Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Latest

America’s One-Party Government

The US has evolved from a democracy into a political system where power is wielded by a political aristocracy.

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

Introduction

Today’s United States is a more realistic version of the type of society that George Orwell fictionally described in his allegorical novel 1984.

Like in 1984, the American public don’t know that they’re merely the tools of some unseen aristocracy who manipulate them by fear of ‘the other’, some ‘enemy’ group — manipulate the public via the media, which the aristocracy controls. But the big failing of Orwell’s model as a portrayal of the (when he wrote it) coming fascist-corporate dystopia was that he misunderstood how and why the public would falsely believe that they live in a democracy. His central character Winston Smith worked in an unrealistically portrayed propaganda-mill. But in some other fundamentals, Orwell had it right. The public don’t know that their real enemy is their own nation’s aristocracy who are mentally holding the public in bondage by lies systematically implanted into their beliefs, by means of ‘news’ media that are controlled by their own nation’s aristocracy, who own those media and/or control the government by bribery (sometimes subtle) of the politicians whom the aristocracy’s media are being paid to promote. In any case, the aristocracy control the public’s mind, to accept the fundamental legitimacy of the regime the aristocrats are imposing. Aristocrats hire the ‘news’ media.

When two nations’ aristocracies are at war against each other, the public in each is deceived to think that, in the other, the rulers are evil and reign over their public by dictatorship, but that in one’s own nation, the rulers are truly representative of the public and therefore in some high sense are legitimate or even a democracy: rule by the public, instead of by any aristocracy at all. In some of these ‘democratic’ dictatorships, it’s called rule by ‘the people’ or ‘the Volk’ (such as in Hitler’s Germany), but in others, it’s called simply ‘democracy’.

In the case of today’s America, “democracy” is the term that’s used, because America had long been a democracy and was founded by people who wanted their nation, which they were creating out of (and leading their Revolution against) a dictatorship by a foreign, British, aristocracy, to free themselves from any and all forms of dictatorship. So: “democracy” sells better as the term to continue applying to what has become America’s dictatorship.

When America was an authentic democracy, there were always two Parties, one of which generally represented the new domestically based American aristocracy that was emerging, and the other of which was more authentically representative of the public and so democratic. However, starting when the ‘Democrat’ Bill Clinton came into the White House, and threw out Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (“FDR’s”) AFDC, Glass-Steagall, etc., America’s Democratic Party became a Dixie version, which tried to take back the South from the Republicans and to restore control of the entire country by Wall Street — by the megabanks. What resulted from that is the complete takeover of the American nation by America’s aristocracy: a one-party government, in which the ‘Democratic Party’ is now merely the ‘liberal wing’ of that unseen aristocracy, so that both Parties now differ only on domestic policies about minorities etc., but both stand united in their foreign policies, which have become those of an aggressive aristocracy that’s trying to conquer all other nations’ aristocracies and to exert a global empire enabling America’s aristocrats to extract from the publics everywhere, and to dole out to those subordinate aristocracies (such as those in the EU) a share of the booty which will purchase their compliance and their cooperation with what U.S. President Barack Obama repeatedly has called “the one indispensable nation”, meaning that each other nation is dispensable, only America (the American aristocracy — since it’s no longer a democracy) is not. This is America’s one-party rule over the whole world — or so America’s aristocracy hopes it to become.

How it’s imposed

Let’s start with a few of the liberal, Democratic Party, ‘news’ media, and show some of their underlying far-right, Republican Party, agenda (which is sometimes even more conservative than that of conservative ‘news’ media that appeal to self-acknowledged Republicans and conservatives):

Did you know that the owner of the super-liberal Daily Kos website is an El Salvadorean aristocrat who has worked extensively as a CIA asset and whose actual opinions are far-right? That’s Markos Moulitsas.

Did you know that the founder and Editor-in-Chief at the monotonously pro-(Clinton) Democratic-Party website the National Memo is a close friend of Hillary Clinton’s, and hires only ‘reporters’ who support her neo-conservative foreign polices (such as supporting coups in Latin America, invading Iraq in 2003, killing Gaddafi in 2011, overthrowing Assad in forever, and overthrowing pro-Russian leaders of nations anywhere)? That’s Joe Conason.

Did you know that the former owner and still top executive at Huffington Post is a lifelong social climber who places in charge of international reporting a group of anti-Russian aristocrats, the Berggruen Foundation, and who got her own big breaks by marrying a Republican millionaire and politician, and by her writing a diatribe against feminism in which she said:

“Women’s Lib claims that the achievement of total liberation would transform the lives of all women for the better; the truth is that it would transform only the lives of women with strong lesbian tendencies”

That’s a bigoted statement, and it’s from Arianna Huffington.

Did you know that the person who formerly controlled Mother Jones magazine, and currently controls both Alternet and the Independent Media Institute as well as his writing for Truthout and other liberal news media, is so dedicated to the war-mongering (backed by Lockheed Martin etc.) side of the Democratic Party, that in 2011 he condemned an attempt by some Democrats to find a progressive Governor or U.S. Senator who would contest against President Obama in Democratic Party primaries in 2012 and provide Democrats a progressive Democratic alternative to the Republican-lite ‘Democrat’ Obama? This person ridicules efforts to return the Democratic Party to its pre-Clinton, FDR-dominant, anti-fascism and progressivism.  He’s Don Hazen.

Actually, the entire liberal newsmedia (except for fewer than a dozen small online-only news sites) are basically aristocratic right-wing pro-Wall-Street Democratic Party propaganda that parades as an amorphous (and typically ethnic, or Black, or Jewish, or Catholic, or gay, or other sub-cultural) ‘leftism’ that’s merely propaganda for the liberal aristocracy to dominate over the conservative aristocracy to control the public, and not at all really progressive — which instead supports eliminating political control by the aristocrats and returning this country to real democracy, FDR’s political values, in our time, no longer control by what has become the resurgent American aristocracy, the American Counter-Revolution — and its ever-increasing economic inequality and therefore increasing inequality of economic opportunity (which inequality benefits the aristocrats and their offspring at the expense of everyone else).

FDR ended mega-corporate control over the U.S. government; Republicans and Clinton-Obama ‘Democrats’ restored mega-corporate control. And now we have one-Party, mega-corporate government, in two flavors: liberal and conservative.

Here’s just one example of that liberal news-media operation, from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s home computer (and with links added by me), showing how today’s American liberals can love a fascist whom they self-identify with, notwithstanding her fascism):

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/Clinton_Email_November_Release/C05797372.pdf

“From: H <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:23 PM

To: ‘[email protected]

Subject: Re: Hillary….

Pis respond.

From: Sidney Blumenthal [here’s his son, and some of his son’s articles at Don Hazen’s alternet, plus Sid’s and Hillary’s discussions about some of them, and praise of Sidney himself by others of Hillary’s friends]

Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 11:33 PM Eastern Standard Time

To: H

Subject: Hillary….

Whenever you read this, I just want you to know how much Jackie and I have been thinking of you and hoping for your good health and recovery. And many of your friends have reached out to express the same feeling, from Gene and Diane Lyons to Sean Wilentz, and Joe Conason to, yes, Cody and Derek (Strobe spent New Year’s with Derek), and especially Carville, who was very upset (he’s an emotional kind of guy, in case you hadn’t noticed), and Begala, who was praying for you–and many others, Lynn Rothschild and Tina Brown (who wrote a very nice column with a good swipe at the evil bridge troll John Bolton), and on and on. (I’ve hooked up Sean, who flew to New Orleans for a few days, with James, who’s giving him a tour of the music scene tomorrow, Thursday, and bringing him to the field of the Battle of NO. James is on the 20 0th anniversary commission and Sean, of course, is the Andrew Jackson expert.) So, very soon, Come Home, America!–at least for awhile; rest up, take care of yourself; and, then, a lot more ahead. Talk to you whenever. As Studs Terkel used to say at the end of his radio program, quoting Big Bill Broonzy, “Take it easy, but take it.” Much love, Sid”

Conclusion

Is it hypocritical for the servants of the aristocracy to pretend to be progressive, even when they are supporting fascist candidates? How is this any different from their openly supporting Republican candidates, except for the latter politicians being openly making their appeals in their Party primaries to voters who are bigots against this or that group — Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, or whatever? After all, a fascist is bigoted against all poor people, and respects rich people (‘entrepreneurs’); they’re all social climbers at heart; they respect their ‘betters’; so, how big a difference, really, is there between liberal fascists and conservative fascists? If the rich are terrific, then the poor must be dirt, right?

This is how America became a dictatorship. Instead of there being any longer a political party that represents the aristocracy, being opposed by a political party that represents the people, there are two political parties that represent two sides of the aristocracy: on the one side (the Democratic Party) are the “noblesse oblige” aristocrats, and on the other side are the “greed is good” aristocrats. The people are merely servants; they are ‘dispensable’, just like ‘dispensable’ nations are (every nation except America).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of Christ’s Ventriloquists: The Event that Created Christianity.

Originally posted at strategic-culture.org

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Is this man the puppet master of Ukraine’s new president or an overhyped bogeyman?

Smiling to himself, Kolomoisky would be within his rights to think that he has never had it so good.

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT…


It doesn’t actually matter if Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire Igor Kolomoisky is the real power behind Volodymyr Zelensky – the president elect has to get rid of the oligarch if he is to make a break with the country’s corrupt past.

The plots, deceits and conflicts of interest in Ukrainian politics are so transparent and hyperbolic, that to say that novice politician Zelensky was a protégé of his long-time employer was not something that required months of local investigative journalism – it was just out there.

Zelensky’s comedy troupe has been on Kolomoisky’s top-rated channel for the past eight years, and his media asset spent every possible resource promoting the contender against incumbent Petro Poroshenko, a personal enemy of the tycoon, who hasn’t even risked entering Ukraine in the past months.

Similarly, the millions and the nous needed to run a presidential campaign in a country of nearly 50 million people had to come from somewhere, and Kolomoisky’s lieutenants were said to be in all key posts. The two issued half-hearted denials that one was a frontman for the other, insisting that they were business partners with a cordial working relationship, but voters had to take their word for it.

Now that the supposed scheme has paid off with Zelensky’s spectacular victory in Sunday’s run-off, Ukrainian voters are asking: what does Kolomoisky want now, and will he be allowed to run the show?

‘One-of-a-kind chancer’

Born in 1963, in a family of two Jewish engineers, Kolomoisky is the type of businessman that was once the staple of the post-Soviet public sphere, but represents a dying breed.

That is, he is not an entrepreneur in the established Western sense at all – he did not go from a Soviet bloc apartment to Lake Geneva villas by inventing a new product, or even setting up an efficient business structure in an existing field.

Rather he is an opportunist who got wealthy by skilfully reading trends as the Soviet economy opened up – selling Western-made computers in the late 1980s – and later when independent Ukraine transitioned to a market economy and Kolomoisky managed to get his hands on a large amount of privatisation vouchers that put many of the juiciest local metals and energy concerns into his hands, which he then modernised.

What he possesses is a chutzpah and unscrupulousness that is rare even among his peers. Vladimir Putin once called him a “one-of-a-kind chancer” who managed to “swindle [Chelsea owner] Roman Abramovich himself.” In the perma-chaos of Ukrainian law and politics, where all moves are always on the table, his tactical acumen has got him ahead.

Kolomoisky’s lifeblood is connections and power rather than any pure profit on the balance sheet, though no one actually knows how that would read, as the Privat Group he part-owns is reported to own over 100 businesses in dozens of Ukrainian spheres through a complex network of offshore companies and obscure intermediaries (“There is no Privat Group, it is a media confection,” the oligarch himself says, straight-faced.)

Unsurprisingly, he has been dabbling in politics for decades, particularly following the first Orange Revolution in 2004. Though the vehicles for his support have not been noted for a particular ideological consistency – in reportedly backing Viktor Yushchenko, then Yulia Tymoshenko, he was merely putting his millions on what he thought would be a winning horse.

Grasp exceeds reach

But at some point in the post-Maidan euphoria, Kolomoisky’s narcissism got the better of him, and he accepted a post as the governor of his home region of Dnepropetrovsk, in 2014.

The qualities that might have made him a tolerable rogue on TV, began to grate in a more official role. From his penchant for using the political arena to settle his business disputes, to creating his own paramilitary force by sponsoring anti-Russian battalions out of his own pocket, to his somewhat charmless habit of grilling and threatening to put in prison those less powerful than him in fits of pique (“You wait for me out here like a wife for a cheating husband,” begins a viral expletive-strewn rant against an overwhelmed Radio Free Europe reporter).

There is a temptation here for a comparison with a Donald Trump given a developing country to play with, but for all of the shenanigans, his ideological views have always been relatively straightforward. Despite his Russia-loathing patriotism, not even his fans know what Kolomoisky stands for.

The oligarch fell out with fellow billionaire Poroshenko in early 2015, following a battle over the control of a large oil transport company between the state and the governor. The following year, his Privat Bank, which at one point handled one in four financial transactions in the country was nationalized, though the government said that Kolomoisky had turned it into a mere shell by giving $5 billion of its savings to Privat Group companies.

Other significant assets were seized, the government took to London to launch a case against his international companies, and though never banished, Kolomoisky himself decided it would be safer if he spent as long as necessary jetting between his adopted homes in Switzerland and Tel Aviv, with the occasional trip to London for the foreseeable future.

But the adventurer falls – and rises again. The London case has been dropped due to lack of jurisdiction, and only last week a ruling came shockingly overturning the three-year-old nationalization of Privat Bank.

Smiling to himself, Kolomoisky would be within his rights to think that he has never had it so good.

Own man

Zelensky must disabuse him of that notion.

It doesn’t matter that they are friends. Or what handshake agreements they made beforehand. Or that he travelled to Geneva and Tel-Aviv 13 times in the past two years. Or what kompromat Kolomoisky may or may not have on him. It doesn’t matter that his head of security is the man who, for years, guarded the oligarch, and that he may quite genuinely fear for his own safety (it’s not like nothing bad has ever happened to Ukrainian presidents).

Volodymyr Zelensky is now the leader of a large country, with the backing of 13.5 million voters. It is to them that he promised a break with past bribery, graft and cronyism. Even by tolerating one man – and one who makes Poroshenko look wholesome – next to him, he discredits all of that. He will have the support of the people if he pits himself against the puppet master – no one would have elected Kolomoisky in his stead.

Whether the oligarch is told to stay away, whether Ukraine enables the financial fraud investigation into him that has been opened by the FBI, or if he is just treated to the letter of the law, all will be good enough. This is the first and main test, and millions who were prepared to accept the legal fiction of the independent candidate two months ago, will now want to see reality to match. Zelensky’s TV president protagonist in Servant of the People – also broadcast by Kolomoisky’s channel, obviously, would never have compromised like that.

What hinges on this is not just the fate of Zelensky’s presidency, but the chance for Ukraine to restore battered faith in its democracy shaken by a succession of compromised failures at the helm.

Igor Ogorodnev

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Roger Waters – The People’s Champion for Freedom

In February 2019, Waters showed his support for the Venezuelan Maduro government and continues to be totally against US regime change plans there.

Richard Galustian

Published

on

Submitted by Richard Galustian 

Roger Waters is one of Britain’s most successful and talented musicians and composers but more importantly is an outstanding champion for freedom in the world, beyond compare to any other artist turned political activist.

By way of background, he co-founded the rock band Pink Floyd in 1965.

A landmark turning point of his political activism occurred in 1990, when Waters staged probably the largest rock concert in history, ‘The Wall – Live in Berlin’, with an attendance of nearly half a million people.

In more recent years Waters famously narrated the 2016 documentary ‘The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States’ about the insidious influence of Zionist Israel to shape American public opinion.

Waters has been an outspoken critic of America’s Neocons and particularly Donald Trump and his policies.

In 2017, Waters condemned Trump’s plan to build a wall separating the United States and Mexico, saying that his band’s iconic famous song, ‘The Wall’ is as he put it “very relevant now with Mr. Trump and all of this talk of building walls and creating as much enmity as possible between races and religions.”

In February 2019, Waters showed his support for the Venezuelan Maduro government and continues to be totally against US regime change plans there, or any place else for that matter.

Here below is a must see recent Roger Waters interview, via satellite from New York, where he speaks brilliantly, succinctly and honestly, unlike no other celebrity, about FREEDOM and the related issues of the day.

The only other artist turned activist, but purely for human rights reasons, as she is apolitical, is the incredible Carla Ortiz.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

ISIS Says Behind Sri Lanka Bombings; Was ‘Retaliation’ For New Zealand Mosque Massacre

ISIS’s claim couldn’t be confirmed and the group has been  known to make “opportunistic” claims in the past, according to WaPo. 

Avatar

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


Shortly after the death toll from Sunday’s Easter bombings in Sri Lanka climbed above the 300 mark, ISIS validated the Sri Lankan government’s suspicions that a domestic jihadi organization had help from an international terror network while planning the bombings were validated when ISIS took credit for the attacks.

The claim was made via a report from ISIS’s Amaq news agency. Though the group has lost almost all of the territory that was once part of its transnational caliphate, ISIS now boasts cells across the Muslim world, including in North Africa and elsewhere. Before ISIS took credit for the attack, a Sri Lankan official revealed that Sunday’s attacks were intended as retaliation for the killing of 50 Muslims during last month’s mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand.

However, the Sri Lankan government didn’t offer any evidence for that claim, or the claim that Sunday’s attacks were planned by two Islamic groups (though that now appears to have been substantiated by ISIS’s claim of responsibility). The group is believed to have worked with the National Tawheed Jamaath, according to the NYT.

“The preliminary investigations have revealed that what happened in Sri Lanka was in retaliation for the attack against Muslims in Christchurch,” State Minister of Defense Ruwan Wijewardene told the Parliament.

Meanwhile, the number of suspects arrested in connection with the attacks had increased to 40 from 24 as of Tuesday. The government had declared a national emergency that allowed it sweeping powers to interrogate and detain suspects.

On Monday, the FBI pledged to send agents to Sri Lanka and provide laboratory support for the investigation.

As the death toll in Sri Lanka climbs, the attack is cementing its position as the deadliest terror attack in the region.

  • 321 (as of now): Sri Lanka bombings, 2019
  • 257 Mumbai attacks, 1993
  • 189 Mumbai train blasts, 2006 166 Mumbai attacks, 2008
  • 151 APS/Peshawar school attack, 2014
  • 149 Mastung/Balochistan election rally attack, 2018

Meanwhile, funeral services for some of the bombing victims began on Tuesday.

Even before ISIS took credit for the attack, analysts told the Washington Post that its unprecedented violence suggested that a well-financed international organization was likely involved.

The bombings on Sunday, however, came with little precedent. Sri Lanka may have endured a ghastly civil war and suicide bombings in the past – some credit the Tamil Tigers with pioneering the tactic – but nothing of this scale. Analysts were stunned by the apparent level of coordination behind the strikes, which occurred around the same time on both sides of the country, and suggested the attacks carried the hallmarks of a more international plot.

“Sri Lanka has never seen this sort of attack – coordinated, multiple, high-casualty – ever before, even with the Tamil Tigers during the course of a brutal civil war,” Alan Keenan, a Sri Lanka expert at the International Crisis Group, told the Financial Times. “I’m not really convinced this is a Sri Lankan thing. I think the dynamics are global, not driven by some indigenous debate. It seems to me to be a different kind of ballgame.”

Hinting at possible ISIS involvement, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during a Monday press conference that “radical Islamic terror” remained a threat even after ISIS’s defeats in Syria.

Of course, ISIS’s claim couldn’t be confirmed and the group has been  known to make “opportunistic” claims in the past, according to WaPo. The extremist group said the attacks were targeting Christians and “coalition countries” and were carried out by fighters from its organization.

Speculation that the government had advanced warning of the attacks, but failed to act amid a power struggle between the country’s president and prime minister, unnerved citizens and contributed to a brewing backlash. Following the bombings, schools and mass had been canceled until at least Monday, with masses called off “until further notice.”

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending