On the topic of typos of governing bodies, I wanted to present another type. It's mostly democratic, that the people who make the decisions get voted in by the people, but after that all the decisions are made by those voted into office. I'm only aware of it because it's the election process that my dad's religion has for local boards, and then up to national and international assemblies. Some things to note about it is that no campaigning is allowed. And the people chosen all start at the local level. After that local election those elected vote among themselves for which of them would go to the next level of communities. Like from a city consol to a state consol sort of thing. Probabley not perfect but in light of all the politicking and bickering that I see during election times for politicians this other way bakes a lot more sense to me.

Look it up yourselves.

https://bahaiteachings.org/universal-house-of-justice

The Athenians we the only ones to have had a true democracy in which citizens took turns in running the State. We don't have that.

I somewhat agree DD; "the world is ruled by global corporations, which are imposing a strange secular morality, over world populations through coercive means such as dictating taste and choice of fashions".

"coercive means" implies the use of force, but do global corporations exert force to dictate taste and fashion? I agree GC's through political leverage have our, in reality theirs, political leadership commit to meeting their objectives. An example is where an oil rich state disbars the GC's from profiting from the states oil resource through nationalisation. Then the political leadership reacts in such a way to restore the profitability of the GC's at their behest. This could be done covertly through destabilisation of that unfriendly regime, or by direct action through military intervention.

"I (DD) think the masses have chosen the easy road by accepting the brainwashing of mass and social media dictates."

Without leadership there can be no collective mass free choice, the bulk of society just go along with the dictates of the political leadership. In a democracy if the mass don't like the dictates of the incumbents, this could be real, or it could be imparted to them though non representative powerful influences, the media play a big part in this, then at the ballot box they replace them with an alternative. In a dictatorship, or totalitarian state, where there is no ballot box mechanism, other means of replacement are found, such as the point of a gun.

"there is a Jewish conspiracy" seems to be a favourite hobby horse of the far right, but evidence of such is thin on the ground. Hitler believed in it, and we seen the consequences

Paul with such a statement you have not moved on from the 1940s. It is the left that now promotes hatred of Jews.

Paul with such a statement you are still in 1940, "there is a Jewish conspiracy" seems to be a favourite hobby horse of the far right, but evidence of such is thin on the ground. Hitler believed in it, and we seen the consequences. The Right are actually supporters of the State of Israel.

Josephus, you take a simplistic line, if you are pro Palestinian and believe in their right to self determination, then by default you must hate the Jews, or precisely the Israelis. Not so, one is not dependent on the other. Criticism of the actions of the Israeli State does not extend to hatred of Jews.

Christians have a long history of hating Jews, has something changed? Your mob might claim not to hate Jews, but Christianity might be in some short term inter period of passive coexistence, even friendliness, but hatred might come to the fore once more very shortly. Christians in Europe went for long periods of passive coexistence with Jews, before turning on them and committing mass murder, the last time ended back in 1945.