This is reflected in my statements. I included it. My question wether it must be “democratic” was meant generally and related to the possibility that if “SAM” is “democratic”, it would get more and more under the control of the gloablists and their system of corruption. Then you wouldn’t have a “SAM”, but a “GANG”.
But that is what makes SAM vulnerable to corruption, even if SAM remains small.
That’s clear. I know that difference very well, James. So there is no problem of understanding that difference. If you are not “any of them”, but a member who is known by all other members, then it wouold be more probable that you can almost be sure that you are not corruptible. It depends on ( 1.) the social/political system you belong to, ( 2.) the personalities and characters of the members of the social/political system, and ( 3.) the might around you (currently the power of the globalists and their system). ( 1.) SAM for instance is perhaps “democratic”, but “democracy” means more vulnerable to corruption than other forms of government; and SAM has for example 4 groups - seers, strategists, doers. overseers -, and that doesn’t “sound” like democracy, although SAM’s smallness allows to call its social/political system “democracy”. ( 2.) One has to be sure, in spite of the smallness of SAM, that all members are not corruptible. ( 3.) The globalists as SAM’s enemy can eliminate SAM, if it SAM not willing to be corrupt.
Logically, SAM has firstly to be monarchic, then aristocratic, and at last democratic. Else you can’t build it correctly. Check out the history of all hitherto successful companies/corporations! No one of them started democratically, but they all started monarchically, then they changed to aristocracy, and at last they perhaps changed to democracy (perhaps! because most of them did not want to change to democracy, but they lastly had to because the corruption had grown and forced them). It would be no good omen for SAM to start democratically, in spite of its smallness. Unless you could be sure that no one of its members is corruptible. But how can you be sure in that case? You can never be sure, but almost be sure, if your socíal/political system is monarchic, thus authoritarian.
That’s logical.