U.S., UK, and EU, Are Now Dictatorships
by Eric Zuesse
4
June, 2016
How
can it be that in virtually
all of the U.S. Presidential-candidate head-to-head Democratic versus
Republican polling that was done of both Democratic and Republican
candidates during the primaries,
the preferred Democratic candidate against any one of the Republican
candidates was Bernie Sanders, but he
almost certainly won’t be that Party’s nominee (and
there’s more on that here);
and the preferred Republican candidate against either one of the
Democratic candidates was John Kasich, but he certainly won’t be
the Republican nominee? Sanders and Kasich also scored the highest in
his respective Party for net favorability rating, but almost
certainly neither candidate will even be on the ballot for voters on
November 8th. What kind of ‘democracy’ is this?
How
can it be that in UK, the ‘Labour’ Prime Minister Tony Blair
served as George W. Bush’s lap-dog on the invasion of Iraq in 2003
to eliminate “Saddam’s WMD” (which didn’t even exist) — it
wasn’t a Conservative Prime Minister who did that extremely
conservative (i.e., aggressive, invasion, especially on the basis
of lies)
thing? What kind of ‘democracy’ is that?
And
how can it be that throughout the EU, the public are against GMOs,
toxic chemicals such as Roundup or glyphosate, and toxic ‘trade’
treaties such as TTIP, but the political leaders are pushing as hard
as they can for all of those things? That’s the way to stay in
public office? Not in a democracy.
A
dictatorship is a national government that rules the public, instead
of being ruled by the public. There are various types of this, such
as communist (‘workers’ dictatorship), fascist (corporate
dictatorship), etc., but those are merely terminological fine points
on basically the same terrible beast, and all variants of the beast
have two classes of people: the aristocracy, who rule, and the
public, who are ruled. No dictatorship has equality-of-rights before
the law, because any type of dictatorship treats the aristocracy as
being above the law, and legally unaccountable to the public when
violating the law, and it treats the public as being arbitrarily
(depending upon whether cooperative with the aristocrats, or not)
fully accountable to the government (the aristocracy), for any
violation of the law. (E.g.: the homeless go to jail, while banksters
get bailed out.)
The
rulers are unseen in many dictatorships; those rulers are
behind-the-scenes, unofficial, but the nominal rulers then are
representatives of the aristocracy, they’re not actually
representing the public. Unseen rulers (actually mainly the personal
representatives of unseen rulers) meet in international conclaves
like the Bilderberg conferences,
and Trilateralist conferences,
instead of in national legislatures. Unseen rulers tend to be very
discreet, the opposite of ostentatious — hardly the “political”
type — not braggarts at all. They don’t need to impress anybody.
They want only to beobeyed.
On
May 17th, Craig Murray, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August
2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007
to 2010, who is that rare thing a fully committed democrat who also
happens to have been a member of his country’s foreign-affairs
establishment, headlined at his terrific blog, “The Conservatives
Will Be Protected From Their Election Fraud”, and he documented
that there is “blatant state propaganda manipulation” and that
“in this country, electoral law is not enforced against those in
power.” Power-holders in UK can violate the law with impunity, even
where the violation is clearly documented — he showed that.
In
the United States, the only
scientific study of whether the U.S. is a democracy found it’s not.
It examined 1,779 separate pieces of proposed national legislation
since the year 1980, and found that only the concerns of rich people
(“oligarchs”) affected a bill’s fate; the concerns of the
public (as had been reflected in public-opinion polls regarding the
given matter) did not.
Consequently,
though the democratic nations (plus importantly the communist
dictatorship USSR) defeated fascism in 1945, the democratic nations
are no longer democracies; they’re all “oligarchies” ruled by
some sort of aristocracy or another.
The
capstone to this development would be the passage-into-law of U.S.
President Barack Obama’s proposed international ‘trade’
treaties, TTIP,
TPP, and/or TISA, to transfer national sovereignty (regardless of
whether or not of a democratic kind) to an international corporate
dictatorship, which will prohibit increases in regulations of
food-safety, product-safety, workers’ rights, and of global warming
and other environmental matters, and will transfer the power over
those to the top stockholders in international corporations.
The
question at the present time is whether democracies have already been
so severely compromised, so that treaties such as these that Obama is
pushing, can be approved by ‘democratic’ governments. If the
answer to that question is yes, then we’re already in the Brave New
World of fascist international victory — though it’s post-WW-II,
the fascists will finally have won, not just maybe, but clearly, and
decisively, throughout all of the foreseeable future — perhaps even
permanently, because international treaties, especially ones that
entail many nations, are virtually impossible to end. (A good example
of that permanency is NATO: its very raison
d’etre terminated
when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in
1991;
but, yet, it continues even today, and threatens
now to bring about WW III,
which would be its culmination.)
If
the idea that we live in a dictatorship seems far-fetched because
we’re surrounded by propaganda to the contrary, then there is still
the inspiration of the central character Winston Smith in the
allegorical novel about fascism, 1984 —
he soured on the propaganda that he was editing, but finally switched
back, and saw the light: Big Brother was his savior, after all. The
former U.S. Senator Gary Hart wrote
recently from the standpoint of the earlier, disillusioned, Winston
Smith,
but, perhaps, even people such as he will also see the light, and
stop saying such things as, “Measured against the standards
established for republics from ancient times, the American Republic
is massively corrupt.” Perhaps everyone has his price, and, once
it’s paid, he’ll see the light, too. But, even if he won’t, he
has provided there a remarkably accurate description of the reality
that Orwell’s book had merely allegorized — way back in 1948.
Winston Smith would have been shocked at such a kindred spirit,
writing not in 1984 but 2015.
Orwell,
in his own time, struggled over what year his novel should be set in.
Likely, we’re still not yet quite there. After all, it was set
after the nuclear war. The international agreements — the alliances
— seem to have been already in place, for some time. Maybe Orwell’s
novel should have been instead called something like “2025”. Just
a few more years; we can hardly wait (if we’ll be among the
survivors).
Such
are the ways of the international aristocracy.
If we’ll tolerate them. But if we won’t, what then? Nothing is
more powerful than they. But is that the end of the story? Are they a
terminal plague? Can NATO be ended without its culminating? Or, is
there some other way?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.