Finally I understand

It always puzzles me why US has been pushing liberal democracy so hard on third world countries. If you don't implement liberal democracy we will bomb you, assassin your leaders, implement coups and economic & trade sanctions and finally direct invasions.

Why would the western leaders, who we can see don't really give a damn about their own people most of the time, give a damn about the people of other countries?

Under that threat Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. are all forced to change in past 20 years. Their economic growth almost immediately flattened.

After watching this movie I finally understand. It is about shareholder centric free market economic and political system. It is a system built to protect businesses and business owners. Forcing other countries to accept the western system is to make sure the rights of those businesses are protected in those countries as well.

Just think if you are a rich business owner and you need to design a political system to protect your rights as a social class, could you come up with a better system? Because that is what liberal democracy is, it is designed to take power from monarchy and give it to industrialists.

As a rich person you want 2 things: strong rule of law to stop criminals from taking your money. Then strong property rights to prevent governments from taking your money. You are rich, someone always wants to take your money. Strong rule of law requires a strong government, strong property rights require a weak one. So what to do? The answer is division of powers, separate as many functions away from government as possible. The courts and legislative branch are the most obvious. And all branches of government must only lead with corporate consent.

Political parties are built on funding not ideology, that will exclude majority of people from political system. Other than business owners, unions are a political force as well, but only when businesses are profitable they can demand their "fair share", so they are in essence pro business as well. All the media outlets are corporate owned so they also have a natural bias.

It is like there are 2 candidates you can choose from but fundamentally they all represent me, so I always win.

In activist circle there is this "power of one" saying, liberal democracy basically makes sure that is not going to happen. Legislative branch, which is the most fundamental part of liberal democracy usually has about 200 to 500 members, few individuals can not change the system. That is essential to the survival of liberal democracy.

I think the most fundamental part of liberal democracy is free press, against any kind of censorship. That sounds great but there is one thing free press won't tell you, at least won't emphasize, is that free press is almost entirely corporate owned and they are free to censor anything they want, and they have a natural bias towards corporate rule, I mean liberal democracy.

The basic function of free press is to guarantee unlimited corporate propaganda and to protect liberal democracy. The main way of doing that is to influence public opinions and keep governments in check. In most liberal democratic countries there is a fundamental distrust of governments. Why do you think that is? I think that is because we were influenced by corporate media since we were children. That is what corporate media are for, to brainwash people and it has been mostly effective.

People sometimes see corporate media support governments in very obvious and biased ways and they think main stream media must have been controlled by government, CIA, etc. But in most of the cases I can tell you it is not true. That happens mostly because governments and corporate media are controlled by the same corporate elites.

People have votes but majority of them are brainwashed and oblivious, and can only choose between 2 or 3 well funded (read pro business) political parities. Voting process for common people is mainly anger venting mechanism and that usually happens in every 3 to 5 years. The time period is usually not longer than 5 years is because after election you have to give the new government a chance, if by any chance you found out they were crooks as well it is usually few years later and it is not far from another election, people can usually wait a year or two to vent their angers again but probably no longer than that.

It is not all bad. People's votes mean that common people can not be ignored too much. Of course corporate elites will try to get away with it as much as possible.

I think some people already found out no matter who they vote for things hardly ever change. There are plenty of researches show that there is almost zero correlation between legislation passing and whether most people support or not.

The genius part of the system is that even you understand that, there is very little chance you can fundamentally change it.