Tuesday, June 28, 2016
“America’s One-Party Government”
“America’s One-Party Government”
by Eric Zuesse
"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 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.
Click image for larger size.
A rather curious statement, Arianna, considering the makeup of your own Editorial Board...
I suppose there were no qualified men or people of color anywhere on the planet?
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.
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)."