Democracy is Dead: Long Live Democracy

Every time I turn on the TV news these days I see demonstrators clashing with the police, smashed-up shop fronts and clouds of tear gas spreading ominously through the streets.

In fact, sometimes I'm sat there watching people marching and violent disturbances at one location, in one city, in one country; whilst the scrolling news strap at the bottom of my TV screen is informing me of violent clashes somewhere else - and then somewhere else – followed by somewhere... It just goes on and on.

And it gets worse. Sometimes the chanting of those marching is silenced by a sudden fusillade of gun-shots and the march becomes a mad scramble to get out of the firing line. This is serious business – people are getting killed: shot dead by police and military forces that have sworn to protect them.

What on earth is going on? What do these people want? What do they hope to achieve by demonstrating and, sometimes, dying? Are the aspirations of those marching in the eastern hemisphere the same as those demonstrating in the west?

The news channels have, as usual, presented us with an endless procession of talking heads: each of them giving us their take on the root causes of the disturbances. However: from amidst the clamor of all this 'expert' opinion in the main-stream media, there does seem to be a general consensus emerging. It can be described as follows. The populations of Egypt and Libya etc, are rebelling against autocratic, oppressive regimes that have clung to power for decades. They now want to replace these dictatorships with western-style democracy. In the west – on the other hand - people are simply protesting against the austerity measures introduced by their governments to claw back the billions spent on bailing out the banking system.

I'll restate those main points for the sake of clarity.

1. People in the east want what people in the west already possess: democracy. This will lead, they hope, to an improved quality of life with better paid jobs, freedom of expression and an end to corruption.

2. Events across Europe – on the other hand - are the result of widespread antipathy toward a single policy: which involves making deep cuts across all areas of public expenditure that will, inevitably, lead to job losses and impoverishment on a massive scale.

Circumstances in the middle east are, of course, a lot more acute than those prevalent in west. Which shouldn't surprise us. The regimes: under which the people of the region have suffered for so long, were never democratically constituted. For sure these brutal autocracies have camouflaged their true nature under a thin, cosmetic veneer of constitutional legality. But this camouflage was primarily designed to fool the voting public here in the west. It allowed our leaders to pretend that they were dealing with fair and just men – not tyrants. Indeed, the willingness of our own political elite to accord these despots any measure of status and respect must call into question their own commitment to the democratic principle.

This is further compounded when you consider the reactions of our illustrious leaders to events as they have unfolded.

With Egypt they were very slow off the mark. They first waited to see if Mubarak was going to survive. When it became clear that he wouldn't they called for a swift transition to democratic rule. Which begs the question: why did they wait thirty years to call for this transition?

In Bahrain: home base of the American Fifth Fleet, we have a truly appalling set of circumstances developing. Here Bahraini and Saudi security forces are prosecuting a particularly brutal campaign against unarmed demonstrators. Thousands have been arrested – including doctors and nurses. Wounded protesters have been dragged from hospital beds: their whereabouts now unknown. Schoolgirls as young as twelve are being beaten with rubber hoses and threatened with rape. Shia mosques are also being demolished in an attempt to drive a wedge between the Sunni and Shia populations. What we hearing from our own governments about these atrocities? Virtually nothing.

Compare this with the reaction to the uprising in Syria. Here again unarmed demonstrators are being shot dead by their own security forces. But Syria is considered a potential enemy here in the west so in this case we have President Obama declaring that the action: by the Syrian military, to be, 'An outrageous use of violence that must come to an end now.' Nobody is going to disagree with this sentiment. But why is it being expressed so selectively?

Then we have the events in Libya. Here the west has, ostensibly, actually taken sides and mounted a bombing campaign against Gaddafi's forces. I have a very strong suspicion, however, that everything is not as it seems with this situation. The air campaign doesn't seem to be about to pushing matters to any kind of favorable conclusion: but designed, more, to maintain a deadly status quo between the warring factions. It could be argued that Nato is – in fact - waging a war of attrition against both sides with the object of wearing them down in preparation for something else. Maybe the dispatch of western ground forces to 'secure' the oil fields and build up a bridgehead for future operations against Syria and Iran. Moreover, the stated rationale behind the West's intervention: the protection of civilians, begins to look extremely dubious when you consider that civilians in Misurata have been under continuous, indiscriminate bombardment for over four weeks now.

Another thing that sets circumstances in Libya apart from the other Arab uprisings: something that qualifies them for 'special' treatment, is the currency issue. Gaddafi was actively seeking support: from other African and Muslim nations, for his proposal to introduce the Gold Dinar: a totally new currency. The new currency was to be issued by the national banks of the participating countries and all import/export transactions: including oil sales, would be conducted using the new gold coinage. This would, inevitably, challenge the transactional supremacy of the US Dollar as the world's first reserve currency. According to some commentators an enormous shift in the economic balance of power would occur if the new currency was to be widely adopted. This is why several attempts have been made to target and kill Gaddafi: a course of action that is illegal under international law.

Now we cannot examine the west's democratic credentials: with regard to the middle east, without considering the democracies that they have already 'installed' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Elections in both of these countries were bedeviled by accusations of fraud from all sides. They could, at best, be described as 'flawed elections': with 'flawed' being a coyly euphemistic substitute for 'rigged' – which better describes the real events.

In Afghanistan we now have Hamid Karzai established as president. He is regarded: by most commentators, to be a direct 'implant' by the United States. Karzai was once employed as a consultant by the Unocal Corporation (Union Oil Company of California): a subsidiary of Chevron, at a time when direct negotiations were underway between the oil company and the Taliban. The object of the talks was to reach an agreement that would allow Unocal to construct and operate oil and gas pipelines across Afghanistan that would connect the oil and gas fields of the Caspian Sea basin with the emerging consumer markets in Pakistan and India. To facilitate these negotiations the company opened an office in Kandahar in 1996 (through which they channeled money to the Taliban); the site that they chose for their Afghan base, however, proved to be highly controversial: it was directly across the road from Osama bin Laden's compound. Construction of the pipelines is due to begin in 2014.

In Iraq Nouri al-Maliki now holds the office of Prime Minister: along with the offices of Minister for the Interior, Defense and National Security. Al-Malaki has, in the past, had links with Syria and Iran. This would seem to make him a strange choice of candidate for the Americans, given their animosity toward both these countries. However, he still managed to survive a selection process conducted in 2006: in which US officials and the CIA were closely involved, to become Head of State.

He has, since, proven to be a wise choice of leader as far as western oil interests are concerned. All the major companies: Chevron, Total, Exxon-Mobil, Shell and BP are now back in business in Iraq after a three decade long hiatus that began with the nationalization of Iraq's oil industry in 1972: seven years before Saddam came to power. It should be noted that none of the contracts awarded to these companies has been placed under public scrutiny and that many organizations: including War on Want, believe that they will not benefit ordinary Iraqis.

Now we must, at this point, also examine the reasons why the West invaded Iraq in the first place. Let 's start with the real deal. Saddam Hussein announced: in September 2000, that Iraq would no longer accept payment for its oil - exported under the UN 'oil for food' program - in US Dollars. All future payments were to be made in Euros. This, effectively, sealed his fate. When the administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney came to power, later that year, it was decided that this challenge to the Dollar's dominance as first reserve currency: the currency in which all oil transactions must be conducted, could not be tolerated. It was also concluded: at this time, that America needed to take strategic control of Iraq's oil and pre-position military assets throughout the region in preparation for the looming 'peak oil' crisis (all of this information was revealed to the public by Bush administration insiders in 2004). So the decision to invade had been taken in 2000. In 2002: when planning for military action was in its final stages, the anti-Saddam propaganda campaign – to prepare the public for war - began in earnest. Politician after politician began informing us about the dire consequences, for world peace, that would ensue should the west fail in its resolve to confront Saddam and divest him of his weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had also, they claimed, become a safe haven for Al-Qaeda: which contributed further to Saddam's pariah status. We now know that all of this was no more than a pretext for the invasion. Saddam did not possess WMDs and had no links with Al-Qaeda. It was all a pack of lies. Furthermore: in 2003, the Bush administration forced Iraq to switch back to trading its oil for the US Dollar. This was despite the fact that the Euro's value: as determined by the world's currency markets, was – at the time - 13% higher. This means that Iraq cannot get the best possible deal for its oil and must forgo revenue that it sorely needs to rebuild its infra-structure. It also means that American forces must remain in Iraq to prevent the re-adoption of the Euro.

So in both these countries democracy has been 'orchestrated' by the agents of the occupying powers. With the only candidates allowed to run for office in Iraq and Afghanistan being chosen from within pre-selected groups the elections became, therefore, no more than tightly controlled media events. These were conducted for the benefit of Western audiences in general and the American taxpayer in particular. The idea being that these showcase events would fool casual observers into thinking that progress – toward free and fair societies - was being made. Nothing could be further from the truth. And what is more, no halfway intelligent Arab believes this to be the case either.

There are other flashpoints across the middle east where people are taking to the streets. These include: Tunisia (were it all started), Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, Jordan and Saudi Arabia whose sham democracy doesn't even make the pretense of enfranchising women.

In all of the countries I have mentioned people are marching, demonstrating - even fighting and dying - to achieve democracy in the hope that more political freedom will bring them a better quality of life. Why is it, then, that the 'free' west seems incapable or - perhaps more pertinently – unwilling to help them achieve their aims?

Well, it is a sad fact – but - democracy doesn't suit everybody. Democracy does not, for instance, suit the big corporations and oil companies.

With a democracy you might get a new government every four years. With a new government comes a new set of people with whom the corporations and oil companies have to do business. If a new government has come to power on the basis of a manifesto that promises improved welfare provision, better roads, schools and hospitals along with a job creation scheme for the unemployed then that new government might well want to re-negotiate the contracts under which the corporations and oil companies operate within their country. So democracies, as far as the corporations and oil companies are concerned, are not necessarily good for business.

Partnerships with dictatorships, on the other hand, can prove to be much more rewarding. With a dictatorship a company can build up a relationship over decades. They only have to deal with a small clique of people: the cronies and henchmen that always form the inner circle around a tyrant, who are eminently controllable because they are – by their very nature – totally corruptible. With this set up the corporations and oil companies are not really dealing with a sovereign state at all. Just a tiny elite who only ever represent their own interests. This is a much cheaper way of doing business.

This has been the predominant situation throughout much of the middle east since the end of the Second World War. Our political representatives: those who trumpet democracy with fervent, evangelical zeal at every opportunity, have accepted this situation and not sought to change it because – although they will never admit the fact – they do not really possess the power to change it. Nor do many of them want to.

We could do with some qualification here. So I would like, now, to take a look at one instance where the intelligence services of both the UK and America intervened in the democratic, internal affairs of a sovereign state for the benefit of an oil company. This will provide us with a valuable insight into the root causes of ongoing events in the middle east and illuminate the murky relationships between our governments, the oil companies and dictatorships.

The story begins in Iran in 1953. At the time Iran was a constitutional monarchy with executive power exercised by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh the leader of the Majlis: Iran's parliament. Since his election in 1951 Mosaddegh: a nationalist, had introduced several changes to the labor laws which gave workers more rights, with better pay and conditions. This, understandably, made him very popular with the common people who mounted mass demonstrations to support Mosaddegh in his struggle to curtail the influence of the Shah and his pro-Western policies. Another major player in this developing scenario was the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (the AIOC which later became British Petroleum) that had been extracting Iran's oil since 1913. Mosaddegh – along with the vast majority of Iranians – thought that the terms under which the AIOC operated in Iran were grossly unfair and an insult to their country. The AIOC actually paid more in taxes to the British government than it paid in royalties to Iran. This would have to change. After trying, unsuccessfully, to re-negotiate terms with the AIOC it was decided: by Iran's elected representatives, to nationalize the oilfields.

The British response was ruthless. MI6: Britain's intelligence service, in league with the American Central Intelligence Agency, launched a destabilization campaign against Mosaddegh's regime. This culminated in a military coup: mounted by elements loyal to the Shah, and Mosaddegh's arrest in 1953. Then the reign of terror began.

The Shah was now a puppet through which western interests controlled Iran. To keep him in power – and the oil flowing – MI6, the CIA and Israel's Mossad established SAVAK: the Iranian secret police service. All dissent was now met with arrests and secret trials followed by executions. Abduction, imprisonment without trial, torture and assassination: all the instruments of state terror, were put to use with brutal efficiency.

This situation lasted until 1979 when the people of Iran: spear-headed by a student revolt, rose up to overthrow the Shah. The oil companies were then kicked out, the oilfields seized and Iran finally became established as an independent, democratic, Islamic state.

Now, could someone please tell me, how has the west's actions in Iran enhanced their pro-democratic credentials among people in the middle east? A great many: here in the west, know very little about these events. People in the middle east, however, have neither forgotten nor forgiven them. So what can we, or our governments, tell the people of the region about democracy?

Furthermore, the CIA - in particular - has proven itself , time and time again, to be the implacable enemy of the democratic principle. It has brought down democratically elected governments: and replaced them with murderously monstrous dictatorships, all over the world. It has been doing this for decades. The Association for Responsible Dissent: an organization comprised of ex-CIA and American government officials, has estimated that covert CIA actions have cost the lives of over six-million people. SIX-MILLION PEOPLE.

Please – do not forget that number: six-million. Six-million killed by the agents and proxies of our, so-called democracies. SIX-MILLION PEOPLE KILLED IN OUR NAME.

How long are we going to go on believing our political leaders when they tell us that we are the good guys? Is it not, now, obvious that our governments tell us lies. That their reasons for adopting certain strategies toward certain countries: or the true costs of those strategies in lives, are never fully explained. They have never once said, 'Oh - and by the way, this policy will cost the lives of a few thousand people and lead to thousands more being arrested and tortured.' To which they could add, 'And don't be surprised, either, if the odd bomb goes off here and there; it 's just the price you'll have to pay for cheap fuel and the right to vote in sham elections.'

So the question does need to be asked: do we, here in the west, really live in democracies? Think carefully and consider. A democracy, if it is to have any real value, needs one essential thing: truth. A democracy cannot function without the truth. Without the truth an electorate cannot make an educated judgment - or an informed choice. Fundamentally, it ceases to be an electorate; and the individual elector becomes no more than a pre-programmed automaton rubber-stamping a lie.

We need to be very clear about this. If our governments are not giving us the 'whole story' about a given situation how can we make an informed judgment about the correct course of action that will address that situation? We need to examine a specific instance here. So let 's have a look at a situation that is currently under consideration within the corridors of power. Let us now consider what our leaders, and opinion formers, are saying about – present day – Iran.

First, though, please bear in mind: when you read the following paragraphs, what you now know about Iran's history. For there are a great many living today who still remember the dark days before 1979. Indeed, there are people still around who were directly impacted by the crimes committed by the Shah's secret police. People who still bear the mental and physicals scars of torture. People who lost family members and friends to the terror machine installed in Iran to protect the interests of the western powers. Believe me - this does have some bearing on what we are considering here.

Tony Blair: in his recent address to the second Iraq inquiry held here in the UK, categorically stated – when asked a planted question about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program - that the west should be prepared to use, 'determination and, if necessary, force,' to dissuade Iran from pursuing such a policy. This guy is supposedly a 'peace' envoy. He attended the inquiry to explain/justify his decision to go to war in Iraq. He failed miserably. By way of adding insult to injury, he now expects people – who know he was (at best) wrong about Saddam's WMDs - to accept both his assessment of the situation in Iran, and what needs to be done about it. So within minutes of declaring that he, 'regretted,' the many thousands of lives lost in Iraq this guy is pushing for a war that could cost the lives of millions. For (expletive deleted)'s sake! But then, he is being paid a lot of money to peddle this crap.

We all know where George W. Bush stood on this issue. We are also aware that the Obama administration has continued the neocon approach: with more sanctions being imposed and no let-up in the bellicose invective directed Iran's way.

So the questions we have to ask here are: can any of this be justified? Is Iran developing nuclear weapons? My response to this would have to be – what if they are. I don't like the idea of Iran acquiring these weapons but who am I to impose restrictions on Iran's ability to defend itself against a nuclear capable, and aggressively expansionist Israel?

(Israel developed its nuclear arsenal in secret; it has also repeatedly flouted international law by expanding its settlements in the West Bank. None of this has affected America's policy toward Israel: which remains the largest recipient of American military aid in the world.)

It has not been proven, either, that Iran actually has a weapons program. Contrary to what has been said in the media, Iran has not impeded the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors. It has objected to the inclusion of certain, named inspectors being part of the inspection teams because these named inspectors are: in Iran's view, biased in their reporting of the true situation. The IAEA employs 150 inspectors, so putting teams together: to which Iran would not object, is not a problem.

Furthermore, expert opinion estimates that Iran is only capable of producing uranium enriched to 20%; whereas enrichment to 80% is required to produce an atomic weapon.

The real issue is not, then, about nuclear weapons and our leaders are, once again, being extremely economical with the truth. So what, precisely, is the real issue?

Well – if you guessed oil – you're half-way there.

In 2008 Iran opened its long proposed International Oil Bourse on the island of Kish in the Persian Gulf. The Bourse is, essentially, a trading hub for oil and petro-chemical derivatives. Trading on the Bourse is conducted in euros, the Iranian rial and other major currencies, but not US dollars. Before 2008 there were only two such trading centers: the New York Mercantile Exchange and the Intercontinental Exchange which has branches in London and Atlanta. Trading at both of these hubs is conducted exclusively in dollars.

Now the question that you should be asking - at this point - is: what 's the big deal with the American dollar? A little history is required here. In the early seventies America had built up a huge trade and balance of payments deficit with the rest of the world. The thing was – it simply didn't have the gold reserves to cover the deficits. America didn't, either, have enough gold to buy back all the dollars that had been printed to pay for the Vietnam War, its overseas bases and its numerous foreign investments. It had printed too many dollars and America's trading partners now seriously doubted its ability to pay up. Some demanded immediate payment in gold. Others quietly pulled out of the Bretton Woods agreement that had established the (American dominated) International Monetary Fund in 1945. The dollar seemed to be in serious trouble. Enter – stage left – Richard Nixon. Nixon now past legislation: that had been formulated by Paul Volcker, a future chairman of the Federal Reserve under Carter, that de-linked the dollar from the gold standard. The American dollar was no longer directly convertible into gold. This left a problem. As far as other countries were concerned the dollar was now worthless and America was – to all intents and purposes – bankrupt. Nixon, however, still had another trick up his sleeve. A plan had been put together: by Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Volcker, which would allow the Federal Reserve to carry on printing money regardless. The real beauty of the scheme was that the money printed would never have to be redeemed by transferring gold to other countries - but could still be used to buy produce and raw materials from those countries. This was how it worked. Nixon struck a deal with King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. Under the deal America would protect the kingdom: and the rule of the House of Saud, against any enemy. (NB Israel wasn't present at the talks but would still have loomed large as the unspoken threat behind Nixon's smile.) In return Faisal was to demand that all payments for Saudi oil be made in US dollars. Once agreement was reached Nixon and Faisal then coerced the rest of the OPEC countries into following suit. Now it didn't matter how many dollars the Federal Reserve printed – or how low the dollar sank on the foreign exchanges. Everybody would still need them to buy oil. America was now – in effect – taxing the world. It had become an empire and, as such, needed a military presence on every continent to keep those taxes flowing into its privately owned coffers.

This is the system that Iran is now challenging. This is the reason why the likes of Tony Blair want to start a war that will pit east against west and Christian against Muslim. A war that will engulf the entire world and kill millions of people.

Your political leaders are trying to convince you that Iran is a threat to you personally. That your 'freedom' - and personal well being – will be forfeit if Iran is not confronted. They are lying. They, themselves, are the threat. They are prepared to sacrifice millions of lives to save their system; a system that is collapsing under an avalanche of debt and corruption. A system that is incompatible with – and therefore the enemy of – democracy. A system they call the free market.

Well, the market isn't 'free'. The lifestyles of the rich come at a heavy price; and somebody has to pay. We've already seen the cost: in human lives and misery, paid – so far - by the Arab nations. Now what about people here in the west? What will be the sum total written at the bottom of our bill?

We are – at the moment – being forced to pay for the bank bail-out. Now most of us consider this to be an indefensible imposition, because nobody asked us if we wanted to take on all the debt that the banks had – somehow - managed to accrue. People across Europe are now up in arms – and taking to the streets – to protest against this totally un-democratic solution to a problem that was, after all, not of our making.

So what, exactly, are we being asked to pay? Let 's have a look at some figures. Here in the UK it has been estimated that the bank bail-out will cost each and every family £40,000. This figure falls to £13,800 when applied to individual taxpayers (people in work). However, as the policy adopted to deal with the crisis involves slashing tens of thousands of jobs across the public sector, there will – over time - be fewer and fewer people in a position to contribute to any final settlement of the debt owed.

We need to stop here and consider the meaning of the last three words in the paragraph above: 'the debt owed'. Please bear with me.

Most people believe that a 'debt' equates to a sum of money that must be paid back, with interest, to a bank (we are talking purely about banking debts here) after having taken out a loan. They also believe that the money the bank provides for the loan is sourced from the deposits of people who have accounts with the bank. Right? Well – no actually. That isn't how it works.

To illustrate how it does work I'm going to tell you a little story about two fictitious banks and four fictitious guys. I'll call the two banks A) Bank and B) Bank. I'll call the four guys Andy and Alex: who both have accounts with A) Bank, and Bob and Brendan: who both have accounts with B) Bank. Alex wants to buy a car. He hears, on the grapevine, that Bob has a car for sale so he approaches Bob and asks him how much he wants for it. Bob informs Alex that he wants £10,000 for the car. Alex is happy with the asking price so he goes along to see his bank manager about taking out a loan. The manager informs Alex that it is against A) Bank's rules to provide cash sums in such a situation but would be quite happy to provide him with a cheque or direct transfer facility to enable him to purchase the car. Alex phones Bob to inform him about the situation and, after a pause, Bob assures Alex that a cheque would be fine. The sale goes ahead. Alex becomes the proud owner of a new car: although he is now indebted to A) Bank to the tune of £10,000, and Bob deposits his cheque for £10,000 into his account with B) Bank. Whilst all this has been going on a parallel scenario has been playing out in which Brendan: who has an account at B) Bank, has purchased – with a cheque from his bank – a car from Andy: who has an account at A) Bank. The asking price for the car – as I'm sure you will have guessed – was £10,000. So what – precisely – has occurred here? Alex and Brendan have both acquired a car and both now owe their respective banks £10,000. Bob and Andy have both deposited cheques worth £10,000 into their respective bank accounts. But what about A) Bank and B) Bank? What was their outlay in all of this? What was their input into this situation? A) Bank does now possess a cheque with B) Bank's name on it – and vice versa. These cheques will, however, cancel each other out at the end of the fiscal quarter when the banks settle their accounts. So both banks are now £10,000 – plus any interest - richer for virtually nil outlay. They have – in very real effect – created £20,000 worth of 'new money' between them. This is one way in which banks create 'wealth'. And it doesn't end there.

Under the fractional reserve banking system a bank can lend out around 90% of the capital deposited by its customers: with only 10% being held in reserve by the bank. This also applies to all the money owed to the bank. So 90% of the 'money' created by the process described above: £9,000 per bank, can also be put into play as loans, and – in its turn – be used to create even more 'new money'.

Please understand – when a politician or banker refers to the 'money supply' they are not simply referring to the amount of cash: banknotes, physical currency, in circulation within an economy. They are referring to all the physical cash – plus all the 'money' that only exists as debt, entries on a ledger or digital information recorded on a bank's electronic accounting system. Typically 'real money' comprises just 10% of all the currency in circulation. We could put this another way. 90% of all financial transactions: such as those conducted by manufacturing companies when purchasing new machinery, raw materials or just paying their employee's wages, are dependent upon the availability of 'debt money' – provided in the form of credit - created by the banks. If this money was not available then at least 90% of all transactions could not proceed.

This set-up enables the banks to control the amount of 'money' in circulation at any given time. It also means that they can drastically reduce the amount of money in circulation: whenever they want, by simply calling in old loans and refusing to issue new lines of credit. This gives the privately owned banks the unprecedented power to crash an economy: to tip it over into recession, or engineer a full-blown depression, at will and our governments cannot prevent them from doing so. They are completely powerless in this situation. This is bad news for democracy. For it means that our economies are not – as we have been led to believe - directly controlled by our elected representatives. But that they are, in fact, indirectly controlled by a very small coterie of very rich, very powerful men. These men sit at the head of boardroom tables: on the top floor of plush, head-office buildings, in the world's financial centers.

What is more, our governments are fully aware of this situation. They are also aware that the banks have used their power to manipulate economies: to devastating effect, in times past. This is why our governments decided: when the crisis hit in 2009, to nationalize all the debt accrued by the banks (what they owed we now owe) and refinance them with massive injections of capital (quantitative easing: QE 1 and 2). They did all this because they didn't have the option to do anything else - and they knew exactly what the banks would do if they didn't.

And it gets worse. A great many people in the west believe that their country's national banks: such as the Bank of England and the American Federal Reserve etc, are controlled by their governments and run - on their behalf – for their benefit. Again, nothing could be further from reality. The central banks of all the western powers are either privately owned or controlled by private interests. Furthermore, these central banks are empowered: by our governments, on our behalf, to issue national currencies. They do not, however, undertake this service for nothing. When, for instance, the Bank of England issues banknotes it does so with interest already attached. It charges interest on all the money it issues - as do all the rest. (NB: This includes all the currency issued to refinance the banks under QE 1 and 2). So that banknote in your pocket actually represents a debt that you owe your country's central bank; a debt that they created: OUT OF NOTHING, by simply entering numbers on a ledger. It is an IOU. Unbelievably, this means that we can never – ever – pay off the national debts: incurred by government borrowing, of our respective countries. There are two reasons for this. Firstly: what would we be paying off the debts with? More currency with more interest attached. So they've got us there. Secondly: the banks control the money supply. This enables them to ensure that there is never enough money in the system – at any given time – to cover the debt. So they've got us there as well. Moreover, because they can control the amount of money in the system, they can also control how much of the debt that can be met - and in this way - control the amount of interest that we must pay on the remainder. Man, these guys have got us nailed!

Now who – in the their right mind – would vote for this system? Who would vote for – or elect to live under - a system that places them in debtforevermore? Are we mad? Perhaps we're just stupid.

We need to answer another question here. That being, is it the same all over? Do all countries have currencies with debt/interest attached at source? Surprisingly there are exceptions. There is North Korea, Syria, Libya and Cuba. Now I know that these countries might leave a lot to be desired democratically; but that particular fact hasn't discouraged our political elites from engaging with such regimes in the past, now has it. Then there is Iran and Venezuela. Both of these have debt free currencies. They are also democracies: despite what you may have heard in the media. And they do crop up in the media rather a lot – don't they. I wonder why?

Besides the similarities in their currency's status, all of these countries do, of course, have something else in common. They have all been classified – at one time or another - as 'boogeymen' regimes' by the likes of Blair, Bush and Hilary Clinton. Indeed - most politicians: here in the west, tend to describe them with phrases like, 'axis of evil,' or 'exporters of terrorism,' and in numerous other vaguely defined, demonic terms. But then we already know that our politicians tell us lies – right – and that their stated motives are not, necessarily, the real motives behind their words and actions. So why are they saying these 'scary' things about these countries? Could it have something to do with the debt free status of their national currencies? Could it, perhaps, be because none of them: apart from Libya, owe money to the IMF: which has prevented the international banking cartel from greedily extending its tentacles into their economies? Or could it, possibly, be that our politicians are: by demonizing these regimes and even threatening them with military force, actively seeking to change the political situation within these countries? And all of this purely for the benefit of the banks? Think carefully before providing your answers.

Now here in the west we haven't yet seen the level of violent confrontation that has been witnessed in the east and – hopefully - we aren't likely to. But that isn't to say that the level of confrontation that we are seeing isn't going to get any worse. It will. The situation will worsen because the remedial actions taken by our governments to deal with the crisis: the austerity measures, haven't – yet - really begun to hit home. We have yet to see the effect that tens of thousands of job losses across the public sector will have on the quality of life for, perhaps, millions of people: when the families of those made redundant are taken into account. Bear in mind that this will be happening at a time when social provision – for those in need – is facing savage cut-backs. Then there is the interest rate scam. By keeping interest rates down around zero when price inflation is running at 5% (many believe it to be much higher) the value of your savings is being constantly eroded. Low interest rates also encourage borrowing (remember: debt is money) which causes monetary inflation. This, in turn, leads to the devaluation of actual currency. Added to this wage rises are, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, effectively capped at around 2%. So - with price inflation rising, and the value of currency falling - the buying power of disposable income is also rapidly declining. All in all, what we are looking at here is a massive increase in the level of poverty: it is about to deepen precipitously and spread out to affect more and more people. It is not looking good. But the question is: has the fuse been lit? Will the growing resentment: engendered in the heart's and mind's of ordinary citizens by these developments, spill over into civil disobedience? Are we – here - looking at insurrection?

Probably not. The general perception, at the moment, seems to be that the worst has already happened; and that all there is left to do is deal with it. We have weathered the storm; it is now time to pick up the pieces and start over.

But then, perceptions can be misleading. They can also be molded and managed. If you hear the same message repeated over and over – from a multiplicity of different sources – then it has got to be true: hasn't it? Our political leaders: and the media, are telling us to stand firm and be patient. The recovery is underway. It might be a little hesitant at first but we will, eventually, see a return to economic growth and prosperity. That is the message that we are getting.

The message that people with real money – and lots of it - are getting reads a bit differently. It goes something like this, 'Get rid of all your stocks and shares. Get rid of all your paper/debt money. Buy gold! BUY GOLD!'

The chart below: showing rising prices driven by rising demand, illustrates that the advice to buy gold is, indeed, being heeded by those who do not want to see their wealth evaporate when the share price bubble bursts or the dollar takes a sudden nosedive.

Let's take a look at the dollar situation first. The dollar has already: between 2002 and 2011, depreciated against the Euro – its main rival - by 40%. But can this steep decline: driven by mind boggling levels of debt, become – at any point – a total collapse? Try this: google the phrase, 'dollar collapse'. The sheer number of hits that this will produce is pretty frightening. You will also see that predictions about the dollar's imminent demise began back in 2009; and they haven't gone away. If anything more and more financial commentators and economic gurus are coming to this same conclusion; and issuing ever more strident warnings. Many of them believe that all it will take to trigger the event will be a sudden spike in the price of oil/gas-at-the-pump. It is the trepidation with which people view the future of the dollar that is the main driving force behind the growing demand for gold: which has risen by 52% so far this year.

There is also an interesting little side scenario here. China is reputed to be in the market to buy 90.9 metric tons of gold. Now China also holds over a trillion dollars worth of US treasury bonds. So what would happen if China used its US treasuries to finance the deal? All that dollar denominated capital hitting the markets in one go could also trigger a sudden meltdown in the dollar's worth which, in turn, could start a stampede to ditch the dollar worldwide. On the other hand, what would happen if the gold vendors declined the deal because they didn't want to be caught with billions of dollars in their bank accounts when the collapse hits? Where would that leave confidence in the dollar? Moreover, who would Americans blame if a catastrophic loss in confidence in the dollar – accompanied by a terminal devaluation - occurred as a result of the gold markets rejection of a dollar deal? Wouldn't they be left with the impression that the capitalist system: which they have just bailed-out with a multi-billion dollar injection of tax-payers money, had stabbed them in the back?

Such a collapse would, of course, have severe repercussions for the European economies. People ditching the dollar, en-masse would still need somewhere else to go for their working capital. And there is only one other option: the Euro. Such a large scale exodus from the dollar would produce a massive escalation in the value of the Euro and make European exports prohibitively, more expensive: especially in America, which would be struggling with hyper-inflation, and lead to canceled orders, factory closures and millions thrown out of work.

(It 's getting quite scary isn't it.)

Most stocks and shares are not seen, by those with money to invest, as a viable proposition either. This is because turmoil on the foreign exchanges would also impact share prices. All share prices are, when quoted, given currency values. Change the value of the currency – and you change the value of the share. Then there are those who believe that share prices have been deliberately over-hyped way above any intrinsic value, to create a bubble that's going to burst sometime soon. Normally the value of shares is predicated upon a company's performance: its profitability. At the moment, however, the sheer volume of shares being traded is keeping prices artificially high. This is, in part, due to technology; as much of the buying and selling of stocks and shares is now undertaken by computers that can turn a profit on millions of nickle and dime deals done at lightning speeds. Moreover, all this trading is being funded by low interest loans from the banks who are providing the money: to the wild boys of Wall Street and The City, from the stash of cash that they received from the taxpayers under QE 1 & 2. So what you have here is the illusion of wealth creation; funded by lending which inflates the money supply, and further drives down the value of the money in your bank account and pocket.

A stock market crash will, of course, reduce the value of equity held in pension funds: it would be a disaster for the aging populations of the west. And, unbelievably, this gets even worse. Remember toxic assets? Those packages of noncollectable debt created by the banks and sold, by them, to the insurance industry? You know – the banking scam that kicked-off the whole meltdown thing? Well they've finally figured out how to make a profit from those assets. They're going to dump them into our pension funds as well. So you can kiss the financial security: that you thought you had accrued for your retirement, goodbye.

The rich, then, and the people 'in the know': those that understand what 's coming, are ditching both money and stocks. They are not just buying gold either. They are converting their paper and electronic money into all kinds of assets/commodities: anything that has intrinsic value, that will help them – financially – survive the disaster that is about to engulf us all. Silver is a case in point.

The chart above shows how silver has performed over the last 6 months. Look closely at how prices moved at the end of April: a sudden drop after a sustained period of rising prices. Now look at the chart below.

This is a gold performance chart covering the last 60 days. Look closely. Again you will see a sharp decline at the end of April? What happened here to produce this extraordinary coordination? Market commentators believe that the drops, in both markets, were the result of illegal manipulation. What is more, there is a history of this kind of malpractice going back to at least 2008. In one, now famous case Blanchard & Co: America's largest retailer of physical gold, sued JP Morgan Chase and Barrick Gold Corp, under anti-trust legislation, for conspiring together to suppress the price of gold. Remarkably, in court a lawyer: acting for Barrick, asked for the suit to be dismissed on the grounds that his client, along with JP Morgan, had performed the manipulation at the 'behest' of the government and central banks. Now why would the government and banks do this?

By way of explanation, I would like the reader to imagine the following scenario/metaphor. In your mind's eye, imagine the world's economy to be a large ocean liner. We: the ordinary people, are all passengers on this liner. The rich people of this world, along with the bankers and market traders, some members of government/politicians and those that control the media, are the crew. These steer the liner in whichever direction they choose. They also know something that we: the passengers, do not. The ship is sinking. They are aware, as well, that there is not enough room in the lifeboats to accommodate everyone on the ship. So they do what any self-respecting rat would do in such a situation. They quietly launch the lifeboats and row away from the ship: leaving the passengers to the fate that awaits them in the cold ocean depths. Sounds bad doesn't it. But yet again: it 's actually a lot worse than you might think. Some of the crew: the captain and navigator perhaps, knew the ship was doomed because it was an act of sabotage, by them, that was causing it to sink in the first place.

We can expand on this analogy a bit further. The assets that the rich are, so assiduously, acquiring are analogous to the lifeboats that they used to abandon ship. Now if the passengers had been made aware of the true situation aboard the ship then they, too, would have fought for places in those lifeboats. In financial terms this means that, if the general public were made aware of the true nature of the economic disaster heading their way, then they – too - will begin withdrawing money from the bank and converting it into any other type of crash proof asset that they can. This would not be good news for the banks. It would also lead to an uncontrolled contraction in the money supply: analogous to the ship sinking too quickly, before the crew had managed to row clear. (NB: there is a contraction in the money supply on the way but this will be planned: and entirely controlled, by the banks.) Panic buying of commodities: such as silver and gold, would also, of course, cause the price of those assets to rise exponentially. In turn this would mean that the rich would have to use up more of their wealth in order to acquire them. No, as far as the rich are concerned, it is much preferred that we are not told that we are being left to drown.

So the kind of commodities market manipulation: involving collusion between the banks and government, that we see illustrated by the charts above, is designed to send us a message. The message reads, 'The commodities market ain't so hot; leave your money where it is!' In this way we will, they hope, sit still whilst they rob us of our savings using low interest rates and price inflation. We are also encouraged to carry on buying stocks and shares: and so prop-up prices, not realizing that we are competing with computers that can buy a tranche of shares and then sell them 2 seconds later. And we will, too – it is hoped - be beguiled into contributing toward a pension fund that will generate big fat fees for the fund managers but: by the time we reach retirement age, still be worthless.

Welcome to the free market.

Conclusions so far.

We do not live in democracies: people across the entire world: east and west, are waking up to this sad fact. If you, the reader, haven't yet understood this self-evident truth; then it 's high time you did.

The free market isn't free: the market is underpinned by the banks. The banks create money out of nothing and then charge us interest on it. They then go on to use the never-ending debt mechanism to enslave us. If we are not free: if we cannot choose to be free of debt, then neither is the market. The market is also powered by oil. Oil features as a component/ingredient in approximately 90% of everything produced by our industries, Without oil there would be no market. However, we pay for oil with more than just money. We pay for it with human lives. We willingly pay the ultimate price. If you, the reader, haven't yet understood these self-evident truths; THEN IT IS HIGH TIME YOU DID.

Now we need to ask: COULD IT BE ANY OTHER WAY?

To answer that question, though, we need to ask – and answer - a few more.

First off: what do politicians do anyway? They do not actually run countries on a day-to-day basis. This is undertaken by civil servants: paid administrators.

Then again, at election time, what choices are placed before us? Most countries have party political systems that consist of only two main contenders that have any realistic chance of forming a government. We vote one out and the other in ad infinitum. But what are the differences between the two? Does one ever offer us anything radically different to the other? No they don't. This is because the manifestos of both parties have to be acceptable to the people that hold the real power; and we never get to vote for them.

Lastly, what are the solutions: that our politicians are offering us, to all the problems that beset our world? Growth. That 's it: growth. Growth is the only solution that any of them have to offer. This – in itself - begs a question: why do they insist that growth is the only cure for all our ills? They are here, in fact, being disingenuous in the extreme. Growth is not the answer to all our problems. Growth is, however, required for the free market: capitalist system, to work. Without growth you cannot keep rolling over the debt; passing it down to the next generation. Without the debt: which enslaves us, there is no control; there isn't a system. The world's economy is, essentially, a pyramid selling scam. It requires more and more people producing more and more stuff – that can then be sold to more and more people for consumption. The people at the bottom of the pyramid produce stuff: material things/wealth, for those above. For these people to become richer: or to ascend the pyramid, more and more suckers need to be drawn into the structure at the bottom. Put simply: material wealth flows up the pyramid, and debt is handed down. And so it goes.

There are, as well, other insurmountably, huge problems inherent in the growth model. For one it is – ecologically - killing off our world with pollution. For two: our world's resources are not infinite. We're running out of stuff: including oil. So there'll come a point when growth is no longer an option anyway.

Our politicians do not, then, have the answers - and they don't represent us either.

What are we to do?

Simple: we sack them all. We do not need them. We sack them all and take direct control over what happens – and what doesn't – in our world. WE ESTABLISH REAL, DIRECT DEMOCRACY.

The technology required to achieve this is available. All we need are computer networks that everyone in a country has access to. We use the networks to conduct a continuous process of direct consultation with the people. Not everybody would be consulted at once. In a country of – say - 30 million people, 1 million people: randomly selected, would be consulted in any given week. In this way the wishes of the people can be ascertained - and formulated into policy - by an administration/civil service that we can sack: at any time, if they are not delivering the goods.

To prevent the majority from imposing its will on a minority group – to the detriment of that minority group – the rights of all individuals will, without exception, be made enforceable under the law, in a Universal Bill of Rights. All laws enacted by direct democracy will be subsumed under the Bill of Rights.

This is entirely feasible. We can do this.

One last question: what will happen if we do not do this? Well there are moves by the banks: under way right now in Greece, that give us some indication of what our future would be like living in sham democracies controlled by the banks. Greece is requesting more financial aid. The banks are stipulating that – in order to receive the aid – Greece must hand over control of its inland revenue service to them. The banks will then collect taxes directly from the Greek people. And what will happen to people who cannot pay those taxes? The banks will have their pound of flesh; one way or another. Use your imagination.

To finish I would like to tell you the big secret about money. The secret that the banks do not want you to know. For a national currency to work it has to have one vital ingredient. Faith: the people of a country must place their faith in their own national currency for that currency to have any value. If the the people of a country do not hold to this faith - if they are not prepared to give up big chunks of their time: days and weeks out of their lives, to work to acquire that currency – then it is of no value whatsoever.

Money isn't all about the banks: it 's all about us. So when we sack all the politicians, we should give all the bankers their marching orders too: then we can establish national banks that we actually own, and do not charge us interest on the money in our pocket.

We hold the power: all we need do is use it.

So say it loud, and say proud, 'Democracy is dead: long live democracy!'