Dehai News

https://ericzuesse.substack.com/p/how-billionaires-who-sell-to-the

https://theduran.com/how-billionaires-who-sell-to-the-u-s-government

How Billionaires Who Sell to the U.S. Government Control the U.S. Government

11 August 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

They do it because these billionaires, who control the firms that sell to the U.S. Government (and not — or very little — to consumers), need to control the U.S. Government, in order to control their market. A billionaire wants to control his/her market; and if one’s market is one’s Government (and its allies), then this is the way to do that — by controlling one’s own Government. And there is, by now, massive — and it’s entirely consistent — evidence that America’s billionaires DO control the U.S. Govenment.

On 16 August 2021, Jon Schwarz, at The Intercept, headlined “$10,000 INVESTED IN DEFENSE STOCKS WHEN AFGHANISTAN WAR BEGAN NOW WORTH ALMOST $100,000: Was the Afghanistan War a failure? Not for the top five defense contractors and their shareholders.” Does that reality place into an entirely different perspective than what the billionaires-controlled ‘news’-media have reported to you, about why the repeated promises during that two-decades-long U.S. invasion and military occupation of Afghanistan — promises to end it — turned out to have been a lie until Joe Biden (who wanted to instead increase the Obama-created war against Russia in Ukraine) carried out the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan, which Trump had promised to deliver but never did deliver? Of course, there is a lot of important history about that matter, which has been hidden from — instead of reported to — the American people. And the American public vote in elections, on the basis of what both contending Parties want the public not to know — such as that in America, the war-business is the most profitable one of them all, and actually controls the Government.

Schwarz opened:

IF YOU PURCHASED $10,000 of stock evenly divided among America’s top five defense contractors on September 18, 2001 — the day President George W. Bush signed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks — and faithfully reinvested all dividends, it would now be worth $97,295.

This is a far greater return than was available in the overall stock market over the same period. $10,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund on September 18, 2001, would now be worth $61,613.

That is, defense stocks outperformed the stock market overall by 58 percent during the Afghanistan War.

Moreover, given that the top five biggest defense contractors — Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics — are of course part of the S&P 500, the remaining firms had lower returns than the overall S&P returns.

These numbers suggest that it is incorrect to conclude that the Taliban’s immediate takeover of Afghanistan upon the U.S.’s departure means that the Afghanistan War was a failure. On the contrary, from the perspective of some of the most powerful people in the U.S., it may have been an extraordinary success. Notably, the boards of directors of all five defense contractors include retired top-level military officers. …

And yet Trump has the nerve now to be campaigning to win a Nobel Peace Prize — like the war-mongering Obama (in Syria, Libya and Ukraine) won during his first year as President — as being a ‘peacemaker’, because Trump says that he has prevented wars from happening that he says would otherwise have happened (if he hadn’t secretly stopped them from happening, he says). (That con is obviously aimed at fools, but he has always had plenty of those.)

In fact, the very first actual achievement of Trump as America’s new President in 2017 was Trump’s making the world’s all-time biggest-ever armaments sale, which was hidden by all U.S.-and-allied (billionaires-controlled) ‘news’-media but I headlined it on 21 May 2017, “U.S. $350 Billion Arms-Sale to Sauds Cements U.S.-Jihadist Alliance” and opened:

On Saturday, May 20th, U.S. President Donald Trump and the Saud family inked an all-time record-high $350 billion ten-year arms-deal that not only will cement-in the Saud family’s position as the world’s largest foreign purchasers of U.S.-produced weaponry, but will make the Saud family, and America’s ruling families, become, in effect, one aristocracy over both nations, because neither side will be able to violate the will of the other. As the years roll on, their mutual dependency will deepen, each and every year.

Sixteen years after the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (who was nicknamed “Bandar Bush” for his intimacy with the Bush family) served in Washington as Saudi Arabia’s U.S. Ambassador and he and his wife personally paid tens of thousands of dollars to the Sauds’ minders who paid for the apartments and for the pilot-training of 9/11 jihadists, and the U.S. government hid this fact from the U.S. public for fifteen years until it was made public but suppressed by the U.S. press so that Americans still don’t know about it, the U.S. and Saudi aristocracies are now becoming bound together even more strongly than before, because of this record-shattering deal that Trump’s team negotiated with the Sauds.

The U.S. government officially blames Iran for the 9/11 attacks and has fined Iran $10.5 billion for those attacks. The Sauds hate Iran and claim that Iran poses an “existential threat” to them. These new weapons will, the Sauds claim, “protect” them from Iran. Right after Trump won the 2016 election, he staffed the top level of his incoming Administration with people who consider Iran to be the main source of terrorism. In a 5 February 2017 Super Bowl television interview, Trump was asked what his policies would be regarding Iran, and he answered (video here, transcript here): “They have total disregard for our country. They are the number one terrorist state.” But he provided no specifics. This ‘defense’ deal is a big specific part of the answer, to that question. The U.S. will now be even more tightly allied with the Sauds (the world’s wealthiest family) than was previously the case.

According to a report in the New York Times on May 18th, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner participated importantly in these negotiations, when he spoke by phone with the CEO of the biggest American weapons-maker, Lockheed Martin, to request her to discount a crucial radar-system, so that the deal could be accepted by Saudi Prince Muhammed bin Salman al-Saud, and she said yes, which was necessary in order for the entire $350 billion package to be accepted. Unreported, however, about this matter, was whether any concession was made by the Trump Administration to Lockheed Martin, in order to be able to win from them this crucial discount. Whether any such verbal commitments were made, might never become publicly known, but this is the way that deals are made.

Trump as the U.S. President has been even a bigger boost to the fortunes of the controlling billionaires over the U.S. armaments manufacturers, and over the corporations that contract-out the Government’s mercenaries, than he has been to his other billionaire funders, such as the Israeli and American citizen Miriam Adelson.

However, he is just another in a long string of such White House agents for America’s billionaires. Furthermore, ever since the Soviet Union ended in 1991, America’s armaments manufacturers and mercenary-contractors  — the megacorporations that sell to the U.S. Government and to its allied Governments, not to consumers — have been by far the most profitable of all U.S. corporations, and so it’s not ONLY “the top five biggest defense contractors” but ALL defense contractors that have far outperformed the rest of the U.S. stock market ever since 1991. Those firms control the U.S. Government because they need to in order to control their market (U.S.-and-allied Governments — the U.S. empire) after there really was (ever since 1991) no longer any real NEED for what they supplied, because America’s biggest if not ONLY ‘enemy’ (ever since 25 July 1945) “Soviet communism,” no longer even existed. After 1991, virtually all of America’s military contracting was graft-based. And this is the reason why the Pentagon’s budget after 1991 (when it should have at least halved) continued stable until Gerge W. Bush and his 9/11 operation, then soared in order to “deal with terrorism,” then declined slightly under Obama (as the “terrorism” threat no longer was so terrorizing to Americans), then has been again soaring under first Trump, and then Biden, and now yet again Trump — all while that budget ought to have been cut by around 50% in 1992, and then remained stable thereafter, not artificially inflated by creating terrorist incidents and then creating ‘the Russian threat’, and now ‘the Chinese threat’. It is all a mega-criminal racket by U.S.-and-allied billionaires (and the political agents that they have funded).

Analogous to the hypocrisy of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his rhetoric in favor of peace: what about billionaires declaring themselves as being “philanthropists” for forming tax-avoidance organizations called ‘non-profits’ that really aren’t the “non” part, but are instead devious legalistic constructs to INCREASE their profits? For example, as Dr. Vandana Shiva has said recently (but the link in it was supplied by me):

Bill Gates is not a philanthropist. He gives a little bit of money to take over entire sectors. The big seed banks are called the CJR system. He gives a million here, but he takes all the seeds of that system. All of these seed banks of the world, he now controls by giving a tiny bit. But that’s not where he stops. He then develops, promotes, technologies for patenting. So he controls the seeds of the world, he finances the Svalbard seed bank, then he creates patent systems and he destroys the international system that controls the country’s rights to their seed, so that all the seeds of the world are his seeds, and he can be the new Monsanto on a global scale.

The Svalbard seed bank alleges that it excludes GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) seeds and is ONLY about non-patent-protected, natural, seeds, but why then are investors such as Bill Gates funding it, and why is there a “lack of direct representation of farmers, despite the fact that they are the main suppliers of seeds, within the governance of an institution such as the [Svalbard] Crop Trust.”? The old “Trust” system that was based upon patents of “intellectual property,” is expected to become extended to include ALSO things that are natural. This can be done simply by those billionaires bribing, promoting, and hiring into elective public offices, officials who will, as legislators, write the legal loopholes, and, as government regulators, allow these entirely artificial monopolies and oligopolies — “Trusts” — regarding GMOs. This is the really long-term-investor’s view. And, if it fails to pan out, the billionaire still gets the tax-cut and the prestige of being a ‘philanthropist’ — even though betting AGAINST the public’s welfare (and so actually a “malanthropist”). Therefore, OBVIOUSLY, there should be NO tax-deductions for, and no ‘non’-profits that are allowed to accept a donation from, any billionaire (or from any organization that HAS accepted a donation from one). Actually, if a “philanthropic” organization really DOES contribute more to the public’s welfare than it or its founders and owners take from the public (and add to the public’s tax-burden and national-debt burden), then that ‘charity’ ought far more properly to become AN AGENCY OF, AND THUS ANSWERABLE TO, and therefore nationalized BY, the Government — no longer serving the intentions and priorities of billionaires. America is possibly the least-socialized country and ought to become considerably more socialized and less ‘free-market’ (which is mainly freedom for the super-rich).

Here is the type of individual — an individual who shares the value-system that predominates amongst billionaires but not amongst the general public — who rises to the leadership of billionaire-backed ‘charities’. More details about that person are at Wikipedia. Bad as most U.S. Government officials, appointed by elected Government officials, are, none are that bad, because any elected Government official who had voted to approve the appointment of a person with a record like that, would be likely to voted out of office for having done so. Billionaires know this, and therefore don’t choose for public office individuals such as that. In order to be chosen by billionaires to be funded into a public office, only individuals who aren’t so obviously evil are selected to present to the voters as a candidate, or as a Party’s nominee. So, the point here is that charities should be prohibited if backed by a billionaire, if not prohibited altogether and all replaced by taxpayer-funded entities, which are answerable TO the public.

Basically, all ‘democracies’ that are based upon competing political Parties contesting to deceive the most voters to s‘elect’ from amongst the candidates that have the backing of at least one billionaire funding their campaigns — which campaigns are contests between competing groups, or “Parties,” of billionaires contending against each other by using lies and gimmicks (such as gerrymandering) to beat the other billionaire Parties — have nothing to do with representing the public. They represent only the billionaires.

Every existing ‘democracy’ is a billionaires’ racket, and every OTHER government is the less hypocritical type of tyranny. Something totally different from either type is needed: authentic democracy. (I described it at that final link.)

 

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.