The West is now clearly totalitarian, ruled by representatives of only its billionaires.

Younger royals lending a hand to the preservation of Britain's image and sacred tradition: the dictatorial, aristocratic class system.

 T he former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, wrote for all of us, on September 16th, by observing that, “When the so-called ‘Leader of the opposition’ opposes protest against a new unelected head of state, out of respect for the previous unelected head of state, you know you live under totalitarianism.” Though he was saying this about specifically the UK, it could apply actually anywhere throughout The West, where the billionaires effectively own virtually all, or even entirely all, successful national politicians, politicians who have won elections to the national government — and this is the case in all countries throughout The West; i.e., it’s true throughout the entire U.S. empire, including all of its vassal-nations (called “allies” by the imperial Government, the USA), because this is the way that the U.S. empire works. It works on the ancient empire-and-vassal-state, or “colonial,” model, except that it pretends to be (like it had been until 1945) an authentic majority-rule democracy, no mere aristocracy that represents ONLY its very wealthiest — a dictatorship of the public, by and for the super-rich. Prior to The Great Depression, the U.S. had been increasingly tending to become an aristocracy instead of a democracy; and, then, FDR’s Presidency aimed to establish democracy more solidly here; but, after FDR’s death, America quickly DID become ruled by its few super-rich — a ferocious aristocracy who crave hegemony over the entire world. President Truman established such a dictatorship in — and by — America. He despised FDR and replaced his entire Administration within two years.

Murray (left) was saying that this new model of national and international tyranny consists of governments in which there is a two-Party ‘democracy’, such as the UK (Conservatives v. Labour) or U.S. (Republicans v. Democrats), but both Parties actually represent only contending segments of the aristocracy (the super-rich), NOT the public nor any significant faction of the public. Occasionally, there are three or more Parties that participate in governing, but this changes nothing, because then the aristocracy consists of more than two factions. Any multi-Party dictatorship is still a dictatorship — the number of Parties is irrelevant in a dictatorship. (For example: even Germany’s Nazi Party had its contending factions. Not all Nazis agreed with one-another on every issue.)

 "Democracy is good for the public, but it is unnatural and can easily degenerate back into some form of aristocracy..."  

U.S.-and-allied countries, of course, deny this, because one of their biggest tools for achieving hegemony over the entire world is by deceiving publics everywhere to believe that the U.S. empire doesn’t even exist; it’s not an empire; it is instead an alliance for democracy, its members are democracies, and its enemies are dictatorships. Consequently, for example, America’s anti-Russia military alliance, NATO, sings that lying song every day. Its own enormous record of aggressions is ignored, and it pretends to be, instead, a peace-organization, and ‘purely defensive’, and waging war only to ‘defend democracy’. So: the reality is suppressed by their lies, and what they censor is the truth.

Murray’s commentary was about freedom-of-speech, by which he meant instead not “speech” but publication: the idea there is that in a democracy, censorship (no matter how it is done) is the supreme crime — it is treason, because no democracy can survive the existence, in itself, of censorship, against any kind of statement, for any reason other than to prohibit publication of proven falsehoods that can reasonably be expected to have a significant impact upon politics and thus upon the Government itself — i.e., falsehoods that can affect voting for or against a candidate or a referendum and thereby affect the Government itself. Lies that have no significant political impact can be prosecuted by their victims, in civil law; but lies that have political impact are matters of criminal law, treasonous, threats against the very possibility of democracy, crimes against the public, because such lies enable the liars and the super-rich who fund them to deceive voters in ways that can cause voters to vote against their own interests, upon the basis of such deceits. Political lies are thus crimes against democracy itself, treasonous, just as much as censorship (publishers’ blacklisting against some ideas or against the advocates of those ideas) is treasonous. The only way that democracy can function is by prosecuting, under the law against treason, political lies, and by allowing, as a right that everyone has, to assert and to publish anything else than that (i.e., than political lies). (Political lies are themselves treasonous, because they are intended to mentallycoerce voters to vote for the coercer’s interests, and against the voter’s interest. Political lies are consequently mental warfare against the public.)

Democracy is a fragile thing; and, consequently, anywhere that it exists, it usually doesn’t last long. The super-rich normally have no difficulty in overthrowing and replacing it. Dictatorship by the super-rich is the natural form of government everywhere; and — like predators, and like toxins, which exist in nature — not everything that is natural is good. Democracy is good for the public, but it is unnatural and can easily degenerate back into some form of aristocracy.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Print this article