The Structure of America’s Aristocratic Class

The four centers of America’s ruling class are the Democratic Party’s super-rich in California, which is the high-tech-and-Hollywood, or Silicon Valley (venture capital) and propaganda, center; versus the Republican Party’s super-rich in Texas, which remains the fossil-fuels center; plus both Parties’ super-rich in Virginia near DC, which is themilitary-industrial-governmental complex, or basically the weapons-producing and lobbying center; plus the greater NYC metropolitan area including Greenwich Connecticut, all of it comprising the megabanks and private investment funds for billionaires and centi-millionaires, which is the center for finance, opposite to the venture capital network around Stanford University in California — the old money versus the new money. (However, actually, much of the billion-dollar-plus personal individual wealth even on the West Coast is second-generation or older inherited fortunes; and, so, the only differences between America’s and Europe’s aristocracies are nominal ones, such as America’s using no official titles such as “Duke,” “Earl,” “Lord,” or “Sir.” It is just as much an aristocracy, or “ruling class,” though having no need of a monarch.)

When the U.S. Government acts internationally, such as diplomatically or militarily, these people, America’s super-rich, are the individuals whom it is representing, and to whom their subjects contribute taxes so as to fund those operations on behalf of their aristocracy in order to earn the public honor of serving in and for this neoliberal-neoconservative Government.

“dispensable”; only the imperial nation is not — and, of course, any nation that is outside the empire is a target of the empire to be brought into the empire by means of subterfuge, subversion, sanctions, coups, and — where necessary — invasions; so, they are even worse off than the colonies are.)

much greater specificity than theyhave yet done. Nonetheless, even with FDR, it was still a work-in-progress, right up till the time of his death. But, regardless, I believe that China and Russia will be more successful in The West at promoting their shared vision for the future international order if they will present it as being more in accord with what the inventor of the U.N. (FDR) had planned (and you can see additional details on that here), than is the weakened version of it (the U.N. as a powerless talking-forum), which was instituted under his successor, President Truman’s, leadership. In the BRICS, SCO, and EEU, as they move forward, they will need to either press to reform the U.N. into what had been FDR’s intention for it, or else to replace it by creating that outside of and in competition against the U.N. but taking more seriously than the U.N. does, the text, meaning, and definitions, in its international laws, so that those can become suitable for the type of U.N. (the global democratic federal republic of sovereign nations — the full-fledged international government of all nations) that FDR had been aiming to create in order to outlaw and replace all empires, so as to prevent any future World War.

There will be no way to reform the existing and highly institutionalized imperialistic international world order except by either reforming or replacing the existing U.N. If the detailed legacy of FDR on this is not to be cited as the historical foundation for this, then what would be? Whatever it is, must be stated, no longer ignored, because otherwise it will have no historical foundation and will therefore fail.