PSEUDO-DEMOCRACY, pseudodemocracy and pseudodemocratic governments

HOME

AMERICAN PSEUDODEMOCRACY: One-Party totalitarian regime pretending to be a two-party democracy.

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?

The History

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 parties.

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 World.

Corporate Socialism
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.

www.nobelwarprize.org

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 and occupation?

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 dictator(s)".

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?

"Dictators"
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".

Post-Election Riots
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).

Internet Mind-Control
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.