AMERICAN PSEUDODEMOCRACY: One-Party totalitarian regime pretending to be a
Every two years or less the World is
exposed to a massive propaganda war between the two United States political parties: the
Republicans and the Democrats.
But why only two political parties? Why the U.S. is not a multi-party parliamentary
democracy? Why there can never ever succeed another party in the United States?
Today's United States "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party" have
been originally ONE-PARTY: "The Democratic-Republican Party". LINK
As long as they have remained as one, as the Democratic-Republican Party, they had to
content themselves with the unpleasant fact that they could not control the United States
government all the time, that after lost elections they had to cede power to other
In order to gain a total, full and uninterrupted control of the United States Government,
they have divided up in two half-parties, "The Republicans" and "The
Democrats" which, in a great theatrical way, periodically conduct staged electoral
contests in the media. With a multitude of other laws and electoral regulations, such as
"winner take all", they have created a system in which no other
political party or political force has a chance to succeed..
Today, the modern Democratic-Republican Party of the United States is a
totalitarian regime which prevents any political opposition from attaining political
power. Through the concentration of mass-media in a few hands it has achieved a firmer
control over the media and over censorship than has ever been accomplished before, in any
other totalitarian regime.
Most ironically and most cynically this totalitarian and repressive regime accuses other
countries of being "non-democratic" and under the pretense of "exporting
democracy" attacks, invades, subjugates and exploits weaker countries around the
United States Corporate Socialism is a system in which the poor and the middle class
citizens are left to fend for themselves (often without adequate nutrition and health
care) while the richest of the rich don't pay any income taxes and if the rich get in
trouble then they are bailed out by the middle-class taxpayers' money.
COUNTERING U.S. PROPAGANDA.
What possibilities do have the governments
of small independent countries to counter the U.S. propaganda that they are
"undemocratic" or "repressive" and to avoid (hopefully) U.S. invasion
Copy the U.S. system.
As an example let us consider a fictitious one-party totalitarian country
"Tutsvania", which is rich in resources, oil and minerals. Despite the fact that
the country is ruled only by one party "The Communist Party of Tutsvania" the
people are mostly happy and well taken care of. The few dissidents which exist in any
country (including Tutsvania) are used by the U.S. as an excuse to "liberate
the people of Tutsvania and to prevent a humanitarian crisis caused by its
If the government of Tutsvania acts early enough and divides the ruling "Tutsvania
Communist party" into "Tutsvania Democratic Communist Party" and
"Tutsvania Republican Communist Party" and then stages theatrical elections in
which all other parties are indirectly banned and prevented from running - through
complicated election rules - then it would be hard for the U.S. propaganda to attact the
government as being undemocratic. How can they criticize a system which they had invented?
One of the major tools of the U.S. propaganda, preceding an invasion, is to demonize the
leader of the targeted country as a "dictator, villain, tyrant" etc. Examples:
Milosevic, Ahmadinejad, Khadafi, Saddam Hussein, Lukashenko, Chavez, Castro, Assad, etc.
This serves to make it appear that the U.S. invaders are not against the country and its
people but only against the demonized "dictator" and his family. As a preventive
measure against this tactic it is advisable for the leader or leaders of the targeted
country to withdraw into the political background. And, instead of the very visible and
vulnerable post of a president or prime minister to take on a less conspicuous but no-less
powerful post such as the "head of the Supreme Court", which could keep the
control of the government, police and of the military.
The Dangers of Multi-Party Democracies
While a multi-party democracy, as it exists in most countries today, would be the ideal
and the most representative form of the government, it endangers the independence and
freedom of the country. Multi-party democracies are easily manipulated and controlled
through one-sided donations or one-sided media-support for those political subjects which
are willing to sell the independence, resources and freedom of their country to foreign
interests, without a war.
The best and the saddest examples of this sell-out and subservience to the U.S. interests
and control are found among European "democracies".
The period immediately following the elections in a multi-party democracy is very
susceptible to demonstrations and coups. Any suggestion of the losing party that the
election was not fair or that fraud had occurred, immediately aggravates the edgy
population. Such, usually false accusations, have been used multiple times to install
puppet-regimes: orange, green, rose, satin, denim ... "revolutions".
In the United States an instability of this kind does not exist for two reasons. First of
all because it is a one-party regime and not a multi-party democracy. And secondly because
the "losing" side, immediately after the elections, accepts the loss and
congratulates the winning half of the Democratic-Republican Party (in order to maintain
stability and stay in power).
While, originally, the internet was a great liberator, modern, centrally owned and
controlled "social networks" are the exact opposite. Social networks replace the
vast and unlimited freedom of information available on the internet with a limited
pre-digested selection. Furthermore, internet-robots can flood this controlled environment
with carefully engineered political messages. This has been used to entice crowds of young
social-networkers to start massive demonstrations and coups. Analysis of the ownership of
these "social networks" indicates who profits from their political potential.