their role has been assumed by oligarchs. Therefore under this loose logic, even an election that would only include oligarchs (as the term “the people” is so fungible), is completely democratic.

How Much Influence Do US Elections Have on Policy?

This video shows the results of a study that found a near-zero relationship between what the US public wants to be legislation and what is passed as legislation. Therefore, there is no area where the US political system can say to be democratic or a democracy. 

Furthermore, notice that the New York Times refers to an election that the times does not like the outcome of to “reveal fissures in democracy.”

This means that the New York Times considers elections that are fair but do not lead to the selection of globalist candidates, even those like Macron, who have numerous corruption scandals, to be a danger to democracy.

Let us now get back to the New York Times article quotes.

The US and France Have Been Crucial Partners for Promoting Democracy?

In this quote, the NYT makes an evidence-free claim about how the US and France have been supporting democracy.

President Emmanuel Macron of France has been a crucial partner as Mr. Biden has rebuilt relations with Europe, promoted democracy and forged a coalition in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But Mr. Macron is in a tight contest with Marine Le Pen, a far-right challenger.

Two questions immediately come to mind.

Question #1

This again misuses the term democracy. Also, where are Biden or Macron promoting democracy? The US and France, supported by the Gulf States, turned Libya from a dictatorship to a failed state. Is Libya a democracy?

Question #2

How can France or the US promote democracies if they are not themselves democracies?

Le Pen is a Populist Agitator?

The NYT needs to smear Le Pen as she is not sufficiently elitist for the NYT. Hence the old reliable term “populist” is brought out again.

Ms. Le Pen is a populist agitator who, in the style of former President Donald J. Trump, scorns European Union “globalists,” criticizes NATO and views President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia as an ally.

This is an elite pejorative label applied to a politician who provides things that benefit the population, rather than just the elites, which the NYT completely opposes as a privileged media entity.

Le Pen Would Dare to Reflect The Will of the French People and Restrict the Control of the EU Over France?

The EU is a globalist elitist institution that undermines the local governments in Europe. Therefore, the NYT is a big fan. This quote warns that Le Pen might restrict EU power over France.

“To have a right-wing government come to power in France would be a political earthquake,” said Charles A. Kupchan, a professor at Georgetown who was the Europe director of the National Security Council during the Obama administration. “It would send a troubling signal about the overall political health of the Western world.”

He added: “This is a moment of quite remarkable European unity and resolve. But Le Pen’s election would certainly raise profound questions about the European project.”

Kupchan, like the NYT, appears to question the right of the French to move in a direction away from the EU, and this (again) seems to undermine their supposed claims about democracy. Furthermore, it is not a signal about the “political health of the Western world,” it is a signal that the population of France or part of it is fed up with the EU and with oligarch globalists — which is who owns the New York Times. The New York Times never mentions their oligarch ownership and alliances and how their incentives may differ from the non-oligarchs who make up the vast majority of their readers.

This video shows how oligarchs control the media. However, the Democrats oppose a “oligarch” like Elon Musk taking over Twitter because Musk would most likely reduce censorship against non-Democrats. Twitter is a Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat platform and establishment echo chamber. 

When oligarch-controlled media sees another oligarch with who they politically disagree with planning on buying an influential Big Tech gatekeeping entity that would be against their interests, they decry the problems in ownership of that media by a oligarch — leaving out the fact that a oligarch also owns their media outlet.

Is Being Anti Immigration Bad if it is Supported the Population?

The quote continues.

An immigration hard-liner and longtime leader of France’s populist right, Ms. Le Pen has campaigned mainly on domestic issues, including the rising cost of living. But her foreign policy views have unsettled U.S. officials. Last week, she renewed vows to scale back France’s leadership role in NATO and to pursue “a strategic rapprochement” with Russia after the war with Ukraine has concluded. Ms. Le Pen also expressed concern that sending arms to Ukraine risked drawing other nations into the war.

The phrase “immigration hardliner,” which has been miswritten and means “anti-immigration hardliner,” is a euphemism used by globalists to smear the people that hold this position as bigots. The NYT leaves out that a primary reason globalists are pro-immigration is that it reduces labor wages, which then goes into the pockets of the globalists. This is one reason the US has a nearly identical income inequality to Haiti, as is covered in the article How Does the US Have an Income Inequality of a Preindustrialized Country?

The EU wants a constant stream of immigrants from the Eastern areas to move to the Western regions, which helps depress wages in the West.

This video shows how Eastern European truckers now work the Western European market dropping wages in those markets. Outside of trucking, countries like Bulgaria have been emptied of a high percentage of their young seeking higher wages in Western Europe. This would not have been possible without the EU’s free movement rules. 

The EU is also in favor of pushing countries to accept non-white immigrants with high reproductive rates, making all European countries less white. This has benefited the elites by reducing the ability of labor to organize due to the natural mistrust of “diversity.” This extra money that would typically be paid to workers goes into the pockets of the elite. Anyone who opposes this immigration is called a racist.

The EU has punished Hungary and Poland for wanting to keep their countries Hungarian and Polish. 

Notice that, as is explained by Hungary’s Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto, neither the EU nor the NYT wants referendums to be held in Hungary. This is because most of the Hungarian population opposes what the EU wants to impose on Hungary.

Invariably, the US and Western, Central, and Eastern European populations are more opposed to immigration, while the Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat elites support immigration. However, the Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat never point out that being democratic would mean following the population’s will. When the overall population opposes their policies, they attack the position of the people.

Biden Sees This as a Contest Between Democracy and Autocracy?

The quote continues.

“Biden sees this moment as a contest between democracy and autocracy,” he said. “Over the longer term, certainly having one of the world’s most revered, advanced democracies elect an illiberal person would be a setback for the cause of democracy writ large.” – New York Times

Biden became the Democratic nominee through a rigged system where Obama worked behind the scenes to rig the nomination against Bernie Sanders, and all of the challengers were promised various goodies to drop out at the same time and then endorse Biden, a candidate they had previously lampooned. Furthermore, Big Tech and the establishment of Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrat media suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, as is covered in the article How the Democrat Media Covered Up Hunter Biden Laptop Exposing Him as a Drug Addled Influence Peddling Machine. Polling shows that if the media and Big Tech had not censored this story, it would have changed the election’s outcome in favor of Trump.

Therefore, Biden is in no position to use the term democracy as his actions have shown he has always been firmly against the participatory government.

But the NYT says that Le Pen is illiberal and a setback for democracy. However, if Le Pen wins, she will have won what is considered a fair election. It seems that it is only a setback for the elitists at the New York Times and not a setback for participatory government or the ordinary people in France.

Conclusion

When Globalist/EU/Neoliberal/Democrats use the term democracy, they do not mean the population can influence or choose their political leaders. The globalists constantly talk about democracy, but when an election does not go in a globalist direction, they say it is not democratic. To globalists, democracy means the leaders of the select election that the globalists want, and the leaders do what the globalists say. Rought speaking, the following equation applies.

Democracy = Globalism = Oligarch Desires

Therefore, for the elites and their media, democracy is a code word that means the selection and influence of a country’s political system by oligarchs. Thus, the term democracy has multiple contradictory meanings, which should be updated in worldwide dictionaries.

To anti-globalists and non-oligarchs, it means the people in that country choosing. But globalist oligarchs mean just the oligarchs get to vote.

This means that you are reading or viewing any media from the following.

See more on the concentration of media in the following article.

That is the meaning of the terms democracy or democratic.

When any of these media entities, all of which are owned by oligarchs or funded by oligarchs, use the term democracy, it is essential to convert that into what they mean and not use the official definition of democracy. When they use the term, they mean control of political systems by oligarchs.