Behind the Curtain: The Hidden Board Guiding America’s Future

As an entrepreneur my entire life, I’ve had my fair share of experiences with boards of directors. I’ve been hired by them, fired by them, and I’ve served on them. These positions aren’t elected, yet they hold an incredible amount of power. It often made me wonder: where does their power come from?

Recently, I started thinking about how this might relate to America as a whole. Could it be that the United States operates much like a public company, with a hidden board of directors quietly guiding the country’s direction while we—the shareholders—are only given a narrow set of options to vote on? This isn’t some conspiracy theory; it’s more of a thought exercise based on my experiences and research.

We tend to think that Congress and the president make the big decisions, but what if there’s more happening behind the scenes? Is it possible that a smaller, more influential group ensures long-term stability, no matter who is in office? These are the questions I’ve been exploring, and today, I’d like to invite you to join me in this journey. Let’s consider: who is really on the board of directors of America?

In a public company, the board of directors isn’t responsible for the day-to-day operations; that’s left to the executives. The board’s job is to ensure long-term stability and profitability. They make decisions behind the scenes, often without the public’s input, but their influence is undeniable. They choose who runs the company, guide the company’s strategy, and make key decisions when things go wrong.

Now, could it be that America operates in a similar way? We tend to think that Congress and the president are in charge, but what if there’s another layer—a group that ensures the country’s long-term stability? This group wouldn’t be elected, but they’d still hold power, guiding the political and economic direction of the country. It’s like a board of directors, hidden from view, making decisions to preserve the system’s longevity.

The question becomes: who might be on this hidden board? Is it made up of long-standing political figures, influential business leaders, or others we don’t even know about? And where does their power come from, if not from elections? These are the questions I’ve been asking myself, and while I don’t have all the answers, I think it’s worth considering.

One of the most important functions of any system is to maintain stability. In a company, part of the board’s job is to control the narrative when things get shaky—ensuring shareholders don’t lose confidence. In the same way, could it be that the media plays a similar role in America’s political system? Rather than simply being a neutral platform for information, could the media actually be a tool for stabilization, used to keep public perception in check?

Take recent events, for example. Mark Zuckerberg came forward admitting that the government pressured Facebook to comply with specific messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic. This wasn’t just about censorship—it was about ensuring a controlled flow of information. Could it be that the media, often seen as the voice of the people, is actually a key component in maintaining the stability of the system?

Now think about how often we elect new presidents—every four years. In the grand scheme of things, that’s a very short window. It’s not nearly enough time to ensure long-term stability. If we rely solely on the president and Congress to guide the country’s direction, how can any system function consistently? Could it be that, just like in a corporation, there are forces behind the scenes ensuring continuity and stability, regardless of who’s in office?

I came across a TikTok video by a user named Politikk, who made a bold statement: “No government of any kind, democratic or dictator, can survive a free press that does a good job.” I’ll admit, that’s a tough pill to swallow at first. It seems hard to believe, but Politikk does an amazing job of explaining why. Could it be that control over the media isn’t about limiting free speech but about ensuring the survival of the system itself?

In a way, all news is ‘fake news’ and always has been—not fake in every sense, but in the way it’s crafted to stabilize. It can be true and honest in every other respect, just not in this one. So, you don’t need to believe in corruption throughout the system, just in this single aspect. And you don’t even have to see it as corruption. In a system that has been around forever, everything feels like it works. Leaders and employees aren’t participating in corruption—they’re simply acting in ways that ensure their own promotion and preservation, in a system that naturally bends in this direction.

If we look at media through this lens, it changes the way we see information. Could it be that the press isn’t as independent as we think, and that, like in a corporation, it’s part of a broader strategy to ensure long-term stability?

There’s no denying that Trump is a polarizing figure—half of America can’t stand him. But it wasn’t always this way. Before 2016, he was loved by Democrats, appearing on talk shows and rubbing shoulders with celebrities. Then, as he made his run for president, he was initially seen as a joke, someone who had no chance of winning. But here we are, and his presidency cracked the system wide open.

The thing about Trump’s rise isn’t just that it was unexpected—it exposed something beneath the surface. It showed us that the system, which seemed so stable, wasn’t invincible. Could it be that his presidency revealed a crack in a system designed to ensure certain outcomes? But let’s not make this about Trump. The real question is: did we ever really have a choice to begin with?

It reminds me of a magician’s trick—the kind where the magician knows what card you’ll pick before you even choose. It doesn’t matter what card you draw because the trick is already set. You have the appearance of choice, but in the end, the magician always wins. In this analogy, the "board of directors" is the magician, and the primaries are the trick. Once the slate is set, you get one Republican and one Democrat. From that point on, it doesn’t matter who you pick—the magic has already happened.

Think about it. We go through the motions of debates, campaigns, and voting, but could it be that the real decisions are made long before election day? The process gives us the appearance of choice, but by the time we get to the general election, the options have already been narrowed down to two. It feels like we have control, but in reality, the outcome is already decided. The system, much like a card trick, is built to ensure stability, no matter what.

So, when we talk about disruption, like Trump, it’s not so much about him as it is about the brief moment when the trick was exposed. The magician stumbled, and for a second, we caught a glimpse of how the trick works.

If we look back at history, it’s tempting to ask: Has this trick been going on for a long time? If you trace the outcomes of past elections, certain patterns begin to emerge. One example might be the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The election hinged on a few counties in Florida, and the result was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, not the voters. Could it be that the system couldn’t risk a lengthy, destabilizing recount and instead favored a quick, decisive outcome to maintain stability?

And let’s not forget the shift in campaign funding and media influence over the last few decades. With the rise of super PACs and massive corporate donations, it’s become harder to imagine that the average voter has much say in who gets elected. The influx of money has centralized power even further, making it likely that decisions are made long before the public weighs in.

Did this hidden "board of directors" begin from the very inception of America’s political system, or did it evolve over time? There’s no definitive answer, but there are a few points in history worth considering. Some suggest that after World War II, with the rise of the Cold War and the need for geopolitical stability, a more centralized, behind-the-scenes approach to politics took root. The establishment of organizations like the CIA and the National Security Council reflects a growing need for secrecy and control during this time.

Others argue that the shift became more pronounced with the rise of television in the 1960s. The Kennedy-Nixon debates are often seen as the turning point, where image and media presentation became as important as policy positions. Could it be that from this point on, political candidates were chosen not just for their platforms but for their ability to project stability through the media?

While hard evidence is difficult to pin down, there’s plenty of research on how media, money, and political influence have shaped American elections. Books like "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky argue that media doesn’t just inform the public—it shapes the narrative in ways that serve the interests of those in power. The influence of corporate money on politics is well-documented in works like "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer, which traces how billionaires have steered American politics behind the scenes for decades.

In more recent times, Mark Zuckerberg’s admission that Facebook was pressured by the government during COVID-19 hints at the role of media control. Could it be that this kind of influence has been happening for far longer, just not as openly?

So, while the exact timeline remains unclear, the signs point to a system that has been increasingly centralized over the decades. The trick is still being played—and we’re just now beginning to notice.

Donald Trump’s rise to the presidency in 2016 was an anomaly—a break in the system. Whether you love him or hate him, there’s no denying that his unexpected success shocked both major political parties and disrupted the carefully controlled narrative. Before his election, he was largely a pop culture figure, embraced by Democrats and media alike. But once his candidacy became serious, he was quickly dismissed as a joke, only to end up in the White House.

The system wasn’t built for someone like Trump—a figure who didn’t rise through the traditional political ranks. He wasn’t vetted or groomed by the powers that be, and his presidency exposed cracks in the facade. He represented a candidate that wasn’t supposed to make it through, a glitch in the magician’s trick. But now that the system has recovered from that shock, could it be that it won’t allow him through again?

Eric Weinstein’s analysis suggests that Trump won’t be "allowed" to become president a second time. Not because of his policies or his supporters, but because the system—this hidden board of directors—has learned its lesson. The political and media establishment has shifted its narrative, with even staunch Republicans distancing themselves from him. And there’s a deeper history here, tied to how these shifts have happened before.

Consider the Kennedy family, one of the most famous Democratic dynasties in American history. Both JFK and RFK’s assassinations have long been the subject of controversy, with many questioning whether they were inside jobs. Could it be that the same hidden forces at play then are once again making sure that certain candidates—or ideas—never make it to the highest office? The Kennedy story serves as a stark reminder of how political disruptions can be met with extreme resistance.

Fast forward to today, and we see RFK Jr. breaking from his family’s Democratic legacy and aligning himself with Trump. This unexpected partnership is more than just a political oddity—it signals that insiders and outsiders are now choosing sides. RFK Jr.’s alignment with Trump shows just how fractured the system has become, with unlikely alliances emerging against the very establishment that seeks stability above all else.

And just today, another signal of where the system may be heading: Dick Cheney, a long-time Republican heavyweight, announced his support for Kamala Harris. This is a major shift, and it might just confirm where the board’s real interest lies. But here’s something to consider: Kamala Harris wasn’t elected by the people. She was appointed as vice president. By whom? And why her, given that she didn’t have strong popular support during her presidential run? Could it be that her position reflects the will of this hidden board of directors, not the voters?

What’s becoming clear is that two sides are forming—sides we’ve never seen aligned before. Insiders and outsiders are now taking positions in ways that seem strange. The magic trick that once gave the illusion of choice may not be working as smoothly as it once did. The magician doesn’t know exactly what will happen anymore, and is working overtime to make sure the trick works. This is why we’re seeing so many oddities, from surprise endorsements to unexpected political alliances.

Will the system, this hidden board of directors, succeed in controlling the outcome? We won’t know until November. But if the cracks in the system are real, we can expect to see more odd shifts, more strange alignments between insiders and outsiders. Watch closely, because the story isn’t over yet.

As I delve deeper into this idea of a hidden board of directors, I find myself asking: What exactly are they trying to protect? It seems to me that the primary goal is to maintain the status quo of global power structures—those intricate systems that control wars, the flow of money, information, healthcare, defense, and energy.

These structures are vast and deeply entrenched. But what if they exist to benefit a select few while keeping disruptive forces at bay? And what if, instead of questioning these structures, we’re being distracted by more manageable, less threatening narratives?

Consider organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and NATO. WHO plays a massive role in controlling global health narratives, but is it really promoting health—or just managing disease? Its policies direct billions in funding toward pharmaceuticals rather than preventive care. Could it be that WHO’s influence ensures the system remains profitable for those invested in healthcare as a business rather than a public service?

Just as the healthcare industry relies on stability to preserve profits and power, the defense sector operates similarly, with organizations like NATO guiding the flow of military spending. Ukraine’s interest in joining NATO, met with Russia’s resistance, highlights how control over military power shapes global politics. Is it possible that NATO’s role in defense spending is more about preserving industries reliant on conflict than ensuring global peace?

Like healthcare and defense, energy is another pillar of control in maintaining the global balance of power. It’s a sector that directly impacts every part of our lives, yet remains firmly within the hands of those who seek stability above all else. We’re led to focus on oil, gas, wind, and solar as the primary energy sources, but could it be that the real threat to the global power structure lies elsewhere? Nikola Tesla once pursued free energy, a technology that could have revolutionized the world. Why did these ideas never take off? Is it because free energy threatens the industries that currently control the flow of power and money?

Even now, micro nuclear technology could provide safe, free energy to remote parts of the world, but it’s not commercially available. Why? Could it be that decentralized energy sources challenge the very foundations of the global economy? Just like a magician relies on distraction to keep the audience’s attention away from the real trick, the focus on wind and solar keeps us from questioning the bigger, more disruptive possibilities that remain hidden from view. Could it be that the real revolution in energy is being hidden from us?

We’re also seeing disruption in media, with Elon Musk’s acquisition of X (formerly Twitter). Could this be a sign that the media landscape, once tightly controlled, is beginning to fracture? Musk has dismantled the existing narrative structures and aligned himself with outsiders like Trump. What does it mean when a media mogul challenges the very narratives that insiders have used to maintain control?

Musk’s actions, along with figures like RFK Jr., signal a shift in power. Are we witnessing the beginning of a crack in the system that was once so carefully maintained?

As Americans, we’re constantly entertained—whether by movies, sports, or social media. But is this just another form of distraction? When we’re entertained, we don’t see the larger problems. Life feels good when we’re distracted, and that’s exactly what the magician wants. Could it be that the key to maintaining control is keeping us entertained, while the real trick happens behind the scenes?

Is the magician’s greatest trick not just to give us the illusion of choice, but to keep us so occupied with entertainment that we never even ask what the trick is?

What’s becoming clear is that two distinct sides are forming—insiders who benefit from maintaining the existing power structures, and outsiders who challenge these systems and seek to disrupt the status quo. Insiders, like WHO, NATO, media conglomerates, and now even figures like Dick Cheney, work to preserve the status quo. Cheney’s recent support for Kamala Harris, a surprising endorsement from a long-time Republican insider, signals that the hidden board of directors may be aligning itself to protect the existing power structures. These insiders focus on maintaining stability in industries like healthcare, defense, and energy, keeping the global systems that control wealth and influence intact.

On the other side, we see outsiders—figures like RFK Jr., Trump, and Musk—disrupting industries, narratives, and power structures. Could it be that the hidden board is struggling to keep control over a system that’s starting to fracture?

As we approach the upcoming election, we might start to see even more strange alliances. Will the system hold, or are we seeing the beginning of its unraveling?

So, where does this leave us? Are we witnessing the unraveling of a system that’s been in place for decades, or are we simply being distracted by new faces and alliances? The hidden board of directors has worked diligently to maintain control over the flow of money, healthcare, defense, energy, and information. But as outsiders like RFK Jr., Trump, and Musk challenge the status quo, could it be that we’re starting to see through the magician’s trick?

And what about the rest of us? As Americans, are we too distracted by entertainment and the illusion of choice to notice what’s really going on? Life feels good when we’re entertained, and that’s part of the magician’s art—keeping us focused on one hand while the real work happens in the other. But are we starting to see the sleight of hand? Is the system starting to fracture in ways that even the hidden board of directors can’t fully control?

With strange alliances forming between insiders and outsiders, and cracks appearing in the foundations of power, we have to ask: Is the magic trick still working, or are we seeing it for what it is?

As we move closer to November, stay vigilant. Don’t just accept what you see—ask who is controlling the narrative and why. The real power lies in our ability to look beyond the distraction, to question the story we’re being told. Will the hidden board manage to pull off the trick once again, or are we witnessing the start of something bigger? Keep asking questions, because in the end, the real magic happens when you’re not looking.

We’ve explored the possibility of a hidden board of directors guiding the systems that govern our lives—from healthcare and defense to energy and media. As outsiders and insiders form alliances in ways we’ve never seen before, the cracks in the system are becoming more visible. But are we really seeing through the magician’s trick, or are we still being distracted?

The question isn’t whether the board exists—it’s whether we’re willing to see the signs of its influence. As we head toward November, keep your eyes open, question what you see, and look for the connections. Perhaps the real magic lies in what we aren’t being shown. Could it be time to look beyond the surface and ask deeper questions?

As we approach the upcoming election, it’s easy to get swept up in the noise—the campaigns, the debates, the promises of change. But it’s more important now than ever to stay vigilant. The stories we’re being told, the narratives shaping public perception, are all part of the magician’s trick. The real question is: Who benefits from this illusion?

Look past the distractions. The alliances forming between insiders and outsiders, the shifting narratives—it’s all part of a system working hard to maintain control. Don’t just accept the version of reality presented to you. Ask yourself: Who’s really pulling the strings? What aren’t we being told? And most importantly, what role do we play in maintaining or breaking free from this system?

The magician may be losing control, but the trick isn’t over yet. Keep questioning, stay vigilant, and remember that the most powerful tool you have is your ability to think critically and see beyond the surface.