The following text is about probabilities. (Please keep this in mind.)
Let us take two guys and call one “S.”, because he is sixty or seventy years old, and the other “T.”, because he is twenty or thirty years old.
It is very likely that T. makes the shaping of the future more dependent on politics than on economics, especially finance, and accordingly favors certain political parties; earlier, e.g., in the 19th century and for the most part also in the first half of the 20th century, these tended to be parties that we would today call “right-wing parties”; in the 20th century this is gradually reversed, so that from the second half onward it is more likely to be parties that we are used to calling “left-wing parties”.
In the case of S., however, it is rather the other way around. He rather lets the economy, especially the financial economy, shape the future, so that for him the political parties play almost no role, because they are bought by the money powers. Money cares about parties only when they can be bought, otherwise it doesn’t care about them - they can do what they want: the main thing is that the cash register rings.
With age one becomes wiser, but nevertheless it is also, even if not so often, the case that T. can also already know what S. knows, and S. still does not know what T. already knows. Well, you know: it is the probability that confirms my above statement.
And there is also an argument from the more objective side that proves both S. and T. right. For the facts known to us from history also confirm that in certain times politics dominates money and in other, again certain times money dominates politics.
But what is really the case today?
I say that we are currently witnessing how money, having already dominated politics for a relatively long time, is now in its last gasps. That is why it is fighting back, at all levels, in all areas, because it has bought them all. That is why politics now has the opportunity to dominate money again - as it did before - for a long time.
Even then, if no suitable person should be found in politics for this, money would have to give up its dominance. The money people would then have to transform themselves into politicians. However it will come: money as a dominant power is about to come to an end.
Since the 1960s, however, there has been a problem that never existed before in history: the digitality of data. This is truly a novelty in history. Or have archaeologists or historians of prehistory found ancient computers that were networked together? No!
So S. is right about the current situation with the money dying off, and T., however, is right about all times before and after the rule of the money. The question is only whether S. and T. know these historical facts, their statements thus this connection contain or not - if not, then merely S. would be right, but only concerning the history of the last approximately 2 centuries as well as the present and some years of the future.
If higher living beings are “in a tight corner”, they lash out more and more. Staged “assaults”, “wars (also world wars)”, “crashs”, “mass migrations”, “total crashs”, “Covid-19” and many other signs show that the current rulers of this planet - the globalists - are “in a tight corner”. This signs are no signs of strength and also no signs of harmlessness, they are signs of weakness and also signs of danger.