Tuesday 25th of June 2024

de-mo-cra-cy inc.....

Britain’s left-wing Party, Labour, has now disappeared into being a ‘competitor’ ‘against’ Britain’s right-wing Party, the Conservatives, competing for conservative voters, condemning progressive voters, and has abandoned voters who are to the left of center. Voters to the left of center have no longer political representation in either Party. Here is how that result was engineered by Britain’s billionaires (who basically control British politics):

On 7 December 2019, the anti-Zionist Jew — i.e., a progressive Jew; i.e., a Jew who opposes any apartheid nation, such as Israel — Tony Greenstein, headlined at al-Jazeera, “Is Jeremy Corbyn a ‘threat’ to British Jews? Corbyn’s opponents cannot defeat his political programme so they attack his character with spurious allegations.” He opened:

Since the election of Jeremy Corbyn as its leader in 2015, Britain’s Labour Party has been the target of a sustained campaign to portray it as rife with anti-Semitism. Alongside unfounded accusations that Corbyn himself and his closest allies are “anti-Semites“, it has widely been claimed that under the direction of someone who has spent a lifetime fighting racism, the party has become “institutionally anti-Semitic”. Furthermore, it has even been claimed that a Corbyn government would pose an “existential threat” to Jewish life in this country. 

Racism and anti-Semitism, unfortunately, still exist in modern Britain. Therefore, it is impossible to claim that any mainstream national political organisation in the United Kingdom, be it Labour, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats, is 100 percent free of members who hold racist or anti-Semitic views. Corbyn acknowledged this, accepting that even “one [incident of anti-Semitism in the party] is one too many” and explained that to him “driving anti-Semitism out of the party for good is a priority”. However, this never was about anti-Semitism which is why nothing he said or did proved enough to convince his detractors.

He is promising to take the privatised utilities and the rail companies back into public ownership and tax multinational companies like Google and Amazon which currently pay virtually no tax in the UK. Moreover, he is promising to stop arms sales to Israel and Saudi Arabia and to educate Britain’s youth about their country’s colonial history.

Rather than challenging the Labour leader’s policies on fighting poverty and ending Britain’s continuing support for oppressive regimes across the globe, his rivals and critics are focusing their energy on doubling down on their accusations of anti-Semitism.

So is the Labour leader, who has an impressive track record of supporting Britain’s Jewish community and standing against anti-Semitism, really an anti-Semite who purposefully filled Britain’s main opposition party with “fellow racists”, or is something else happening here?

What we are witnessing today is clearly not an honest expression of concern for Britain’s Jews, but a smear campaign born out of the British establishment’s desire to stop an anti-establishment and anti-Zionist leader from moving in to Number 10 Downing Street. 

On 23 September 2022, al-Jazeera headlined “Unprecedented leak exposes inner workings of UK Labour Party: The leaked documents, obtained by Al Jazeera, reveal how party officials smear and intimidate rivals.”, and reported that, “In 2019, Corbyn resigned as leader after the party’s defeat in the December general election. He was eventually replaced by Keir Starmer, Britain’s former director of Public Prosecutions. Soon after Starmer became the leader in April 2020, Formby resigned as general secretary. She was replaced by David Evans. The Labour Files reveal that he has continued the McNicol-era hostility towards left-wing members of the party.” So: from having had the most members of any Party under the progressive Corbyn, the Labour Party quickly sank and lost membership, which resulted in a solid string of Conservative Party Governments, so that, now, leftist voters in Britain have actually no one to vote for.

On 21 October 2022, Craig Murray headlined “The Party is Over”, and he wrote that,

The highly paid political class in charge of each of the UK’s three major political parties detests, despises, distrusts and seeks to discard their own party membership.

The Conservative, Labour and SNP [Scottish National Party, in Scotland]elite all view their party members as a potential embarrassment. …

The professionals are to radically limit the options of the members.

The Labour Party had under Jeremy Corbyn the largest mass membership of any political party in Europe. The current leadership has succeeded – quite deliberately – in losing half of them. The Labour members elected Keir Starmer on the basis of ten pledges to carry out the kind of left wing policies the Labour membership support. Almost all of those pledges have been summarily broken.

We have witnessed the Labour leadership refuse to endorse strikes which are the main avenue for working class resistance, ban its MPs from the picket lines, and refuse to oppose massive Tory attacks on civil liberties at home, while vying to be the most enthusiastic zionists and warmongers abroad. Labour members are summarily expelled for connection to legitimate socialist organisations.

This is what Labour Party members voted for:

This is typical of what they got:

Keir Starmer’s Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, not only wants to deport more immigrants than the Tories, she has for a decade been proclaiming that Labour will cut more benefits than the Tories. The disjunction between what Labour Party members want – and were promised by Starmer [in order for him] to get elected – and what Labour MPs want, could not be clearer. …

Starmer is delighted to have shed hundreds of thousands of Corbyn supporting members, to pursue instead corporate and billionaire money. …

The UK’s political parties are becoming uniformly right-wing organisations which represent a very narrow spectrum of views – those of the corporate sector and billionaire donors. …

Irrespective of what Labour and Conservative Party members would like to offer, the electorate is likely to be presented with Sunak or Starmer, two people so close in political outlook and policy there really is little point in turning up to vote.

On 3 December 2023, Reuters headlined “Labour leader Starmer praises Thatcher in bid to woo UK Conservative voters”, and reported:

Keir Starmer, leader of Britain’s main opposition Labour Party, has praised former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a deeply unpopular figure among many Labour supporters, as he seeks to woo Conservative voters before an election expected next year.

Starmer, whose left-wing party is ahead of Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives by some 20 points in opinion polls, is seeking to cement that advantage by broadening Labour’s appeal to attract voters who have spurned the party in national elections over the past 13 years.

Thatcher, dubbed the “Iron Lady” by the UK press at the time, was Britain’s Conservative leader from 1979 to 1990. She was an extremely divisive figure, hailed by some but loathed by many on the left for crushing trade unions and privatizing swathes of British industry. She died in 2013.

“Every moment of meaningful change in modern British politics begins with the realisation that politics must act in service of the British people, rather than dictating to them,” Starmer wrote in an article for the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

Starmer headlined then in the Conservative Party’s main newspaper, the Telegraph“Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver”, and he opened:

It is too easy to look at Britain today and throw your hands up in despair. Families across the country are bombarded with daily reminders of our current malaise: crumbling public services that no longer serve the public, families weighed down by the anxiety of spiralling mortgage bills and food prices, neighbourhoods plagued by crime and anti-social behaviour. Any one of these individually would be cause for outrage. Taken together they merge into something more insidious: the idea that our country no longer works for those it is supposed to.

That sense of a once great country now set on a path of decline has been sharpened by our political culture. The vast majority of the public don’t think about Westminster much. Why would they? At a time when people are looking for answers to the deep challenges of our age, they see a politics too large in its hectoring and interfering, too small in its ambition and ability. In these difficult conditions, the current Government resembles nothing so much as the sinking Mary Rose: overburdened, incompetently handled, plunging into the depths.

Every moment of meaningful change in modern British politics begins with the realisation that politics must act in service of the British people, rather than dictating to them. Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism. Tony Blair reimagined a stale, outdated Labour Party into one that could seize the optimism of the late 90s. …

Starmer is promising, to Conservative Party voters, that he will carry on in the tradition of Thatcher who despised workers and raised their (but NOT billionaires’) taxes, and in the tradition of the conservative Labourite (and sponsor of Starmer) Tony Blair who had joined with America’s George W. Bush in invading Iraq on the basis of lies; and Starmer closed his opinion-article by saying, “That’s why we extend the hand of friendship to you, no matter where you are or who you have voted for in the past. National renewal demands it. It [neoliberalism-neoconservatism] is only together that we will build the better future we all want.”

Starmer wants leftists to vote for his conservative Party, instead of for the other one (the one that calls itself the Conservatives).

Similarly, America’s ‘democracy’ has collapsed with two political Parties, the Democrats and Republicans, who both vote in the U.S. Congress almost 100% for, and run the White House for, the permanent-warfare economy (Lockheed Martin, etc.), which leaves less and less each year for the American people, in order for the U.S. Government to have more and more each year for overthrowing foreign Governments that The West’s billionaires don’t like, and that they do demand to become replaced.

A two-Party dictatorship is merely a lying ‘democratic’ or ‘republican’, or ‘labour’ or “Tory,” liberal right-wing dictatorship, liberal-fascism, and this is now what The West holds out to the rest of the world, as being ‘democracy’, which foreign governments supposedly should take as their model.

It’s just dictatorship under another name. And, under any name, it is far right but propagandized with liberal clichés instead of merely the old overtly conservative ones. It is designed to fool the public that both of the Parties’ billionaires despise.


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.






Joe Biden’s rivals for the Democratic nomination in the 2024 US presidential election have accused the party leadership in Florida of undermining democracy by denying them a place on the ballot in a primary vote.

Under state rules, parties decide who can enter a primary election, and the deadline for submitting a list of recognized candidates to Florida officials was last Thursday. However, in a move on November 1 that largely went under the radar, Florida Democrats notified the authorities that current US President Biden was their only selection, effectively scrapping the primary.

Representative Dean Phillips, book author Marianne Williamson, and political talk show host Cenk Uygur – all of whom are seeking the Democratic nomination – expressed outrage at the development and have vowed to challenge the decision through courts and other legal means.

Phillips called it a “tragedy and a travesty” in a video statement on Friday, adding: “I am running for president. There are others running for president as Democrats. And this is the kind of stuff that happens in Tehran, not Tallahassee.”

Speaking at a joint press conference with Uygur on the same day, Williamson argued that the Democratic Party leadership in Florida had played a “quasi-governmental function,” not unlike officials in the Soviet Union, where elections were technically held but the options were tightly controlled.

“This is the chipping away of our democracy,” Williamson declared. “This is part of a larger effort that the Democratic Party has been taking. This has to do with media suppression, it has to do with invisibilization, erasure.”

According to Uygur, the Democrats claim to be protecting the American political system from Donald Trump, but the party has effectively given the impression that “we had to destroy democracy in order to save it.”

READ MORE: Google hiding websites of Trump and other Biden challengers – report

Florida Democratic functionaries have dismissed the accusations. Chair Nikki Fried called Phillips’ rebuke a “knee-jerk reaction to long-established procedures,” claiming that his remarks were “unbecoming of someone running for higher office.” Communications director Eden Giagnorio insisted there was “no conspiracy” and that the plan had been known “for months.” He previously conceded that primary contenders are not formally required to do anything to get on the ballot.

At a convention in October, Florida Democrats posted a video of participants chanting “Four More Years,” after they approved Biden’s unchallenged candidacy. The convention incidentally began on the same day that Phillips launched his campaign.

In a poll of voters in the state published by the University of North Florida last month, 46% said they had a “very unfavorable” attitude towards Biden, compared to 41% for Trump, the presumed Republican nominee.






FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW..................





lyrical lies....

My dearest one,

They stole the language from us. We spoke and corresponded with you in the language of great Russian literature. Now, for the whole world, Russian is the language of those who bomb Ukrainian cities and kill children, the language of war criminals, the language of murderers. They will be tried for crimes against humanity. I would like to believe that all those who prepared and participated in this war, who supported it in one way or another, will be put in the dock. But how can one go to trial for a crime against language?


My father went to the front when he was 17 to avenge his brother who was killed by the Germans. After the war, he hated Germans and everything German all his life. I tried to explain to him: “But Dad, there is great German literature! German is a beautiful language!” These words had no effect on him. What will we be able to say after the war to the Ukrainians whose homes were bombed and looted by the Russians, whose families were killed? That the great Russian literature is beautiful? And that the Russian language is so wonderful?

Do dictators and dictatorships breed slave populations or do slave populations breed dictators? Ukraine was able to escape from this hellish circle, to escape from our common, monstrous, bloody past. 




‘My country has fallen out of time’: Russian author Mikhail Shishkin’s letter to an unknown Ukrainian...

























the brats in charge....


BY Alastair Crooke


A number of serious commentators – one being U.S. Professor Victor Hanson – are warning: “Brace yourself for what’s coming in 2024”. Hansen sees bad omens darkening the future.

Is he exaggerating? Perhaps not.

One cannot but notice how bad tempered Americans and Europeans generally have become. Calm, reasoned discussion of issues is gone; Yelling, emotivism and ‘othering’ is commonplace; something bad is coming. A gut feeling, Tucker Carlson says“There are “angry people who feel like they have no recourse, who don’t think elections are real…”. 

What might these commentators be suggesting?

Well, they are explicit on one point: the West has been sinking beneath the waves of its’ Cultural Revolution – the deliberate cancelling of virtues and legacies of traditional civilization, to be replaced by a cultural hierarchy that upends and inverts the societal paradigm that is close to conquering all.

The unanswered question: Why has western society been so supine, so unreflectively supportive to the sheering away of its civilisational ethos? This must be the first revolution in which half of society knows and sees well there is a revolution, and the other half seem too distracted, or simply have not noticed. There is no simple answer to this conundrum.

But most just don’t see it; they cannot admit the Revolution’s objective (though it is not hidden) is that these well-to-do members of middle classes are precisely the ones (and not the elites) that the cultural revolution seeks to displace, and to sanction (as redress for historic discrimination and racism). Not for who they arenow, but for what their ancestors may have been.

General Wrangel (a Tsarist officer and commander) wrote in his memoirs how, after serving during WW1, he came to St Petersburg just at the point that the Bolsheviks were wreaking havoc with the discipline of the Imperial Army’s (‘his army’). Chaos in the streets, but to the affluent of the City, life continued as if some ‘normal’ could be enjoyed, in comfortable co-existence to the revolution out on the streets. He describes attending a cinema, with the audience clearly oblivious to the anarchy beyond the theatre.

Flabbergasted, the general hastened from St Petersburg to warn the Tsar of approaching catastrophe. However, on arrival at the Court, Wrangel was shocked to see that 80% of the Romanov women, most of whom he knew, were wearing a red ribbon. Their ribbons testified to sympathy for the very forces who later would murder these Romanov women.

Today, our élites too, sport a ribbon – not red, but a Rainbow one.

None of these commentators forecast a Romanov outcome (yet). But they are warning that the civic landscape in America is shifting dramatically fast: One may wake up one morning to the gender horror being imposed on children; to their cultural class being eased out of their jobs; to the realisation that it is not ‘correct-think’ any longer to laugh at the absurdities of the nomenklatura.

And that dissent leads to persecution: If you join the ‘Party’, you’re exempt; if you’re don’t, you’re on your own.

A nascent counter-revolution however, is under way – in which a segment of the electorate is driving towards the re-installation of those civilisational and metaphysical principles which gave national sustenance over centuries. They are (rightly or wrongly) not prepared to recant those values, nor prepared to assume ‘guilt’ by submitting to the demands for reparation.

The point here is obvious: The scale, complexity (and viciousness) of the problem is growing. And with it, anger mounts.

‘Black patterns’ are forming. At one level, the U.S. President is senile, and the ‘permanent functionaries’ are terrified: “They thrust a stake through Trump’s heart, but they are afraid that stake could come out, any time”, Hanson writes. Should Trump win, then vendetta follows, and “their goose is cooked”.

The present Israeli-Palestine conflict is sending further ‘shivers’ up the ‘functionary spine’: Biden may prioritise his loyalty to Israel over Democrats winning the 2024 election. He is haemorrhaging domestic support.

Hanson argues that there is a perception among the Democrats that Trump is now the more formidable figure – he is more justified in his anger, due to injustices he has endured.

Election 2024 becomes a black void. Can a broken U.S. voting system be expected to resolve such deep bitterness. No one knows; many are afeared.

At another plane, the revolutionaries’ diversity and identity politics has resulted in the absolute prioritising of ideology over practical governance (or even common sense). This cultural transition has signally failed to improve life for the majority, but on the contrary has spawned system dysfunctionality. Nothing works properly anymore; entropy prevails.

Adjunct to the cultural aspect has been the revolutionary ‘transition’ from a real economy – the mainstay source of employment for ‘deplorables’ – to a new high tech, green, AI-economy, to provide for a diversity and social justice-based economic model. Meanwhile, deplorables are relegated to becoming economic outliers.

These cumulative transitions require mammoth money-printing. All was ‘well’ when the project could be financed at zero cost interest rates; but the scheme’s Achilles’ Heel is inflation, and spiking interest rates. And that precisely is what has arrived. The exponential western debt explosion to fund ‘transitions’ now threatens to take the entire ‘revolution’ into financial crisis and recession.

A crisis in formation – of spiking inflation and crashing living standards – is fermenting a dangerous brew of widespread disenchantment.

Into this simmering brew, the revolutionaries have further injected their ideological opposition to national borders, and the embrace of something like open-door immigration. The U.S. Border is kept open – 9 million immigrants have entered since Biden was in office, and 6 million more are anticipated to enter the U.S. between now and the 2024 election. The Mediterranean border is effectively open, too.

This influx of persons, some who are hostile to European culture and ‘white imperialism’ – at a time of severe economic crisis – represents a powder keg that is bound to explode at some point. What happened in Dublin (and Paris last summer) will keep happening, again and again. It will devastate EU and European political structures.

““Open borders”: nobody in their right mind would do that”, says Hanson. So then why then do it? What is the intent behind flooding a society with immigrants? In Germany, native-born Germans are now a minority amongst minorities. What exactly is the ‘end-game’ envisaged?

In posing the immigration ‘end-game’ question, many other issues – the pandemic; climate catastrophism (expatiated only by massive sacrifice of economic standards) – swing into question. Were they all just ‘stimmie’ money printing ploys of one sort and other to keep the transition liquified – or is there some darker end-game implicit?

The big question is how the global, multi-polarity bloc can manage a West edging towards moral, political and possibly financial collapse?

The post-war history is not encouraging. It is one of the West attempting to keep itself whole, through creating a Manichean enemy around which it can gather and unify.

The U.S. likely will continue to confront China – China presently is the ‘only topic in town’ in DC, and is prioritised for its centrifugal potential on a polarised polity. But will, or can, the U.S. follow through with its threats? Probably not.

The other discussion (confined largely to neo-con circles) is (still) ‘how to weaken Russia in the post-Ukraine reality?’ Russia has overwhelmingly won in Ukraine. The neo-cons likely will find only diminishing traction for a Ukraine-Part Two.

Trump, should he survive and take office, often ‘talks the neocon talk’, but acts to defuse tensions – reflecting the reality that the GOP is fractured: Institutionally neo-con at the ‘upper-level’, but increasingly populist at the grass roots.

Russia now has a ‘Europe problem’ of lingering, unrealistic ‘geo-political’ ambition. Other than war, the December 2021 draft treaties proposed by Russia offer the only peaceful means to finding a modus vivendi between the Heartland and the Rimland.

But will there be any adult in Washington to answer the phone when the time arrives?




SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171








Western ‘Democracy’ Is Fake.


Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

Is democracy fake in China? All of the scientific measures, a wide variety of polls regarding how the Chinese people feel about China’s Government and about Xi jinping personally, find that the Chinese, on the question of Approve versus Disapprove of China’s Government and of Xi Jinping, indicate that over 80% approve, and this is what a reasonable person would expect to find because, for example, the World Bank shows that while Xi has been in power since the end of 2012 until the end of the year 2022 (the latest year for which the World Bank has calculated this), China’s PPP GDP grew 100%, it doubled during that decade, while India’s rose 93%, the EU’s rose 58%America’s rose 56%Russia’s rose 49%(much less than it would have risen if Obama hadn’t been pouring sanctions against Russia starting in 2012), South Korea’s rose 30%, and Japan’s rose 19%. The entire world’s grew 63% during that decade. So, of all those economies, only China and India did better than the global average.

Is democracy fake in India? Its leader Narendra Modi has been in power since 2014, and India’s economic growth during 2012-2022 was nearly as high as was China’s; so there is little mystery regarding Modi’s having around an 80% approval-rating from the Indian people.

Both of those countries have populations a vast majority of whom indicate in scientific polling of them that they believe their national leader represents THEM and not merely some minority of the population. Who are the best-qualified individuals to make that determination? Of course, only the residents in that country are. No foreigners are.

Is the EU democratic? Its leaders have atrociously low approval from their respective publics. (and other polls have also found likewise.) Almost all of those countries are dictatorships.

Is America democratic? Its leaders have atrociously low approval from the U.S. public.

Is Russia democratic? Its head-of-state has had public-approval ratings from the Russian people ranging from 60% to 85% and averaging 75% throughout his leadership of Russia starting on 1 January 2000. Other aspects of the Russian Government don’t score nearly as high, it’s veryuneven. It’s not like China, where the public have exceptionally high trust and respect not only for the head-of-state but for the Government, and even for their news-media.

Is South Korea a democracy? Its leaders have atrociously low public approval.

Is Japan a democracy? Its leaders have atrociously low public approval.

A clear relationship is exhibited in the data between a nation’s long-term economic growth (measured in PPP GDP) and the nation’s high job-approval for its leaders during that period. For example: China’s economy (PPP GDP) multiplied  21.83 times during the past 32 years 1990-2022, while the EU’s rose 2.6 times, America’s rose 4.27 times, India’s rose 10.7 times, Japan’s rose 1.63 times, South Korea’s rose 5.88 times, and the entire world’s rose 5.58 times. And, for the past 25 years, 1998-2022 inclusive, China’s rose 10.0 times, Russia’s rose 6.6 times, India’s rose 6.3 times, South Korea’s rose 4.36 times, the EU’s rose 2.1 times, America’s rose 2.81 times, Japan’s rose .03 times, and the world’s rose 2.83 times. The U.S. and its colonies (‘allies’) generally lag the world in economic growth, and appear to be falling farther and farther behind. The empire isn’t even keeping the U.S. itself above water internationally, but South Korea seems to be doing even better than the global average.

If a country has below 50% job-approval for its leader, and especially if that has been going on for a long time there, then a reasonable assumption is that it’s a dictatorship, because the public are being given only bad people to choose amongst, to vote for, or else otherwise the Party(s) that have a chance to win control there represent interests that are NOT the public’s interests (and these dictatorial conditions have been proven by numerous different methods to apply to the U.S. Government, which is thus far the world’s only Government that has been so extensively and scientifically analyzed on these matters). Any way you cut it, that’s NOT a democracy. It is a dictatorship. Whomever it represents, it’s NOT the public, and any ‘news’-medium there that pretends it is, is a lying ‘news’-medium, because, by now, the evidence on these matters is plentiful, and all of it shows that those nations are ruled by dictatorship, not by democracy. (Nowadays, almost all dictatorships are aristocracies, ruled by wealth, but a few are instead theocracies, ruled by clergy.)


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.