I received a great email from a reader who asked a series of rather profound questions. I thought it might make a great article. The email read, “Dr. Dave! I read your article on the collusion of power. Great article! But I’ve done some research on the matter, and unfortunately, I continually find conflicting information. Some think the system is good, some think it’s bad, and some think it’s the end of the world. I’m curious about your thoughts regarding corporations like BlackRock. Are they as evil as some make them out to be? Are corporations like this who you are alluding to in that article? If so, what can be done about that? Also, I’ve seen some videos linking BlackRock to the situation in Ukraine. Is that true? If so, how?” Great questions! And yes, my article on the “collusion of power” was written somewhat vaguely so as to encourage research. However, I am more than willing to discuss the specifics mentioned – the revolving door, so to speak. So, let’s discuss it.

Before we dig in, let me say that I’m not a financial advisor, and I’m not some ‘insider‘ with all of the information or answers. There are going to be plenty of things that I am unaware of, many things I probably won’t get to in this article, and I’m sure there will be a few things I miss. Frankly, the topic deserves to be a book or documentary. That said, know that I’m approaching this from a ‘strategy’ point of view. I think this lens will provide us with some unique perspectives on the matter. Nonetheless, you need to take this for what it’s worth, do your own research, think for yourself, and make up your own mind.

The first thing we have to understand is that the relationship between mega-corporations, banks, and governments is highly complex. Also, it’s important not to provide too much focus on one element. I’ve covered banks before, so I will not focus on that too much in this article. Regardless, there are a lot of moving parts. Many of them are not pretty. However, it is set up this way on purpose. After all, the harder it is to navigate or investigate, the harder it will be for the average person to gain a clear picture. Of course, with that in mind, I’ll also say that the devil you seek is probably not where you might think to look for him.

The Revolving Door: Corporations, Banks, and Government

I think the first thing we have to do is understand “the establishment.” In this context, “the establishment” is the entrenched network of political, corporate, and financial elites with significant power and influence over the economic and political systems. These are the people who have made a career from their endeavors. Hence, these individuals and institutions benefit from maintaining the status quo, leveraging their resources and connections to shape laws, regulations, and policies in ways that protect and advance their interests.

Now, it’s important to note that “the establishment” transcends party lines—encompassing politicians (from both the left and right), corporate executives, lobbyists, financial institutions, and even regulatory agencies. While these actors may present themselves as working in the public’s best interest, they are often more focused on preserving their own positions of power. By creating a legal and regulatory framework that favors their needs, they ensure continued dominance in the marketplace while stifling competition and innovation. They also benefit from a cycle of mutual reinforcement: corporations support politicians with campaign donations and lobbying efforts, and in return, those politicians create policies that benefit these corporations, reinforcing a closed loop of influence.

In this sense, the establishment represents a system of power-sharing that prevents meaningful reform, keeping new competitors, technologies, and ideas from disrupting their dominance. Of course, the true danger lies in this carefully managed system, which insulates itself from scrutiny and accountability, allowing the political and corporate elite to continue operating with minimal challenge or consequence. However, this requires the “revolving door.”

The concept of a “revolving door” refers to the frequent exchange of personnel between corporate leadership, banking institutions, and government positions. High-ranking mega-corporation officials often assume prominent roles within governments, creating a blurred line between public policy and corporate interest. This revolving door allows corporations to influence legislation, regulatory frameworks, and government policies in ways that favor their bottom line. Eventually, many of these people will “rotate” back to their corporate gigs, and they’ll be rewarded for “their service.” In the case of BlackRock, for example, many of its former employees have moved into key positions in the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, facilitating this deep connection between government and private financial interests.

Of course, this relationship extends well beyond individuals. For example, large corporations, banks, and asset management firms are regularly contracted by governments to manage financial crises or shape economic policy. A great demonstration of this was during the 2008 financial crash when BlackRock was called upon to help manage assets and stabilize the markets. However, I think that presents us with our first big question. With firms like BlackRock managing trillions in assets and essentially controlling how money flows, who is really running the show?

How BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Control Economies

BlackRock has been the subject of a lot of internet scrutiny lately, but it’s not just BlackRock you need to keep an eye on. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are known as the “Big Three” asset managers. Together, they control vast portions of the global economy by holding shares in 95% of Fortune 500 companies. Through their control of index funds and ETFs, these firms accumulate shares in thousands of companies. Of course, they also own pieces of each other, but that’s a whole other topic regarding competition. Although they claim to be ‘passive investors,’ the truth is that their significant stake in corporations allows them to influence corporate decisions, often aligning with management and stockholder profits rather than the interests of employees or consumers.

This is our first major complexity. The 2008 financial crash demonstrated how deeply embedded these firms are in both corporate and government spheres. While BlackRock has been hired by governments worldwide to assist with financial management, it simultaneously owns significant portions of the companies benefiting from government bailouts and contracts. This dual role places BlackRock in a significant position of power, allowing it to indirectly (or directly) shape economic policies and financial markets to its advantage. That’s our second major complexity.

Lobbying and Campaign Finance

Lobbying is perhaps one of the most powerful tools used by mega-corporations to manipulate government policies. In 2022 alone, U.S. lobbying spending reached a staggering $3.7 billion, with financial giants like BlackRock, Monsanto, Boeing, and Big Pharma companies contributing significant portions of that sum. This level of financial clout has a profound effect on legislation, particularly when it comes to deregulation and the promotion of policies that favor corporate interests. If you’re paying attention, you’ll notice some rather interesting overlaps there.

The influence of campaign finance cannot be understated. These large firms pour millions into political campaigns through Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs, effectively buying access and favor from elected officials. BlackRock, for example, has consistently funneled money to politicians who support financial deregulation, allowing them to expand their portfolio and influence with minimal oversight. The 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision further compounded this issue by allowing unlimited corporate spending in elections, opening the floodgates for large financial entities to control the political process through donations.

Of course, it’s all legal, but then again, we have to ask, who makes the laws? The people benefiting from the contributions? It’s not the president, but you’re being constantly distracted by the figurehead. Anyway, this convergence of corporate lobbying and unchecked campaign finance contributions leads to a scenario where the interests of the people—whether they be laborers, small businesses, or consumers—are often subordinated to the will of corporate juggernauts who have paid for the privilege of dictating policy. There’s a word for that. Can you guess what it is?

Now, I want you to think about something. An individual can contribute up to $2,900 per election to a federal candidate’s campaign. How does your contribution compare to the millions provided by these corporations? Who has more sway, then? You or these corporations? Who set it up this way?

Industrial Complexes and Their Interdependence

If we are being honest with ourselves, we should probably admit that several large sectors operate under the influence of government and corporate collusion: the military-industrial complex, the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, the agricultural-industrial complex, the educational-industrial complex, and the media-industrial complex. These sectors, dominated by a few large corporations, essentially drive global economic and political agendas while keeping the public away from the decision-making process. It’s actually a rather impressive strategy.

The Military-Industrial Complex thrives on the continuous expansion of defense spending. Ike tried to warn us! Wars and conflicts fuel their profits, as these companies supply weapons, technology, and services to governments. Interestingly enough, RFK Jr recently pointed out that countries joining NATO must align their military purchases with NATO specifications, which also means purchasing equipment from companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing—firms partially owned by BlackRock and Vanguard.

Indeed, the Ukraine conflict is a great example. The U.S. has committed billions in military aid to Ukraine. Oddly enough, many Americans are frustrated that so much money is going overseas, but that’s not what’s really happening. The reality is that the majority of that money has funneled its way back to American defense contractors. What is publicly framed as ‘aid for Ukraine’s defense’ is, in reality, a boost to the U.S. defense industry. Of course, you can note how politicians on the left and the right are all about it!

The Agricultural-Industrial Complex plays a similar role in global food production. Large corporations such as DuPont and Monsanto, again tied to BlackRock and other major asset managers, dominate global agriculture. As RFK Jr. also astutely pointed out, Ukraine’s farmlands, some of the most fertile in Europe, have become a point of interest for these multinational corporations. As Ukraine seeks financial aid to rebuild its economy post-conflict, it is forced to sell off its agricultural assets—further benefiting these firms. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole goes deeper.

The Pharmaceutical-Industrial Complex similarly intertwines with government health policy, especially in crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Companies like Pfizer and Moderna, partly owned by the same asset managers, benefited from rapid vaccine development and distribution. Government contracts and subsidies ensured that these corporations maximized their profits while the public bore the cost. Even more interesting is that both government actors and the media attempted to completely shut down competing interests, warnings, and avoidance efforts. Who ultimately benefited?

That’s because the Media-Industrial Complex ensures that these narratives are tightly controlled. Media conglomerates are likewise owned or influenced by advertising dollars by the Big Three, shaping public perception and discourse. This is to say that the public is fed information that serves the interests of corporations and governments rather than challenging the existing power structures. Of course, that’s why the “traditional media” is sometimes called “establishment media.” Again, this is both on the left and the right. Furthermore, one can note the almost universal disdain for alternative media and the proactive efforts of establishment entities to shut them down.

Of course, we should also discuss the “educational-industrial complex” that keeps the citizenry ignorant. Or how it fights educational institutions and strategies that seek to enlighten the people and challenge the status quo (such as private schools). Indeed, there is an educational-industrial complex to consider, and I have written about the problem with education in the past, but you probably get the point. The people are largely unaware of the actual powers that influence their lives.

Environmental and Social Consequences

For those of you worried about the environment and social issues, understand that the unchecked collusion between corporate entities and government bodies has had devastating effects on both environmental sustainability and social equity. For example, companies like Monsanto, through their partnerships with government agencies, have flooded agricultural markets with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and pesticides like glyphosate, which have been linked to environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and public health risks. While Monsanto profits from monopolizing seed markets and selling chemicals, small farmers are often driven out of business, and local ecosystems suffer from the overuse of harmful chemicals – which sometimes run off into water supplies. Of course, we could talk about forever chemicals here, but that probably deserves its own article.

In the pharmaceutical industry, Big Pharma’s close ties to the government have facilitated policies that led to the opioid crisis, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the U.S. alone. Companies like Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, shielded by political connections and massive lobbying efforts, have been allowed to push addictive medications onto the market with little regulatory resistance, leading to widespread addiction and social breakdown in communities across the nation. Think about who benefits from either a distribution, legal, or even cleanup effort.

Moreover, in the context of climate change, financial titans like BlackRock invest billions in fossil fuel companies, exacerbating global warming while simultaneously positioning themselves as advocates of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. In a lot of ways, these double standards simply demonstrate the depth of corporate hypocrisy and the willingness of governments to allow corporations to maintain profit-maximizing practices at the expense of environmental and societal well-being.

Stifling Competition and Innovation

We were told that this age of information would set us free from all this nonsense. So, why hasn’t it? Well, as you probably know, the current setup, where a few corporations wield disproportionate control over markets, actively stifles competition and hinders innovation. However, this includes platforms for information distribution. In many industries, barriers to entry have been artificially raised by monopolistic practices, making it nearly impossible for smaller competitors to truly thrive.

Sure, there are great innovations being made, but thanks to the complexities of social media, search engines, AI, and establishment media, you’ll likely never hear about them. Even worse, there is something known as patent hoarding (or patent trolling), along with aggressive intellectual property lawsuits. Essentially, large firms use these common tactics to shut down or absorb startups before they become a threat.

The energy sector is a fantastic example. I’ve talked about this before. Hydrogen technology, which has the potential to revolutionize energy production and reduce global reliance on fossil fuels, has faced significant hurdles due to the vested interests of the oil and gas industry. Major fossil fuel companies, backed by their governmental allies, have consistently lobbied against investments in alternative energy sources. There is a long history of this as well. Consider the attacks on nuclear energy as an example. These same companies often pour funding into research and development only to suppress or delay the release of promising technologies, including hydrogen, that could disrupt the status quo. Moreover, media and astroturfing campaigns have all but made sure that most people think such technologies are not viable in the first place – which isn’t true.

This anti-competitive behavior is particularly evident in the pharmaceutical sector, where Big Pharma has long employed tactics to delay the introduction of generic drugs, keeping prices artificially high and limiting access to affordable healthcare solutions. Additionally, the industry’s reluctance to pursue research or alternative treatments also seems to be a convenient way to claim that these options are either “unproven” or misaligned with existing research. However, I will emphatically state that it’s pretty hard to uncover new solutions when the industry deliberately avoids the necessary studies.

Take, for example, the growing concern over retail receipt paper and its toxic effects. Despite mounting evidence of harm, the health risks for cashiers (the people who handle the most) are largely ignored. As of now, there seems to be no large-scale, comprehensive study monitoring chronic diseases among retail workers who handle receipt paper daily—though I would imagine that such a study would be enlightening. So, why not? After all, bisphenol A (BPA) and bisphenol S (BPS), common in thermal receipt paper, are known endocrine disruptors that can lead to conditions like hormonal imbalances, infertility, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Might it have anything to do with the low wages of cashiers equating to an inability to afford the necessary testing or treatments?

Anyway, the point is that when health becomes profitable, you can expect increasing levels of disease. Unfortunately, it gets worse. For example, we could talk about patent abuse. By patenting even minor modifications to existing formulas, pharmaceutical companies maintain monopolies on life-saving medications, forcing consumers to pay inflated prices. Competition would likely help here, but as we discussed earlier, there is no motivation to do so because these large corporations own each other. Meanwhile, smaller innovators are blocked (by government, funding, and competition) from introducing cost-effective alternatives to the market, ensuring that the cycle of exploitation continues.

The question is, what chance do the poor or chronically ill truly have in this environment? And this is just one example of many. Furthermore, and I alluded to this before, but you’ll also notice how natural alternatives and proven supplement protocols are shut down or made to look weak in comparison. Government, media, corporations, education, etc., all working together with the same narratives – that equate to you avoiding alternatives that they don’t profit from. We saw this during the pandemic, where a simple concoction of vitamins saved countless lives, but the public was told such methods were “dangerous” and “unproven.”

Ultimately, I want you to understand that these practices limit the potential for groundbreaking advancements across industries. Instead of fostering a competitive environment that encourages innovation and benefits consumers, the current structure protects incumbents, allowing them to stifle progress to protect their profits. And unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there.

The Role of Large Banks and the Central Bank

While corrupt establishment politicians and mega-corporations are problematic, we must never forget that this economic nightmare includes the Central Bank, along with the network of large financial institutions that follow its lead. These entities wield immense power in shaping the financial landscape, controlling monetary policy, interest rates, and the flow of credit. Their influence extends beyond just banking—they affect market stability, corporate survival, and even government policy. With the ability to manipulate currency and financial markets, large banks are deeply intertwined with the corporate and political establishments. This alignment ensures that disruptive innovations, such as those that could shift global energy paradigms, face significant barriers to entry, maintaining the dominance of existing power structures. Their position also enables them to support establishment politicians and ensure policies that protect their interests rather than those of the broader public.

The irony is that the institution tasked with educating the people has largely omitted what the people need to know about this reality. Of course, even more irony can be found in these entities, persuading the masses to avoid or defund education in the first place, ensuring that people willfully avoid or ignore the necessary information. Either way, from the very inception of the United States, many of the Founding Fathers expressed deep concerns over the establishment of a central bank. Men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison feared that consolidating financial power in the hands of a single institution would threaten the very liberty they had fought for. They warned that a central bank, with its control over the nation’s money supply, could easily manipulate the economy, create cycles of debt, and influence the actions of the government itself. Jefferson famously stated, “Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies,” arguing that financial institutions, if left unchecked, could undermine the republic by fostering corruption and concentrating power away from the people.

Indeed, our Founders have proven themselves to be considerably more intelligent than the modern education system gives them credit for. It’s no accident. Due to anchoring bias and the resulting interplays of other biases noted in the theory of Epistemic Rigidity, such omissions ensure that such truths and warnings are ultimately ignored when they matter most. Of course, many are distracted by the other contortions and false narratives fed to them about the Founders. So, they wouldn’t be interested in hearing their wisdom anyway.

It’s not just our Founders, though. Other notable figures in American history have echoed these same concerns. Andrew Jackson, for example, fought fiercely against the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States in the 1830s, recognizing the immense influence that a central banking system could exert over the economy and politics. The point is that the dangers they foresaw—excessive debt, market manipulation, and the merging of financial and political power—have become a reality in today’s system. Of course, this is also a clue about the resolution of the problem. However, the point is that by controlling the money supply and interest rates, central banks steer the direction of entire economies, and their influence can often protect corporate and governmental interests at the expense of individual freedoms and national sovereignty.

Impact on Democracy and Policy-Making

The fusion of corporate power with government authority has led to what many consider a direct threat to democratic governance. Look, when powerful entities like BlackRock, State Street, or any of the other large powerhouses leverage their economic strength to influence policy decisions, they undermine the core democratic principle of one person, one vote. As previously mentioned, these corporations often benefit greatly from the “revolving door” between public service and private industry, where former government officials transition into corporate roles and corporate leaders take up key positions within regulatory agencies.

I want you to think about that for a second. This system results in something known as “regulatory capture,” where the regulatory bodies meant to monitor industries become dominated by the industries they are meant to regulate. It is literally the ultimate conflict of interest. What I want you to understand here is that this power dynamic allows corporations to craft legislation in their favor, minimizing regulations or even writing the laws themselves, as seen in financial deregulation efforts in the past decade.

Ultimately, this manipulation of the policymaking process not only strengthens monopolies and oligopolies but also limits the public’s ability to challenge corporate dominance, leaving citizens disenfranchised in critical areas of economic and social life. Furthermore, when corporations align with the government, the checks and balances inherent to our Republic are undermined, as policy decisions increasingly reflect the interests of the few rather than the will of the many. This actually presents itself in numerous ways, but it’s a problem in each of them.

Anocracy and Crony Capitalism: A Symbiotic Relationship

Anocracy, or partial democracy, is a system where democratic institutions exist but are heavily influenced by corporate or elite interests. Think about it! What we see today in the U.S. (and much of the world) is a form of crony capitalism, where government policy and economic systems are shaped by a small group of powerful corporations and financial institutions. Rather than free markets driving competition and innovation, these entities monopolize industries and shape policies in their favor, ensuring profits at the expense of the general public. The “anocracy” has been realized.

Once again, we can use Ukraine as an example. The conflict has served as an opportunity for defense contractors, agricultural conglomerates, and financial institutions to profit from destruction and subsequent reconstruction. By controlling the narrative and political responses, these actors ensure that the war continues and that reconstruction contracts flow to their own companies, further entrenching their power. Meanwhile, the public is pushed to take sides and fight amongst themselves based on identity politics and partisan contortions.

That said, I would be remiss not to reiterate something I have touched on a few times in previous articles. Remember that the Political Instability Task Force figured out that predicting civil war is possible. They stated that the two highly predictive factors are 1) if a country is an anocracy and 2) if the citizens in these anocracies form political parties based on identity (identity politics) rather than ideology. One can note our current condition in the United States. One can also note the entities driving such efforts and narratives. Incidentally, it all benefits the powerful – not you!

How Economic Upheaval and War Benefit the Elite

I’ve seen arguments suggesting that such entities wouldn’t want war or economic upheaval because it would disrupt this or that. Again, if you make war profitable, there will always be war. It’s sad to say that economic crises and wars have always benefited the wealthy elite who control major industries. Think about the things that are required in an actual large-scale war. Wars create demand for military supplies, leading to massive profits for defense contractors. This includes manufacturing, food, and so on.

However, even economic upheavals benefit the establishment. Economic crises force governments to borrow more, often turning to asset managers like BlackRock for assistance. As these firms gain more control over assets and financial systems, their influence grows, creating a cycle where economic upheaval leads to greater wealth concentration in the hands of a few. Again, it’s not about you – it’s about them.

In many ways, the war in Ukraine illustrates this cycle perfectly. Sure, billions have been given to Ukraine in military aid. However, these billions are then funneled back to defense contractors, while multinational corporations benefit from selling Ukraine’s assets. BlackRock, already entrenched in Ukraine’s financial restructuring, will likely control the country’s future economic landscape. The defense contractors will benefit as long as the war goes on and even more if the conflict gets worse. They will undoubtedly have a Central Bank controlled by their group and the rebuilding efforts will likely all be conducted by organizations owned by the conglomerate (and so on). More importantly, it will all be approved by their government counterparts. Are you starting to see it?

A United Front: Left and Right Are Both Targets

Personally, I believe that the division between left and right political ideologies is not a natural divide but a manufactured one. If you really give it any thought, it’s more often a false choice and a great representation of the “Either-Or Fallacy.” I believe that it has been designed to keep the public distracted from the real issues at hand. After all, I think most understand that the politicians barking at one another also go play golf together on the weekends or attend their fancy parties together. This is to say that the collusion between corporations, banks, and governments likely transcends your political lines – lines you were probably spoon-fed and conditioned into anyway (by them). And frankly, both sides of the political spectrum have their strings pulled by these powerful entities. The citizens who choose to play this game are often mere pawns on the board.

Let me say this another way. As long as you are focused on cultural wars and identity politics, your politicians, along with these corporations and banks, avoid scrutiny. It’s that simple. The only thing they have to do is manipulate your emotions with your “hot-button” because your emotions take over and drive your biases. While citizens argue over partisan issues, the real power brokers quietly accumulate wealth and influence, ensuring that the status quo remains unchallenged.

Stop and think!! If Edward Bernays taught us anything, it’s that great minds don’t think alike—it’s the simple minds that do. And this is largely thanks to emotionally driven conformity (toxic tribalism) rather than informed and rational processes. Thankfully, you can always choose to break free from that reality.

The Role of Technology in Collusion

We must all be acutely aware that toxic tribalism and social media help to keep you angry and distracted. Of course, when factoring in the concept of ‘brainrot content,’ and poor food choices, the problem gets even worse. And thanks to algorithmic search engine ordering, it also ensures that even if you are interested in accuracy, it’s difficult to find and see the necessary information anyway. At the same time, it also makes censorship extremely easy. Ultimately, this sets the stage for disinformation and narrative control. However, you should note who controls these platforms and the recent revelations regarding governmental pressures to conform to governmental narratives. The theme continues.

Meanwhile, modern technology has further entrenched the collusion between corporations and governments, particularly in the financial sector. Companies like BlackRock employ algorithmic trading and AI-driven investment strategies (such as Aladdin – an advanced AI-driven investment management system) that not only amplify their control over financial markets but also make it nearly impossible for smaller firms or individual investors to compete. These technologies allow for microsecond-level trades, giving large asset managers an edge that average market participants cannot hope to match.

Moreover, and something that a lot of people are completely unaware of, is that AI systems are increasingly being used by banks and corporations to automate lobbying efforts, with software that tracks legislation and policy changes, allowing firms to adjust their lobbying tactics in real-time. This level of sophistication further enhances corporate influence over lawmakers, who often cannot keep pace with the speed at which these AI-driven lobbying campaigns operate.

As these technologies become more integrated into both government and corporate structures, they deepen the inequality and imbalance of power in society. After all, do you have the resources necessary to wield such influence? Do you think it’s an accident that the average person is being told how dangerous AI is? Don’t people tend to avoid the dangers they are told about? How convenient is it that our society has shifted so much that we value safety over liberty (ref: The Adversity Nexus)?

Well, if outcomes matter, and if governments truly care, we must all adapt to these changes, and governments can start by implementing new regulations that control how technology is used in both financial markets and political lobbying. If they don’t, they risk exacerbating the already enormous disparities in power and influence. Of course, we already know how that will go. And once again, that provides us a clue.

A Call for Transparency and Regulation

Let’s pretend for a second that our representatives actually care about the utter destruction of our nation. As citizens, we must understand that addressing the pervasive collusion between corporations, banks, and governments requires more than just recognizing the problem. Concrete steps must be taken to bring transparency and accountability to both corporate and government activities. While there are plenty of ways to approach this problem, it seems that the most effective means of doing this would involve:

• Campaign Finance Reform: Limiting the amount of money corporations can donate to political campaigns would reduce their influence over elected officials. Banning or capping corporate contributions to PACs and Super PACs would return political power to the electorate rather than the highest bidder. Can you imagine establishment politicians limiting their own campaign contributions?
• Stronger Anti-Trust Enforcement: Breaking up monopolies and oligopolies in industries like finance, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals would encourage competition and limit corporate control over markets. Revisiting and updating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act would give the government more power to prevent harmful mergers and acquisitions. Would your politicians endeavor this if it resulted in the elimination of support from these special interests?
• Closing the Revolving Door: Instituting stricter rules to prevent former government officials from immediately transitioning into corporate jobs—and vice versa—would curb regulatory capture. Cooling-off periods, where ex-public servants must wait a certain period before joining private corporations, would reduce conflicts of interest. But would your politicians vote for the elimination of their retirement or backup plans?

Not a Corporate Smear Campaign, but a Systemic Issue

Now, I share these ideas to demonstrate a few points. First, establishment politicians are likely not going to help. However, non-establishment politicians might. Hence, and in this light, it’s actually pretty easy to discover who is truly on the side of the people. Outsiders may be our best bet, but they will also be painted as dangerous individuals, and the media will try very hard to sell you on the idea that you need ‘establishment politicians.’ However, the truth is that career politicians are a massive part of this problem. What we need to understand is that more of the same simply gets us more of the same.

We need to be vision-focused here. Do you want accurate, effective, and efficient outcomes, or do you want to feel a certain way about things for a little while? These policy reforms could begin to restore some of the balance between corporate power and democratic accountability, ensuring that government once again works for the people rather than the profit motives of mega-corporations. The fact that none of them will happen in the current climate is just about all you need to understand the bigger problem.

Also, it’s important to clarify that this analysis is not a direct attack on the corporations and banks mentioned. The truth is that many of them are simply operating within the legal frameworks established by governments, leveraging those systems to their advantage. In many cases, they are simply gaming the rules of the system in ways that benefit them, as any rational actor in a competitive marketplace might do. Of course, while the system is a very big problem for the people, it also means that the real issue lies not in the actions of the corporations who are abiding by the rules laid out before them but in the systems and laws created by those who hold public office. I mean… it’s not the corporation’s fault that your politicians are corrupt.

Remember that you cannot solve a problem that has not been properly identified. Should you blame a corporation and banks for following the rules, or should you blame the rule-makers for purposefully relaxing the rules for their friends? The frustrating part is that people love to listen to their politicians point the finger at these entities while ignoring that their politicians allowed it all to happen in the first place.

The reality is that establishment officials, both on the left and the right, have facilitated these imbalances through policy decisions, tax breaks, and regulatory loopholes. These officials, whether deliberately or through negligence, have allowed and even encouraged corporations to consolidate power and wealth, stifling true competition. In return, these same politicians receive cush jobs if they get out of office or even financial backing from corporate interests, ensuring their reelection and continued influence and destruction. This cycle of mutual benefit perpetuates the problem, with little to no incentive for change.

We must understand that establishment politicians play a key role in maintaining the status quo. And for the sake of clarity, allow me to reiterate the fact that your politicians often direct public outrage toward “the other side,” corporations, and banks to divert attention from their own complicity in the system. This sleight of hand keeps the public focused on their neighbors, corporate wrongdoing, and banking power while shielding the political class from scrutiny – which is where any such resolution truly resides. As a result, business continues as usual—corporations and banks grow ever more powerful, while the politicians who claim to be “fighting for the people” secure their positions with financial support from the very companies and banks they are supposedly holding to account.

Of course, if you really think about it, you’ll likely notice that these establishment politicians, corporations, media, banks, etc., typically frown upon market-based solutions for media, technology, education, health, and so on. We are literally paying the price for it. Many futurists, innovators, and thinkers have argued that humanity is at least 100 years behind where we could be due to profit-driven models and governmental systems that stifle innovation. Instead of fostering advancements in critical areas like energy, transportation, and space exploration, powerful corporate and political interests have prioritized maintaining the status quo for financial gain. As a result, revolutionary technologies such as hydrogen energy, advanced medical solutions, and sustainable infrastructure remain underdeveloped, keeping us from reaching our full potential as a species. Understand that these monopolistic machines often conspire to slow progress, leaving humanity stuck in a cycle of incremental change rather than transformative growth. Just look at how hard they are trying to limit SpaceX.

What Can Be Done?

Indeed, these issues seem overwhelming. In many ways, they truly are. However, there are concrete steps individuals can take to push back against corporate, banking, and government collusion:

1. Support Non-Establishment Candidates: Remember that the root of the problem begins with establishment and career politicians who are trying to get rich and powerful through their positions. Stop supporting them (left and right). Consider non-establishment types who clearly understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and aim to restore them. The easiest way to identify these people is to identify whether they are career politicians or not. Candidates seeking universal term limits might be a decent pick as well.
2. Support Widespread Sunset Laws: Laws that expire automatically are often referred to as “sunset laws” or “sundown laws.” These laws include provisions that set a specific expiration date unless renewed or reauthorized by legislative action. This is a benefit on many levels.
3. Support Campaign Finance Reform: One way to reduce the influence of corporations and banks in government is through comprehensive campaign finance reform. Supporting candidates and policies that limit corporate and banking donations can help sever the connection between corporate and banking money and political power.
4. Divest from Major Asset Managers: Again, I’m not a financial planner, but it seems to me that the power given can also be taken away. Hence, anytime we can redirect personal, local, or national investments away from large firms like BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard (or any others of similar class), individuals and institutions can reduce their power. Perhaps we should opt for socially responsible investment funds that prioritize ethical practices over profits. Of course, this idea would also require the next step.
5. Promote Local Economies and Independent Media: Imagine a nation that supported itself. Stop supporting the mega-corporations involved in these schemes! Realize that 99.9% of your economy is small to medium-sized businesses. Supporting local businesses, independent media, and alternative economic models helps to weaken the monopolistic hold of mega-corporations and massive banks. And, of course, always encourage transparency and accountability by consuming and sharing information from diverse and credible sources.

Indeed, it’s a complex problem. Frankly, there is plenty more that could be discussed. However, I want you to understand that the core problem is not just corporate or banking greed but a political system that allows it to thrive in the first place. Real reform must start with the politicians and the laws they enact, which would break the cycle of corporate influence and lead to a more balanced and competitive marketplace. Of course, this really means that real reform starts with your ability to think. Until that happens, the system will continue to benefit those at the top while leaving the public to bear the consequences.

Think of it this way – we can continue to fight amongst ourselves or face the truth regarding the underpinnings of that division. At the end of the day, we all just want to live our best lives. Unfortunately, the establishment is keeping us from doing that. Of course, we should also remember that this is not just a political issue—it’s a fight for the integrity of our Republic and the future of our economy. Only through awareness and collective action can we begin to dismantle this system of collusion and corruption.

Incidentally, it’s also very easy to measure the effectiveness of a politician. You should measure ‘progress’ in relation to the ‘vision.’ That vision (of this great nation) is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We can know this by reading history or simply examining the oath that public servants must take before assuming office (to protect the Constitution). So, if that politician is adhering to the Constitution and Bill of Rights – regardless of political affiliation, they’re probably good. If they do things that hinder the Constitution or Bill of Rights or attempt to limit them for any reason, they are probably not our friends. They need to get voted out immediately. Of course, that evaluation and measurement requires us all to know and understand these documents as well. After all, you cannot love, support, exercise, or defend something you do not know.

Regrettably, many will ignore this warning, much like the politicians who resist self-regulation. Nonetheless, I believe that we stand at a crossroads, and time is of the essence. I believe we can hear the echo of empires if we know what to listen for. Will we prioritize the integrity of our Republic or succumb to the identity politics and manipulations imposed by establishment politicians? Ultimately, the choice is ours. My advice: choose carefully.