A political left that’s controlled by billionaires is a fake ‘left’

Agree or disagree - its food for thought

An interesting piece, not by me, but by a dear friend and colleague and someone I have admired for a long time - Eric Zuesse:

One of the core features of nazism (not the German political Party but its core ideology) is racism, which allows some ethnicites (or “races”) to be advantaged by law, and other ethnicities to be discriminated against by the law — it is, at its very core, AGAINST equal rights under law. Consequently, Adolf Hitler constantly condemned democracy (which can’t exist WITHOUT equal rights under law). Another of its core features is imperialism — support of the idea that a ‘superior’ nation has an international right to expand to control other, ‘inferior’, nations. Those two core features are also AMONG the core features of ANY type of conservatism, which is the reason why Hitler’s Nazi Party was considered to be extremely conservative despite its being obviously extremely radical. The idea that radicalism is necessarily leftist is false — rabidly false: stupid — but it is popularized by the billionaires who control the ‘news’-media, because billionaires are the biggest beneficiaries of the status-quo.

The great progressive, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, thought very deeply about and planned constantly (during 11 August 1941 to 12 April 1945 when he died) to design, a post-WW2 world in which there would be equality of opportunity for all peoples under a “United Nations” that would be an all-inclusive democratic international federal republic of nations (a democratic world government) replacing and outlawing all empires and possessing a global monopoly control over all all geostrategically significant weapons so that no nation would be allowed to violate international law — the laws that pertain between nations and never within any individual nation. (His U.N. would have excluded any international dictates that pertain to human rights, since such laws inevitably differ from one nation to another, and each nation will inevitably deal with the matter according to its culture. He knew that the U.N. would be ineffective if it favored some cultures over other cultures. That (supremacism) is the way an empire is, and FDR despised empires, and was designing his U.N. to replace all of them.)

FDR was, on 12 April 1945, replaced by a person who — as the greatest book about him, Frank Costigliola’s ROOSEVELT’S LOST ALLIANCES (referring actually only to the alliance with the Soviet Union) described Truman in its last two chapters — (who) was impetuous where Roosevelt had been instead designing, led with his prejudices instead of from any conscious and empirically based long-term vision, and stupid where Roosevelt had been a unique and utter genius. Truman (under the influence then of his personal hero Eisenhower, and of Churchill) made the decision on 25 July 1945 to reverse his predecessor’s anti-imperialist foreign policies and start some kind of war to defeat the Soviet Union, what came to be called “the Cold War.”

The result inspired two of the individuals who had known the most intimately FDR’s plans for the post-WW2 era, his son Elliott Roosevelt, and FDR’s chief advisor in planning the U.N. Charter, Sumner Welles, each to publish in 1946 a book, to record for future historians, what those plans had been, so that FDR wouldn’t get any of the blame for what Truman was now doing (which was to trash FDR’s plan).

As Elliott said on page xiii of his 1946 As He Saw It, “All the signs of growing disunity among the leading nations of the world, all the broken promises, all the renascent power politics of greedy and desperate imperialism, were my spurs in this undertaking.” And, as Welles put it on page 1 of his 1946 Where Are We Heading?, “Opportunity after opportunity for understanding between all peoples has been lost.”

It had happened that fast after FDR’s death. Their nemesis, John Foster Dulles, issued in 1950, his book War Or Peace, in order to deceive ‘historians’ to think that the U.N. Charter that Truman controlled was no different from what FDR had been planning — i.e., to think that in international relations, there had been continuity between FDR and Truman.

The supremacist idea — the foundationstone of nazism — became institutionalized by Truman and Eisenhower as “the military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower publicly condemned three days before leaving office, so that only his successors would get the blame for it.

The current U.S. President, Donald Trump, is looking for wars against China, Greenland, and Panama, and for Europe to increase its purchases of U.S.-made weapons so as for them to (increase billionaires’ profits and) conquer Russia; so, he’s a neoconservative (supporter of expanding the U.S. empire) like all U.S. Presidents this Century have been.

The U.S. is sending weapons to Taiwan to encourage it to break away from China, so that when China invades Taiwan (to prevent that breakaway), the U.S. can then claim to be acting defensively instead of aggressively by invading China. On March 29th, the Washington Post headlined “Secret Pentagon memo on China, homeland has Heritage fingerprints”, and reported that:

“The document, known as the Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance and marked ‘secret/no foreign national’ in most passages, was distributed throughout the Defense Department in mid-March and signed by Hegseth. It outlines, in broad and sometimes partisan detail, the execution of President Donald Trump’s vision to prepare for and win a potential war against Beijing and defend the United States from threats in the ‘near abroad,’ including Greenland and the Panama Canal.”

Some progressive voters had voted for Trump because he claimed he’d do no such things. In America now, it is always Government-by-deception. On March 31st, the geostrategic commentator Alexander Mercouris noted that this policy for a U.S. invasion of China started under President Obama. (Actually, ever since 1945, there has been consistency in U.S. foreign policies: they’ve all been neoconservative.)

So, there is a lot of deception in the formation of what is commonly called “progressivism” or “the far left,” or “democratic socialism,” which, nowadays, is often referred-to as including neoconservatism and other forms of imperialism, so that both that “left” and the “far right” (nazism) support imperialism — which was actually anathema to FDR, and which anathema he shared with Stalin but definitely NOT with Churchill, who was a hyper-imperialist, much like Hitler was (though for a DIFFERENT empire). And to top off that decception, some of the ‘far right’ political Parties in Europe, such as Marine LePen’s National Front, which is decidedly ANTI-imperialist, are suppressed by the billionaires and their media, because they are instead the most progressive major political Party in their country. (This way, the billionaires there can continue in control.) [Note: I would disagree with LePen’s alleged anti-war stance]

Regarding instead DOMESTIC policies, today’s ‘progressives’ support reverse-discrimination instead of NON-discrimination — for example, affirmative action, as Gabriel Patrick Wasson documented in his Spring 2004 “Affirmative Action: Equality or Reverse Discrimination?”, is demonstrably AGAINST equality before the law, and, as he noted, “Affirmative action promotes an erroneous view of group rights at the expense and exclusion of individual rights.” (Nazism likewise does.)

Furthermore, the extreme affirmative-action viewpoint supports inter-generational ‘reparations’, so that individuals today would qualify for ‘reparations’ for what their slave ancestors had suffered, irrespective of whether or not the ‘compensated’ individual has even been discriminated-against. And who is to pay those ‘reparations’? And why? The whole idea of affirmative action is so stupid — but many self-declared ‘progressives’ support it, because the billionaires who fund the liberal Party and its media would rather that their Party’s voters will blame some other ‘race’ instead of blame those billionaires.

What does all of this show? Billionaires — the aristocrats in today’s world, and they definitely ARE that in the U.S. — will naturally want the public (whose employees and consumers they are) NOT to blame THEM (the billionaires themselves — the few individuals who actually CONTROL the Government) to be blamed for how atrocious the Government is; and, so, the main ways of DEFLECTING that blame, onto the public, are two: one is for the public to become engaged in inter-ethnic strife such that blame goes to other ethnicities (‘races’), and the other is to get the political Parties to hate and blame each other. The billionaires — the people who control the political Parties — may even, that way, become heroes to their Party’s voters (as Elon Musk has done). The electorate will be blaming the other Party’s voters, INSTEAD OF blaming the billionaires, who are ACTUALLY to blame for corrupting the Government.

FDR famously called the billionaires of his time “economic royalists.” His successor Truman created the system that now prevails in which those individuals have come to have a lock-hold over America’s Government. No solution for this problem can be found in this Party or that Party; no solution can be found in this ‘race’ or that ‘race; no solution can be found in this gender or that gender.

The only POSSIBLE way to solve a problem of this type, is a Revolution that removes all billionaires from power and replaces them with authentic representatives of the public. I would suggest that it should be done by lottery (among all adults) for the legislatures, and that those legislators would then have the power to expel from their midst any of them that a two-thirds majority of them vote to expel, and that the entire body will, by majority vote, appoint judges, and will select from among themselves candidates for the Presidency, who have served in the federal legislature for five years or more. There would be no term-limits, and Parties would be illegal.

The country would, over time, come to be ruled by professional legislators, who will not be competing against each other. Elections will be replaced by lottery-draws. There will be no “campaigns” to fund. Consequently, over time, the members of the legislature will come to know the strengths and weaknesses of each of the other members. All of the incentives that have caused America to be ruled by a tiny aristocracy of billionaires will have been removed.

Just think of it: a country in which billionaires must adhere to the laws, and have no control OVER the laws. THAT would be a truly democratic revolution, even though the public would never vote. It would be a revolutionary revolution. Replacing elections with lotteries is the only way I can think of to get us out of the present situation in which Governments keep going from bad to even worse and are now — throughout at least the U.S. empire — incredibly atrocious. To anyone who opposes this, I ask “And what is YOUR proposed solution?” Whatever that ‘solution’ would be, will be far preferred by the billionaires, over what I have proposed here, which would end the “gravy train” of ‘the elite’.

This is my idea of a political left that’s NOT controlled by billionaires. And as for the political right, that has ALWAYS been representing ONLY the aristocracy — so, a ‘right-wing democracy’ is a self-contradiction: democracy can exist ONLY in a country that authentically has equality before the law — NO one is above the law (there IS no aristocracy).

****

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest 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.