How Billionaires Control All Capitalist Countries

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

First, for anyone who wants to see the empirical evidence (confirmed by all scientific analyses to-date) that the United States Government is (and ever since at least 1980 HAS BEEN) controlled by America’s thousand richest individuals, click here.

What that (and a vast range of other empirical evidences, such as this and this) proves, is that in U.S.-and-allied, which all are capitalist, countries, the political leaders, the holders of office in the national legislature and the head-of-state, do NOT represent the nation’s public; and, so, it would then be FALSE to allege that the given country is democratic instead of dictatorial (irrespective of whether that is a dictatorship by the super-wealthy, or is instead a dictatorship by the nation’s clergy). (NOTE: One-man-ruled countries are almost always being ruled by a person who has been selected BY either the super-wealthy AND/OR the nation’s clergy. The norm there is that the super-wealthy control ALSO the clergy, by donating to their congregations.) So: in either case, a dictatorship is usually a class-dictatorship instead of a dictatorship by merely a SINGLE person.

So, the fact that at least America is a dictatorship (by its super-rich) is actually incontestable in the empirical data.

How, then, is it done?

The mechanism by which the super-rich control a Government is that they donate more than half of all of the funds that are spent on political campaigns — these are political contests between two or more political candidates and in which at least the two top candidates are BOTH being funded by the richest .01% of the richest .01% of the population, who ALSO are the main funders (owners of, and advertisers in) the nation’s ‘news’-media, which, consequently, hire only journalists who report more favorably on their Party’s candidates than on any of the other Parties’ candidates; and, so, regardless of what the interests of the public are, the winner will always (and only) represent the policy-priorities of some faction of the billionaire-class. (In today’s U.S., the policy-priorities of the U.S. Government are exactly the OPPOSITE of the policy-priorities of the American people.)

Here is an extraordinarily informative interview of Prince Alwaleed (or “Al Waleed”) bin Talal Al Saud, whom Bloomberg rates as the world’s 146th-wealthiest person, with a fortune of $17.1 billion, in which he talks openly about his contacts with other top billionaires, including especially Elon Musk, here:

——

“Why Prince Al Waleed “GAVE” Elon Musk $44 Billion”

21 January 2025

0:00

MARIO NAWFAL: When Elon wanted to buy Twitter

0:02

um everyone thought it was overvalued at

0:04

$40 billion. I’m trying to find, I wrote

0:05

your Tweet somewhere but he essentially

0:07

said that you found it to be undervalued.

0:09

Obviously you’re an investor in Twitter,

0:11

so do you remember the, I don’t know if

0:12

you remember the don’t worry — WALEED AL SAUD: I wrote the

0:14

tweet I can answer it yeah there you go

0:16

there need twe — NAWFAL: So, so you were talking

0:18

about how Twitter was was undervalued.

0:21

Can you tell me more about that journey

0:22

when Elon first wanted to buy Twitter um

0:24

and and the entire journey from him

0:27

taking over, from moving was free speech,

0:30

letting go of 80% of the staff, releasing

0:33

the Twitter files? WALEED: Yeah, when uh Musk uh

0:36

gave his offer 54, I think dollars, and uh I

0:40

was against it, not against it because I

0:43

didn’t want Musk to take over, [but] because I

0:45

don’t I didn’t want to sell, I didn’t

0:46

want to sell X at that time, Twitter sell

0:49

it at 54. I believed the price could be

0:51

higher so we called Musk, I called Musk

0:55

and I had to call with him, I was in

0:56

desert, I remember that very well, so I

0:58

called Mr. Musk, I told him, Mr. Musk

1:00

you want to take over X completely, or

1:03

you’d like to have partners because I

1:05

don’t want to sell, I want to be with you

1:06

he said Prince, don’t worry, you’re welcome. He

1:10

say say how much you want to keep I say

1:11

I want to keep everything. He said: Prince,

1:13

guaranteed, you’ll keep

1:14

everything, all you say is going stay

1:16

with me. I say thank you, then I tweeted

1:18

supporting him. So, I was against the

1:20

fact that I — I didn’t want to sell my

1:21

shares at

1:22

$54. You know, clearly, it was valued at $44

1:25

billion that time, and people say it’s

1:27

nice let’s do it. I say I don’t want to

1:28

do it. I want to be with this X because X

1:30

is an international, is THE New Media of

1:33

the whole world, and this was proven to

1:35

be right. So, I was against the fact that

1:37

to flip my shares and and get out of the

1:40

company. I wanted to stay in X. So, I

1:41

called him, I did discussion with them,

1:43

and and from that time we we had many

1:45

calls and he every every time he sends

1:48

me Jared here his his right-hand man he

1:50

comes to meet I already met him twice

1:52

Linda came here, so now very close to

1:54

each other, and I told them now we are

1:56

your representative in the in the in the

1:58

Arab world and outside America, and he said

2:00

Prince we have it, we have a deal, so we

2:03

represent them, I mean represent them you

2:05

know informally proudly.

2:07

…

——

MY COMMENT:

and so this is how all billionaires are: insiders. They personally know each other and respect each other as investors, because each one of them IS an insider; and, so, just like Alaweed helped Musk, and just like Musk helped Alaweed, each billionaire does deals with OTHER billionaires; and so they are in contact with each other, and the people who are NOT part of this “grapevine” cannot even POSSIBLY be so successful in their finances: they just don’t know ‘the right people’.

AlWaleed went on from there to mention also as personal friends, Bill Gates, Bob Iger, Jack Dorsey, Rupert Murdoch, Mark Andreesen, and all “those high caliber uh, uh, investors.” Furthermore, some of them are venture-capitalists who make additional money by identifying new gifted investors and partnering with them so as to supercharge their own wealth. So, it’s natural that they tend to be ‘libertarians’, which is people who believe that in a capitalist economy a person’s actual moral worth IS the person’s NET worth. They believe themselves to be one of the word’s BEST people; they believe that a person’s wealth MEASURES how much that person is contributing to the world. This means that they are better than other people because they are wealthier than other people. So, it is ‘right’ that they hire and fire billions of people — they are ‘superior’ to other people, as they tend to view things.

This means that they don’t believe in each person having the same rights as everyone else does; they believe that it’s good that in a capitalist economy a person’s rights depend upon that individual’s wealth — the more wealth that a person has, the more rights that person has ‘earned’. Rights are to be earned — NOT otherwise. And, so, it is good, not bad, that WE — the ‘best’ people — control the Government for ALL people. They believe that they have, themselves, collectively, EARNED this right, to control everybody else. And, in a capitalist economy, anyone who denies this will not be published in ANY of the billionaires’ media — at least not as I am writing here (with full explanations and documentations).

On April 25th, the world’s oldest surviving magazine, UK’s The Spectator, which represents UK’s Conservative Party, headlined “Are we too stupid for democracy?”, and documented globally that “the data on cognitive decline is unambiguous. IQ scores across the developed world have been falling for decades, … falling since around the mid-2010s” (that’s merely ONE decade). Already on April 16th I had headlined “The public lack the intellectual ability that’s needed in order for an electoral democracy to work.” However, unlike The Spectator, my article had opened: “This headline will be widely misunderstood to mean that I am some type of elitist and hostile towards democracy, but I am neither, and my fundamental political belief is, instead, that democracy MUST be achieved. However, I am also a realist. Furthermore, elections aren’t the ONLY means by which a democracy might be able to be achieved, as I shall explain in this article.” The problem isn’t the public; it is the billionaires — not that they are “too smart” but they have purchased too much corruption, which causes so many resources now to go to them so that the increasing impoverishment of the vast majority of people is now apparently having many demographic effects of which a lowering IQ could quite possibly be one. (Their increasingly fashionable term for this is “technocracy,” which was founded by Musk’s maternal grandfather and which is merely the latest version of Plato’s Republic, ruled by “philospher kings,” but updated to the digital age, when people such as Musk and other mega-billionaires will rule the planet — in THEIR interests, NOT in ours. And we’re almost there, already.)

Below the billionaire-class is the centi-millionaire class. These are either part of a family who DO have billionaire friends, or else have been extraordinarily fortunate to have developed such contacts on their own.

But the CORE is the billionaire-class.

Therefore, laws against insider-trading cannot possibly work, other than to NAB INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE CLIMBING THEIR WAY UP TO THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS (such as Martha Stewart did). Those laws are discriminatory and regressive. (For example: What good was done by putting her in prison?)

The reason why capitalism is evil, is that it prevents there being any stable democracy; it STRONGLY encourages any capitalist country to become ruled by its billionaires, via corruption (the buying and sponsorship of politicians BY billionaires).

For example, despite all of the nominal changes in the U.S.Government this far into the 21st Century — from G.W. Bush to Barack Obama to Donald Trump to Joe Biden to Donald Trump again — the expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders and especially U.S. weapons into the only country that is a mere 300 miles away from being able to fire U.S. missiles to blitz-decapitate Russia’s central command in The Kremlin, which nation is Ukraine; despite all of these merely tactical changes in the U.S. Government, its fixed top strategic goal in international policy, of conquering Russia, has not changed at all; and, so, on October 11th the Financial Times headlined “Ukraine hit Russian energy sites with US help: Trump administration has supported Kyiv’s operations since summer in co-ordinated push to weaken Moscow” and reported that Trump is now doubling down on Biden’s Ukraine policy and doing what even Biden had not dared to do — cross Russia’s “red lines” into direct war by the U.S. against Russia. Both the Republican Party billionaires want it and the Democratic Party billionaires want it; so, it is being done, now by Trump. America clearly is a dictatorship by and for its billionaires.

The ANSWER to this problem is NOT Marxism and its stupidities such as the labor theory of value (which cripples any economy), but is what I have proposed, which would require passage of a Constitutional Amendment.

——

—————

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.