The Betrayal of Democracy

By George Potomac

The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours that there will be no opposition from that class (politicians) while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests (the electorate).(Rothschild Brothers of London June 25, 1863; communiqu to associates in New York).
This statement, if anything, is an honest one and stands in total contradiction to those so called Christian politicians, who want us to believe in the merits of an illusory democracy.
As Bauer, alias Rothschild, said: give the money and I do not care who makes the law. Never was a truer word spoken.
Whenever a minority takes over the control of the economy and society, the outcome is slavery for all.

• Language: English
• Publisher: ReadOnTime BV
• Release date: Aug 29, 2013
• ISBN: 9781742841755

Book preview

*Introduction*

This writer did not know in what order he would present to the reader the various chapters of the book: religion, economics or politics? All three are fundamental to human societies. Finally, after much internal deliberations, he decided to start with politics, despite its subordinate role in the social order, simply because we elect politicians to take care of our destinies.

This book is essentially an historical record of statements and writings from prominent men, past and present, hailing from different parts of the industrialised and developing world. The purpose of this book is to expose some of the more obvious flaws of the current democratic protocol of governance adopted by the Western world and more recently by the leaders of the Coalition of the Willing. This less-than-saintly alliance waged wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam on prefabricated reasons. To this effect, they carried out false flag operations domestically or abroad to get public support for their military actions.

The abuses of power by the traditional democracies of the US, England and continental Europe contradict the moral majority’s perception of what freedom and Judeo-Christian values are. To make matters worse, the public can no longer rely on the traditional media for unbiased information. Thankfully, many independent news sources of a more reliable nature are now freely available on the net, particularly in the US and Britain, the very two nations, that shook the foundation of modern democracy under a neo-capitalist doctrine founded on debt, deceit and wars.

The latter day model of democratic governance is largely based on a neo-conservative movement that is a derivative of Zionism. It is led by Chicago economist, Leo Strauss, who firmly believes that the superior must rule the inferior. The inferior were previously referred to as the gullible multitudes by the Vatican two hundred years ago and, as the electorate today. The European aristocracies equally shared these beliefs, as do the leaders of the three Abrahamic religions.

The ruling elite′s deeply anchored belief that the wealth of a nation trickles from the top down is unbecoming economically and democratically and does not conform to Judeo-Christian ethics. As a result, unregulated capitalism has become closely associated with cronyism, corporate lobbying and dynastic wealth, as the rich get richer and more influential. The Anglo-American-Zionist model of capitalism is primarily driven by the greed and the large egos of politicians who act as proxies for Wall Street and the City of London. These two prominent institutions are more interested in building a global financial empire than serving national interests, and they have no allegiance to any nation. They regard people as expendable commodities, including the courageous soldiers who wage proxy wars on their behalf (not for king and country as they were made to believe).

The ten recessions we have endured in the last fifty years and all intervening wars are the sole responsibility of our elected representatives. They have, over the years, passed laws to allow financial institutions to manipulate markets and ransack public funds and retail investments of the middle and working classes.

The reader must bear in mind that finding uncensored historical truth is a gruelling task, simply because such documents commonly expose the misdeeds of the ruling establishment of the time. Accordingly, a great deal of information has been classified, destroyed, or gone missing. In this regard, President George W. Bush classified or destroyed more information than any other US President in history. Protecting the public from knowing the truth is one of the primary occupations of our dear leaders, but why should they do so? Is it for reasons of national security…. or their own?

The truth is so precious that it needs a bodyguard to protect it. (Winston Churchill, under democratic rule)

If a lie is repeated enough, it becomes the truth. (Lenin, under communist rule)

The truth is the enemy of the state. (Hitler’s propaganda minister: Joseph Goebbels, under fascist rule)

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. (George Orwell, author of 1984 and Animal Farm, two of the twentieth century’s most telling texts on political repression)

No matter what regime rules, integrity and transparency has no place in politics – and never had.

Even if a truth is repeated, it is seldom accepted by the public, because most people have been brainwashed through years of propaganda by the power elite. Society’s leaders, (be they political, religious, or corporate) drive this perception of the truth for their own self-serving interest, rather than to relieve humanity’s social inequities.

The three political doctrines mentioned above—democratic, communist and fascist—illustrate how diametrically opposed regimes use similar techniques of deception to manipulate the electorate. Hiding the truth from the public has been the primary concern of politicians, moneymen, and religious leaders from time immemorial.

The truth is usually tightly sealed to hide the malpractices of society’s leaders, independently of prevailing political regimes or religious doctrines. All three regimes referred to above have committed atrocities against their own citizens under false flag operations to convince the moral majority of the righteousness of killing more people in foreign lands. The reality is, politics, big money and religions are intentionally designed to exploit people, but this truth is too horrible to contemplate by decent people who find it difficult to believe that their leaders would betray them. Those who govern us know this too well and take full advantage of the situation by claiming that democracy is the best political doctrine to protect the public from abuses. Such a statement would be true, if it wasn′t faked. In these issues, let history be your guide, judge the deeds rather than what you are authorised to read. That is not always an easy task.

The Anglo-American-Zionist model of capitalism is closely associated with cronyism, corporate lobbying and dynastic wealth, as the rich get richer and more influential. This is not democracy. This is oligarchy, a doctrine based on class differentiation: the rich versus the poor and the exploitation of the latter by the former.

The topics addressed in this book are political, economic, and religious; they are invariably complex, controversial, and difficult to discuss separately because the three are closely intertwined. Accordingly, this writer begs the reader to forgive him for a certain amount of text reiteration. There are three reasons for this:

Firstly, it is virtually impossible to separate politics from corporate affairs and religion, as all three have become vested interest parties.

The second rationale is perhaps more important; the reader cannot expect to remember what was said in a previous chapters without referring back to it by quoting the chapter and subheading or by reiterating a quote, a citation or paraphrase or even a paragraph. For this reason, this writer has unconventionally enclosed the summary of the script in Chapter 8

, which precedes the suggested legal reforms to our democratic protocol of governance in Chapter 9

.

Lastly, the document seeks to send a political message.

To seek the truth in this mystifying atmosphere of duplicity, stealth, and secrecy, the author has attempted to sort out the chaff from the wheat, as any investigative journalist or criminal investigator would do, on the premise of cui bono. The common denominator is money (big money), power, and vanity. The victims are we, the people. We can no longer afford to let our destinies be determined by elitist bankers and accommodating politicians and their cronies, a small group of people solely concerned with amassing wealth and power out of self-interest through outmoded imperial ambitions.

From time immemorial, money speculators and compliant politicians have fuelled the development of regional conflicts and financial crises that, combined, have contributed to the ever-increasing disparity of wealth between the rich, the middle class, and the poor. This inequality was a great concern to the Lord of Christianity some 2,000 years ago. Leaders of His latter-day followers have lost sight of their religious responsibilities and increasingly behave as corporate elite with all the trapping of wealth, power, and bloated egos.

In our modern democracies, there is no clear separation between church, government, and big business, no more than there is between the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of the government as predicated by the constitution. These government organisations have shown a tendency to mesh into one another through the intermediation of financial sponsors who, in return for their monetary largess, seek favours from government authorities. Behind the scenes, a small minority of financial power brokers shape Western destinies and use our politicians as proxies to promote self-serving ambitions.

Like religion, democracy in the Western world has now acquired the status of an unquestionable faith. Alas, this belief is a misplaced delusion sustained by the corporate-political elite and a deceitful media in order to pursue darker agendas. Because power elites are the primary beneficiaries of unfettered capitalism, they are naturally reluctant to change the status quo. When a financial crisis arises, latter-day capitalists do not hesitate to seek governments’ help, but in boom times, they use an army of lobbyists to seek subsidies and tax concessions of one sort or another from compliant parliamentarians or congressmen.

It would be difficult to reconcile such corporate privileges with government policies of non-interference in the free market and with the outlandish claim of politicians that they uphold democratic values. In both cases, the main losers are invariably the taxpayers, particularly the middle class, who forms the backbone of any society. This book provides evidence to support the above assertions as a plea for a thorough revision of our democratic protocol of governance for humanity’s sake and the Western world in particular.

Finally, the writer wishes to underscore the fact that the opinions expressed here are mainly based on historical research, recent and old. Some are from the very distant past, but they do seem to have a certain relevance to modernity. Indeed, the world perpetually rediscovers itself. History teaches us to understand the present and plan for the future. Ignoring it is suicidal, and that is precisely what the West is currently doing under an Anglo-American-Zionist leadership, which is motivated by greed, framed by outmoded imperial ambitions and coupled with rugged individualism.

When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.(Alexis de Tocqueville)

In the text, the terms democracy, moral majority, corporatocracy and Zionism recur frequently, and as such should be defined from the start.

Democracy is ideally defined as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The moral majority is the electorate.

Corporatocracy is the corporate-political establishment with a strong admixture of religious influence.

Zionism is a political movement, which includes both Jewish and Christian adherents; the latter came originally from an indolent British and French aristocracy who married their sons to rich Jewish families – a marriage of money with traditional power elite.

Our Western protocol of democratic governance has become dysfunctional and needs to be overhauled to ensure a better future for our children and theirs. We owe them as much.

This writer has no political or financial goals; he is essentially concerned about the future of our children and their progenies, as we are all parents and grandparents of all races and beliefs across humanity.

The various figures quoted throughout the book cannot be taken too literally as they vary from place to place, according to the source and date of the information. We are living in troubled times when society’s perception of rumours and reality are becoming increasingly blurred and volatile.

This writer is not demeaning the great achievements Western civilisation has accomplished for the world in science, engineering, and in the arts, as they are feats unsurpassed in the history of mankind. He is also an admirer of the United States for the outstanding contributions this nation has made to humanity through its entrepreneurial and innovative talents, and the fact that this nation is still the most attractive country in the world for emigrants to go to. Anybody can become someone in the US if he wishes to; it is up to the individual to achieve whatever goal he chooses to have. The US has also the best universities in the world. Such achievements are laudable, if they are made through a protocol of governance that gives people equal opportunities under a regime of integrity, transparency and freedom of speech.

Alas, in the last forty years or so, the richest democratic nations have seen their standard of living seriously diminished and their societies increasingly fragmented. This is the case in the US, Britain, parts of the EU and, to a lesser extent, Australia. The various peaceful marches, occasionally accompanied by violence that is currently taking place in the US, Britain, the EU, and Israel indicate that things are not going well in the western front. They are not doing well in North African countries for similar reasons.

However, the true wealth of a nation can only be measured by its productive capacity from the bottom up, and not the inverse as is happening today. Western politicians acknowledge that consumer spending fuels the economy, but inwardly believe that this can only be achieved from the top down – a very erroneous concept that explains the current demise of our economies that are now funded on debt, wars and cyclical recessions – all at the taxpayers′ expense.

In the above regard, the US has failed to cater to the people who do not fit in the slot of the American model of capitalism because not everybody can be successful. There are over fifty million people below the established poverty levels in the US, and their numbers are increasing daily. Allowing these people to wallow in their unfortunate state is a great loss of human capital. If the US, Britain and some EU countries continue along this path, they will rapidly drift into an era similar to the Middle Ages when there were only two classes of people: the serfs and the very rich. Many people have become rich through their talent and entrepreneurial skill, but many more made their fortunes illegally or unethically, chiefly in the financial and political arenas.

The US and Britain failed to accommodate their domestic and international policies to compete with the rapid development of Asian economies. The latter are now challenging the economic hegemony of the Western world. The US today is by far the biggest debtor country in the world; some fifteen years ago, it was the biggest creditor nation. The reason for the US and Britain’s demise is simply that they failed to adapt to the realities of a new world, preferring to stick to outdated imperial policies that were so successful in the past.

Darwin’s theory of evolution equally applies to the laws of economic and political survival: adapt or die. The fall of all empires can be traced to the failure of leaders to adjust their modus operandi to the realities of the day, preferring to sustain or re-enact policies that proved so glorious in the past and so beneficial to the elite, no matter what suffering they cause to the moral majority. The empires of Egypt, Greece, Rome, France, Britain and now the US met their demise for very similar reasons. Nero watched Rome burn, as our ruling elite watches the impoverishment of its citizens.

In the last thirty years or so, financial institutions went through drastic regulatory changes that favoured vested interests over national ones. Many of the laws promulgated by President Roosevelt to curb the abuses of financial institutions in the aftermath of the Great Depression were subsequently repealed and led to the recurrence of protracted wars and recessions.

This illustrates more than anything else that the US and British model of unregulated capitalism is essentially flawed and has mainly served the interest of a spoilt elite. This situation is incompatible with democracy and Christianity’s most fundamental principles, including the cherished constitutions of the US and France that were drafted by the forefathers of these two great nations to safeguard basic human rights. A flawed democracy under Wall Street and the City of London is the antithesis of human rights, domestically and abroad.

Yet, democracy under capitalism is unquestionably the best form of governance known to humanity, but only if the doctrine is enshrined in social justice, discipline, some degree of frugality, and integrity, coupled with a meaningful sense of spirituality. For this to succeed, the laws of governance have to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to ever-changing social needs fuelled by the rapid advance of scientific discoveries. An enlightened form of democracy will ensure world peace and economic progress for humanity, but it cannot exist without transparency, a free press, and respect for human rights. Sadly, none of these laudable aspects of democracy are being complied with to the extent they should be in order to meet humanity’s legitimate social aspirations.

Democracy is one of the most flaunted words in the political annals of the industrialised world; its simplistic definition is familiar to most Westerners as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Yet, many of us feel that there is something wrong with the system and, at times, feel betrayed by it. This book examines the current state of democratic governance in the Western world, specifically the US, Britain and, to a lesser extent, Australia. This writer selected these three countries for discussions because, despite their differences, they embraced the American model of capitalism and its ensuing cultural ways of life far more than other Western democracies. All three countries are totally submissive to the dictates of the major financial institutions of Wall Street and the London Financial district, which, in turn, is led by a handful of international bankers.

The pervasive introduction of fractional banking, privatization, deregulation, and abuses thereof has tainted much of democracy, as people perceive it to be. Our current crop of politicians increasingly relies on corporate sponsorships to be elected. To please their sponsors, they modify or introduce new laws to ensure the perpetuation of a flawed protocol of democratic governance, which favours the corporate-political and religious establishment, (particularly the financial sector) over the national interest. This is nothing more than blackmail, a waste of taxpayers’ money and a crime against society. This unwarranted waste of public funds disadvantages the masses for the benefit of a few.

The bellicose actions chosen by our Western politicians toward the developing world are no longer appropriate for the survival of humanity in this first century of the third millennium. The alternative is mutually assured destruction by weapons of mass destruction or civil wars. The winner will have nothing to celebrate.

Our children and grandchildren deserve a better future than that.

The Western world would be materially and spiritually stronger if it found common ground with the rest of humanity through peace and prosperity, rather than waging intermittent wars peppered with economic crises, which ultimately destabilise entire regions, if not humanity itself.

Today, America and Britain continue to practice a doctrine of economic imperialism by waging wars abroad and restricting civilian liberties at home to sustain the well-being of the corporatocracy, just as the Roman and Greek imperial powers did 2,500 years ago. In the meantime, the masses, in their naivety, accept economic hardships and willingly send their sons and daughters to fight for king and country for the benefit of the ruling class – all in the name of democracy and freedom. Politicians justify their aggressive stand by fabricating imaginary threats from poor nations that have useful strategic or potential economic value to them.

So far, the global financial crisis has not unduly affected the economies of the BRIC countries, i.e. Brazil, Russia, India and China. These nations have notably avoided the fate of the Western world. Nevertheless, through contagion there will be worldwide economic repercussions if the US, Britain and EU economies further deteriorate. Both the US and Britain host the two most powerful financial institutions of the Western world.

As a consequence of the unadulterated greed and vanity of the ruling Anglo-American-Zionist establishment, the middle class, the unemployed, and the pensioners of the developed world began to suffer, whilst the poorer Islamic countries were facing the depredation of wars and the plundering of their resources by the Western powers. The greed of financial institutions was such that they bankrupted themselves and sought help from the government to bail them. To avoid public panic and bank foreclosures, the government began to print money to boost the economy. This action resulted in further devaluation of the US currency, a freeze on loans to individuals and small business, rapid inflation of basic commodities, and a loss of public confidence in the government. The financial institutions that have caused this misery have bribed the great majority of Western leaders, by sponsoring them during their electoral campaigns with the support of a compliant media the banks created to manipulate public opinion.

The fault lies mainly with the system of democratic governance. For the few and brave politicians or agency heads who venture to criticize the model of American capitalism, the doors of political opportunity are closed forever. They and their family may be harassed or persecuted for the rest of their lives; some even get killed if the information they divulge poses a significant threat to the establishment’s malpractices. Recall black slavery, anti-communism under McCarthyism in the US, the murder of Martin Luther King and JFK, the massacre of hundreds of journalists in Iraq, and the killing of democratically elected socialist presidents in South and Central America and elsewhere by the intelligence services of the CIA, MI6 often in collaboration with Mossad of Israel.

The reality of American politics does not quite match the appellation the US gives itself as the land of the free; it is free for the elite certainly, but not the moral majority. As a result, America, Britain, and Australia are politically divided nations. Neither congress nor parliament has a clear mandate to rule these three nations. All are dominions of international bankers who control their currencies. Accordingly, none of these nations are sovereign states.

There are many principled men in the US, but there is no party of principle. Seminal political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville, whose pioneering work, Democracy In America (1835) was one of the founding documents of the classical liberal tradition.

Alexis would no doubt have made similar reflections if he visited Britain and its Commonwealth countries today. He is frequently quoted in this script.

Contrary to what many people believe in the richer western world, our higher status of development has little to do with genetic superiority or the righteousness of our causes, although these came under the guise of Christianity, civilization, democracy and freedom. It is manifest that racial and religious discrimination has been a widespread phenomenon in all former colonial powers, be they British, American, French, Russian, German, Australian or Israeli. Furthermore, even in developing countries, such as India, where the Brahmin caste system is based on mere skin colour, such discrimination is equally true in many Southeast Asian countries.

The West has lost sight of the fact that our superior standards of living are the products of land conquests, genocides, exploitation of cheap labour, and outright slavery, with the complicity of Christian and Jewish leaders. These extraordinary abuses of human rights and ensuing unequal wealth distribution between the rich communities and the disadvantaged ones were of great concern to the Lord of Christianity some two thousand years ago. Leaders of His latter-day followers have lost sight of their spiritual responsibilities and increasingly behave as corporate supremos, with all the trappings of wealth, power, and bloated egos. The intimate alliance between religious and political leaders already existed five thousand years ago in early Egypt between the Pharaoh and the pagan priests, and later in Europe between the Vatican and absolute monarchs. It continues to this day. The separation of church and state is simply another democratic delusion vented by our leaders to keep spiritual control of the masses.

It is an unpleasant truth to admit, but one we have to confront before we can change our attitudes and rein in the excessive abuses of power the corporatocracy takes for granted, but at the risk of endangering the welfare of nations, if not humanity.

Over the last three hundred years, in a most hypocritical way, we have undertaken some of the most horrific crimes against humanity on the planet in the name of Christianity and civilization. Today we continue this practice under the banner of democracy and freedom, while imaginary threats of enemy attacks are used to justify the imperial ambitions of international bankers and their egocentric political stooges.

Democracy needs to be overhauled and returned to the people instead of serving vested interests, among which, politicians, businessmen, and religious leaders figure prominently. The current protocol of democratic governance has been betrayed by the very people we elected and trusted; it has become a tool to deceive the electorate for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of the many. As long as democracy relies on the financial sponsorship of political candidates through powerful lobby groups—corporate, religious, and alien political pressure groups, unrepresentative results of ballot boxes and a biased media—it will continue to remain flawed.

The West is quick to condemn abuses of human rights in developing countries or nations it dislikes, but ignores the far greater and more frequent atrocities they have committed abroad since the end of the Second World War, and more generally since the onset of imperial conquests dating back to the 17th century. However, the past is gone, the future is in front of us, so let the past be a source of enlightenment rather than an urge to go back to the glory days of imperialism, or international mercantilism. The time has come to re-examine our past deeds critically and to remodel democracy in a way that matches the aspirations of humanity rather than those of financial institutions, which are founded on deceptive financial manipulations that government regulators have freed from any constraints.

From time immemorial, money speculators and compliant politicians have fuelled the development of regional conflicts and financial crises that, combined, have contributed to the ever-increasing disparity of wealth between the rich, the middle class, and the poor. In our modern democracies, there is no clear separation between church, government, and big business, no more than there is between the legislative, executive and judiciary branches of the government as predicated by the US, Britain, and their affiliated Commonwealth countries, Germany, Russia, France and Israel. These government organisations have shown a tendency to mesh into one another through the intermediation of financial sponsors who, in return for their monetary largesse, seek favours from government authorities. Behind the scenes, a small minority of international financial power brokers shape Western destinies and use our politicians as proxies to promote self-serving ambitions.

The main problems Western governments face are in timing and prioritising issues of importance to the nation; poor and rushed judgments eventually hurt taxpayers. National issues have to be considered within the framework of the global economy and not nationally in terms of political expediency or vanity. Considerations of circumstances of time, place and flexibility are important to sound policies, be they domestic or foreign.

Finally, the writer wishes to underline the fact that the opinions expressed here are mainly based on historical research, recent and old. Some are from the very distant past, but they do seem to have a certain relevance to modernity. Indeed, the world perpetually rediscovers itself. History teaches us to understand the present and plan for the future; ignoring it is suicidal, and that is precisely what the West is currently doing under an Anglo-American-Zionist leadership, motivated by greed, framed by outmoded imperial ambitions and coupled with rugged individualism under the guise of libertarianism. No democracy is possible without discipline and respect for cultures that differ from flawed western values, on the grounds that we are richer and better armed. (The former qualifier has a hollow ring to it; the other is still a reality.)

When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness. Alexis de Tocqueville

In the text, the terms democracy, moral majority, corporatocracy, Zionism and the City of London recur frequently and as such should be defined from the start:

Democracy is ideologically defined as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The moral majority is the electorate.

The corporatocracy is the corporate-political establishment with a strong admixture of religious influence.

Zionism is a political movement, which includes both Jewish and Christian adherents; the latter came originally from an indolent British and French aristocracy who married their sons to rich Jewish families – a marriage of money with traditional power elite. The chapter covering religion has been mainly restricted to the three Abrahamic faiths and does not cover their numerous offshoots, as this would distract the reader from the objective of the book.

The City of London stands for the London Financial District. Wall Street is its US counterpart.

It is obvious to many people that democratic governance has been hijacked by vested interests and that ballot box results are meaningless as long as elections are sponsored by the business elite. This situation has significantly deteriorated in the last thirty years with the introduction of privatisation, deregulation, and globalisation, through the inordinate influence of neoconservative extremists in government affairs of the Western world.

Protecting the public from knowing the truth is one of the primary occupations of our dear leaders, but why should they do so? Is it for reasons of national security…or their own?

To this effect, this writer proposes radical reforms to the Western protocol of governance, whereby a commission would be appointed by the Supreme Court to formulate policies that conform to the legitimate aspirations of the people. Politicians’ role will be to canvass the electorate, determine their needs, and to implement the policies adopted by the commission. The members making up the commission would be people with proven expertise, such as people who are running government agencies, unions, and small businesses.

Lobbying would be abolished, and donations limited to individuals to, say, $3,000 maximum payable to the commission. The shortfall will be met by the commission’s treasury representative with the approval of the other members of the commission. Resolutions to enact any legislation would pass with a 60% voting quorum. The proposed reforms are designed to achieve transparency and integrity in matters of public governance – something that has never been established under any political regimes.

To achieve the goal of a genuine democracy, defined in terms of the social and economic aspirations of the people, this writer has proposed some 60 pieces of legislation to reform our democratic protocol of governance. Such restructurings would be best applied by a centralised government, one which can quickly formulate new policies in a rapidly changing social and economic environment that is largely determined by the exponential development of IT technology and scientific progress.

The writer urges the electorate to pay more attention to socio-economic issues that confront the West today. If we don’t, we may drift into a brutal era of corporate feudalism led by international bankers. This writer respects the banks for what they are and for their function in societies, but above all, they are there to serve the people and not the inverse. Because of this, our Western protocol of democratic governance has become dysfunctional and needs to be overhauled to ensure a better future for our children and theirs. We owe them as much. This is the reason why the writer has written this book and suggested remedial legal reforms to achieve this goal in the last chapter (9)

.

CHAPTER 1

POLITICS: AN ILLUSION OF FREEDOM AND FREE TRADE

Encarta UK defines politics as the interrelationships between the people, groups, or organisations in a particular area of life especially insofar as they involve power and influence or conflict. Wikipedia defines politics as a process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of social relations involving authority or power and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.

In reality, the leaders of political, corporate, and religious institutions have specialised in the art of semantics, which they have often used selectively and deceivingly to the benefit of privileged elites (of which they are an integral part). These elected or self-appointed people’s representatives have traditionally supported corporations and more pertinently financial institutions whose agenda is to amass more power and wealth by extending their influence on a global scale. Yet, the moral majority believes that democratic elections give them a choice as to how they will be governed. They do have a choice in the people they choose, but not in what they will do. The rest is a delusion. Let us look at this in more detail.

"Anything important is never left to the vote of the people. We only get to vote on some man; we never get to vote on what he is to do." Will Rogers.

1.1 Ballot Boxes and Outcome - an Illusion of Democracy

Ballot boxes and political outcome alone cannot define democracy because they are not representative, nor do they offer any guarantee that the pledges politicians make will be respected. Democracies are meaningless without integrity, social justice and an unbiased media, and it is clear these qualities are lacking today. In fact, the public is intentionally misinformed on the issues that concern them by the media, corporations, and religious authorities. Without the support of the leaders of these political movements of discontent, politicians would not have much of a future. Political expediency is what defines democracy, not the will of the people.

In the US 2005 elections, some 118 million people voted from a pool of 210 million eligible voters. This means that only 56% of eligible people participated. The two main political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, were virtually neck and neck with about 59 million voters each. Out of a population of 210 million eligible voters, some 60 million endorsed President Bush Jr. during the 2005 presidential election campaign. In other words, 35% of the eligible voters backed the president.

In England, the situation is even less representative. Four out of ten people voted in England during the 2005 election; out of 44 million eligible voters, 18 million people participated in the election. The results gave Labour 35%, the Conservatives 32%, and the Liberal Democrats 22% of the votes. The Labour party won with 6.3 million or 15.8% of the eligible voters. In the British electoral system, (as in the US), the winning party takes all; hence, the Labour party won the elections with 15.8% of the votes. Under any circumstances, it would be difficult to see anything democratic in such elections.

In the May 2010 British election, the Conservatives won 285, Labour 233, and the Liberal Democrats a mere 50 seats. Partial results and exit polls showed the Conservatives were in line to win around 305 seats -- 21 short of an overall majority of 326 in the 650-seat House of Commons -- against 255 for Labour and 61 for the Liberal Democrats.

Under the current British electoral system, where each person votes for a party in a multi-member constituency, each party receives seats in the constituency in the same proportion as the votes won in that election. The parties determine the ranking of their list of candidates: thus, the elector has no say as to which candidates they vote for in a party. This explains why there is such a big discrepancy between the popular vote breakdown and the allocation of seats in the new Parliament.

Party seats are heavily biased toward either Labour or Conservative to ensure that a duopoly remains firmly entrenched in Britain, as well as in the US. Under such a duopoly of power, no radical change in politics will ever take place. With Nick Clegg as leader of the Liberal Democrats, Britain has a hung parliament.

According to Wikipedia the House of Lords is the upper house

of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

. Like the House of Commons

, it meets in the Palace of Westminster

.

The House of Lords is independent from, and complements the work of, the House of Commons; they share responsibility for making laws and checking government action.[2]

Bills can be introduced into either the House of Lords or the House of Commons and members of the Lords may also take on roles as Government Ministers.

Unlike the House of Commons, most new members of the House of Lords are appointed.[3]

Membership of the House of Lords is made up of Lords Spiritual

and Lords Temporal

. There are currently 26 Lords Spiritual who sit in the Lords by virtue of their ecclesiastical role in the established

Church of England

.[4]

The Lords Temporal make up the rest of the membership; of these, the majority are life peers

who are appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister

, or on the advice of the House of Lords Appointments Commission

.[5]

The House of Lords appointments are often given to people who have sponsored politicians to power as it does in the US. It is a gallery of all sorts, including rogue criminals such as Conrad Black and Lord Blankfein (CEO of Goldman Sachs) who have been indicted for fraudulent financial manipulations in the US; some much then for the merits of Western democracies!

Unfortunately in politics, as in religion and financial institutions, the odds are heavily stacked against the righteous moral majority. To secure public trust, the ruling establishment does pay lip service to good causes, as proof of the righteousness of their intentions, but in reality they embellish a grain of truth to mask a sand dune of unethical and deceitful practices. This takes us far away from the public perception of democracy as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In the US, many members of the presidential administration and the diplomatic corps commonly hail from the business sector. Accordingly, they are usually more sympathetic to corporate welfare than matters of public concern. The major bailout of banks, corporations and insurance companies undertaken by this president confirms this assertion. In fairness to Obama, he inherited an economy in disarray that his predecessors created over the last thirty years. Presidential administrations in the US are more akin to privatised institutions that are run by appointed members of cabinet. Most are either cronies of the president and his deputy, or selected from powerful vested interests which sponsored the party to power. Whereas, under the parliamentary system adopted by Commonwealth countries, people elect parliamentarians and the prime minister is chosen by cabinet members to lead the country.

In contrast to England and the US, voting is compulsory in Australia and Israel. These latter two countries have adopted a proportional system of representation that allows the voters to choose from a wide list of candidates from across the political spectrum. The outcome of this protocol has led to the creation of a series of small parties and independent members whose main function is to keep in check the bullying tactics of the major parties and keep them as honest as politically possible, so they claim. Proportional representation is certainly a more democratic formula than either the American or the British versions of electoral protocols of winner takes all, but that does not necessarily make the proportional system more ethical, .far from it. The reason for this is that the very protocol of democratic governance is itself flawed. These reasons will be elaborated in the following chapter, but suffice to say this is essentially because of political expediency. The Australian parliament is far more secretive in the conducts of its domestic and foreign policies than its US and British counterparts.

The reason for this is that the very protocol of democratic governance is itself flawed. These reasons will be elaborated in the following chapter, but suffice to say that this situation stems largely from political expediency. The latter has led to a gross distortion of the democratic process because our elected representatives are judge and jury of their actions, are immune from prosecution and never consult the electorate on major issues that concern the nation. They have become a vested interest party; closely allied with the corporate sector which sponsors them to power with bribes and guarantees of comfortable sinecures in the aftermath of their political career if they complied with their demand.

The leaders of the Coalition of the Willing have a similar protocol of governance and a common objective that closely coincides with that of financial institutions, irrespective of the political platform in power. The differences between rival political parties are essentially cosmetic for public consumption prior to elections. In Australia, Labour is the single most popular party and stands in opposition to a coalition between the Liberal and the National parties – an alliance that, broadly speaking, represents the corporate sector and the farmers respectively. Labour, on the other hand, traditionally stood for working class people, but in reality, they are more in tune today with liberal philosophies of the liberal-national coalition than they claim to be. Like their American counterparts, the two main parties are duopolies of power, somehow divorced from the moral majority′s aspirations.

Former Labour Party leader, Paul Keating, introduced privatisation, deregulation and freed the Australian dollar into the arms of the rapacious bankers of the City of London and Wall Street. Former Liberal leaders, John Howard, sold this country to the US under a trade treaty that benefits the US far more than Australia, primarily because the US is the biggest economy in the world, whilst Australia is comparatively insignificant. Treaties can only be fair to both parties when their economies broadly match, such as between the EU and the US.

Within the Labour Party, unions carry 50% of the votes in policy matters; in 2003, it was 60%. In effect, under a Labour government, a dozen or so powerful union leaders yield considerable influence in the management of the nation. To varying degrees of intensity, union corruption prevails in all democracies, but is also common in political and financial circles, the police forces, intelligence agencies, the military, and government officials who are in position of authority at municipal, state, and federal level. Together, these institutions make the law of the land with little, if any, participation of the electorate; they are the ultimate controllers of our destinies. For all intents and purposes, they are self-regulatory bodies that are judge and jury of their less laudable activities.

Institutionalised abuses by top officials of the corporate, political and religious establishment are often resolved through royal commissions, the equivalent of congressional commissions in the US. The defendants are usually prominent groups of people from either the government or private enterprises. Because of their mutual bond, the government invariably draft the terms of reference of such investigations. As a consequence, prosecutions are seldom forthcoming and when they do, the terms of punishment are commonly lenient and the judicial inquiry is usually a prolonged affair to give time to the electorate to forget the incident.

All institutions that wield power over people are constantly exposed to fraudulent temptation to make money far beyond what they earn through their official functions. This state of affairs prevails in all countries, democratic or not. However, the extent of corruption is unexpectedly prevalent in democracies that have espoused the American model of free-fall capitalism, whereby money making, (often fraudulently), takes precedence over issues of social welfare. This issue is amply covered in Chapter 3

.

There are no perfect governing institutions and, by extension, no perfect democracy – only different recipes of it from one country to another, according to the degree of influence of vested interests in the affairs of state. The latter use the enormous clout they have on the political establishment to sway foreign and domestic policies toward causes that exclusively favour them, and which are remotely related to national interests.

Today, the blurring of major political parties is particularly evident among the members of the coalition of the willing, whose politicians are driven more by personal ambitions, self-interest and re-election prospects than the welfare of their country. Australia, like the US and Britain, has succumbed to the greed of corporations, most notoriously the larger financial institutions of Wall Street and the City of London. In other words, these two financial institutions increasingly determine their policies, domestic and foreign. These two power houses caused the 2008 economic crisis, which politicians then euphemistically called a global financial crisis to escape criticism. In reality, this severe recession verges on a potential depression. The 2008 crisis is essentially an Anglo-American one that has spread to Continental Europe by contagion, more than anything else.

Firms like Macquarie, UBS, Rothschild, and JPMorgan hold the fate of every Australian stock in their hands. In fact, according to Investor′s Business Daily, the world′s big investment houses control close to 80% of global market action on a given day.

The danger posed by the stronghold of international bankers in the affairs of state in US, Britain and most Western democracies has been known for quite some time. Federal MP Frank Anstey, a member of King O’Malley’s Torpedo Brigade which conspired to create the Commonwealth Bank, summed up Australia’s situation in a media release from the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia on July 31, 2008:

Australia is a mere appendage of the City of London Financial District, without distinct economic existence... These men constitute the Financial Oligarchy. No nation is permitted to hold dominion, and no ’democracy’ can be aught but a name that does not shake it from its throne.

MP Frank Anstey also made the following quote, supporting the relevance of his views on the power of the City of London in Australian politics:

Men may die but money makes no sacrifice. It looks upon bloody war as a rich gold mine yielding fat dividends forever and ever without end. Human blood suckers, who risk neither life nor limb nor penny, wax fat upon Armageddon.

The Australian Liberal-National coalition led by John Howard, like its American counterparts in the George W. Bush administration, failed to manage long-term objectives in the management of water resources, the provision of adequate land for urban expansion, infrastructural development, environmental issues, education, and national health. John Howard took his country to war because he enjoyed the international limelight that his friendship with US President Bush Jnr. gave him. This has been true for every Prime Minister of Australia despite their political platforms.

John Howard boasted that under his stewardship, the country had accumulated a $28-billion budget surplus. Indeed this was true, but he forgot to mention that he introduced a Goods and Services Tax, GST, of 10%, which he had promised not to introduce during his electoral campaign. He also brought the country to war, drew up an unfair trade treaty with the US and brought the country into bankruptcy. Howard′s motto was It is all the way with George W. Bush as his predecessor, Harold Holt, said to Lyndon Johnson regarding the Vietnam War.

All three leaders of the Coalition of the Willing claim that the low unemployment levels under their leadership were due to sound political management, but these claims are far from convincing. Except for a small budget surplus in the case of Australia, the macro-economic picture of the three countries of the Coalition of the Willing is rather dismal with unprecedented high levels of national and foreign debt. These three farcical leaders of the Coalition of the Willing—Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and John Howard—lost the next round of elections. George W. Bush is now considered as one of the worst Presidents the US has ever had; Tony Blair is not far behind. John Howard was the pawn in the chess game of Anglo-American Zionist policies, as all previous Australian prime ministers have been.

Indeed, politicians can fool the people some of the time, but not all the time. Unfortunately, an opposition party coming to power is more like a change of guard at Buckingham palace, as there is little substantial policy difference between them. Among the main Coalition of the Willing countries, the two major political parties of these nations are essentially duopolies or triumvirates of vested interest parties.

The low turnout of voters in America and Britain indicates that the electorate at large does not think that voting will make any substantial difference to their welfare, no matter what the political outcome of the election is. Many have become distrustful of politicians and a great number of citizens have lost faith in the traditional democratic institutions. Politicians and corporate leaders have hijacked the democratic rights of the electorate to do as they please. Most of the countries I have visited and those known to many of my friends worldwide have one thing in common: they distrust politicians most of the time. A handful of countries are exempt from this sentiment, among which are Holland, Norway, Finland, Brazil and a few others.

Since the horror of 9/11, there is a clear tendency for the war leaders of the coalition to centralise the power of governance into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Under the umbrella of national security to fight terrorism, these leaders have become increasingly authoritarian, forgetting that they created the problem in the first place by invading Iraq and Afghanistan on false pretexts, as well as supporting Israel unconditionally without any concern for the fate of Palestinians (or Islamic people in general, bar Saudi Arabia and the Emirates). Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of the most fanatic Islamic movement and is the least secular Arab state in the Middle East. However, this Arab kingdom remains a close ally of the United States despite the fact that this nation was implicated in 9/11. Why?

It does appear that Western politicians find it difficult to differentiate economic interest from freedom and democracy, which they incessantly trumpet to the developing world. At times, they are even willing to impose democracies by force to nations that are either endowed with great natural resource (such as Iraq) or have some strategic importance (such as Afghanistan) or just because they are socialist or communist countries.

The worst thing that has happened to western democracies over the last decades is the substantial loss of real power from parliament to the executive, and from the executives to heads of government. (Australian High Court Chief Justice Kirby)

The above remark by Justice Kirby equally applies to the corporate world, whereby the power has shifted from the board of directors to chief executives and top associates, to the detriment of investors. This situation is particularly evident among the Anglo-American Coalition of the Willing countries. The same comments can be made about the leaders of traditional and US evangelical churches. Ominously, the concentration of power in the hands of the few unfailingly begets abuses of human rights as well as pervasive corruption. Such is our human experience.

Arguably, Alexis de Tocqueville summed it best when he said I know of no country where there is so little independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America.

One can unequivocally state that corruption is widespread in political, financial and religious circles – in all institutions, which have authority over the people. Foremost, among them are politicians, more particularly in the US where the laws allow congressmen to accept cash gifts from interested parties, but there is no restriction on them being offered Initial Public Offering or IPO before the public has access to this information which is very profitable to them.

This statement equally applies to Britain and Australia and most EU countries. In 2011 and 2012, people across the US, Britain Europe and Israel manifested against the pervasive corruption of their governments; clearly a global class war between the rich elite against the moral majority. Justice Kirby statement simply confirms Alexis de Tocqueville’s comments. Insider trading is widespread in the democratic protocol of governance in the Western world.

1.2 Sponsoring Elections and Lobbying – Legalised Corruption

Canvassing people during elections is a costly business, estimated to have reached 600 million dollars for the US in 2008. Much of the electoral protocol in the US and the Western world relies on the sponsorship of financial donors represented by lobbyists. The latter are notably influential because they dispense wads of money to favourite political candidates.

Many of these celebrity individuals commonly hail from the corporate sector whilst others come from academia and non-government organisations. Many are former cabinet members of previous administrations and political lobby groups, such as the disproportionally represented Jewish neo-conservative Diaspora.

Whilst the common people contribute to the bulk of funding, the donations from the big guns have far more impact on politicians than the much smaller individual contributions from Joe-six-pack. The big fish have access to politicians whilst the minnows do not.

Electoral Laws in America look fair on paper; yet, this is often deceptive. For instance, individual donors to political aspirants are limited to giving no more than $2,300 per candidate. Financial contribution to political campaigns by corporations is illegal in the US, but devious legal loopholes in the electoral system allow interest groups or associations of similar or interconnected industries to sponsor political candidates. Such interest groups include the pharmaceutical industry, real estate developers, insurance companies, share brokers, commercial and investment banks, trade unions, law firms and, more importantly, political pressure groups representing Israel. It is a process akin to securitisation in the financial world. Such subterfuge substantially increases the lobbying power of corporations and political groups in the corridors of power in Washington. Corporate donations, per se, are illegal in the US, but not the industry such as the pharmaceutical, the realtors or big oil etc.

In the US, cabinet appointees are fulltime members of the administration, but some continue to enjoy deferred income from their former corporate employers. They are, in fact, corporate ambassadors to US presidential administrations: Cheney for Halliburton, Condoleezza Rice for Chevron, Timothy Geithner of the current US Treasury, Greenspan and Bernanke, the last three named were and are still paid substantial consulting fees by their former investment banks, which employed them as consultants during their tenure of public office. The fees they earned added millions of dollars to their yearly income.

All Federal Reserve directors who raked in millions of dollars were allowed to defer paying their taxes by a bill brought forward by President George W. Bush. No one else enjoys such unique privilege. The elite’s best friend is the elite; the prevailing mentality among them is:

You scratch my back and I will scratch yours or, as the three musketeers of Alexander Dumas′ famous novel said, One for all and all for one.

Government agencies and corporations commonly employ members of their families and cronies as consultants, contractors or as full-fledged staff members, such as Mrs. Cheney. All enjoy special perquisites by virtue of political kinship, rather than personal merit. Politicians who have been compliant to the corporate sector during their term of office benefit either from extremely lucrative sinecures from the corporate world, obtain top jobs in a new presidential administration, or start their own investment bank, such as Al Gore with Goldman Sachs. Another typical case history of perks for compliant politicians at the most senior level of the administration is the Carlyle Corporation.

The Carlyle Group is a private investment bank, which doesn′t come to the public attention very often, but it is one of the biggest American investors of the defence industry, telecom, property, and financial services. On their payroll are people like George Bush (Snr), James Baker III and old premier John Major. Carlyle has become the thread, which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least, the current president′s father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm′s multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden. But for the Carlyle Group, walking that narrow line is the art of doing business at the murky intersection of Washington politics, national security, and private capital; mastering it has enabled the group to amass $12 billion in funds under management. (The Iron Triangle, Dan Briody–excerpts from Red Herring Business Magazine)

Since his retirement, Tony Blair has accepted millions of dollars in consulting assignments from US, Swiss, and Iraqi investment banks in his capacity as a board member. These positions were, without doubt, offered as a reward for getting the country to war against Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as supporting Israel’s encroachment in Palestinian lands. Benjamin Mendelson, who held several cabinet posts under tony Blair and who was formerly trade commissioner for the EU, is being currently investigated by a commission to account for his luxurious lifestyle after he bought a mansion for £6 million.

Winston Churchill had extensive family debt amounting to £65,000, which was wiped off the slate by Nathaniel Rothschild, the famous London investment banker, in exchange for declaring war against Germany and a confirmation of the promise of giving Palestine to the Jews in 1917; Winston reneged on the pledge the British made to the Palestinians to give them autonomy for supporting the British forces during the war against the Turks in the aftermath of the First World War. Was Winston afraid that the Zionist media would divulge to the public some of the darker side of his family history?

Theodore Roosevelt had personal debt of $200,000 before he assumed the presidency. The US Jewish Diaspora paid the debt in exchange for the appointment of a Jew to the Supreme Court. Corruption is common in all political doctrines; the longer politicians remain in office, the greater the opportunities arise for misconduct.

There are literally hundreds of corporate groups, which make regular and substantial contributions to political parties in the US. Sponsoring politicians does not have as much of a toehold in the European parliamentary system of governance, as it has in the US or Britain. In these two nations, the practice is so deeply entrenched that their administrations behave increasingly like a feudal oligarchy and less and less like democracies. For a more comprehensive list of donors, consult net site MapLight.org. This site shows the close relationship that exists between political sponsoring and the passage of bills by congress. What you will see in the list is the top of the iceberg; beneath it lurks many shady deals that have enriched the fortunes of many elected politicians – from grateful entrepreneurs and contractors whom they have assisted in getting government contracts during their terms of office, at federal, state, or municipal level.

The following examples, taken from the Citizen Electoral Council of Australia’s Newsletter of May 2008, serve to support the above assertions; they are by no means comprehensive. Herewith is a small list of Australian politicians who fall in this category:

Alan Stockdale, awarded hundreds of million dollars in fees to Macquarie Bank during his term as Treasurer of Victoria under Premier Jeff Kennett

Max Moore Wilton, Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under John Howard, is now an executive director of Macquarie’s Sydney Airport Corporation.

Stan Howard, John Howard’s older brother, is Chairman of Macquarie’s Sydney M2 toll road.

Ann Keating, Paul Keating’s younger sister, is on the board of the Macquarie bank.

Bob Carr, a fanatic privatisation advocate as NSW Premier, now earns $500,000 per year from Macquarie as a consultant; meanwhile, his long-time subordinate, factional