Wednesday, August 15, 2007

On democracy and dictatorship

We are objecting to the idea that Europe, and even more so that Europe together with the USA, could in any way objectively represent the ideas of human rights in the world. Firstly, it is idiotic to think that "laws" could protect anything in themselves, since laws without force are impotent, and it is even more idiotic to think that "states" or alliances of states could utilise force to protect the rights of people.

First, rights are non-existent. They are either a metaphysic assertion of divine power which must be denied by a strict dialectal materialist. The only way a people could protect itself, is by control over the means of production.

The reason why bourgeoisie oligarchic pronvincial states are employing an extensive system of privilegies and "rights", are not because of "goodness" or "democracy", but because the bourgeoisie need to have an environment which is possible to predict. A more uninhibited state would probably by mistake interfere in the interests of the bourgeoisie.

The "left" is not repressed because the "left" is not the "left" but a department of the ultraliberal right, handling cultural warfare. That is why the culture pages on right-wing newspapers are given to the "communists". There are no honest communists in Sweden anymore, except Jan Myrdal and myself.

The nationalists are subjected to repression because the globalist establishment fears secessionism from the new global order. Even though such movements as the national socialists are microscopically small, they are feared with unsustainable paranoia, especially compared to the various islamist terror organisations hiding in the suburbs. That is not a Swedish phenomena, but a western phenomena. Islamism is a global ideology, and could if needed be utilised to unify the Islamic world with the world market (just look at the cheered "moderate" islamic government of Turkey which is put forward as a role model to the Islamic world). Nationalism on the other hand, is complicating the situation, since it is anti-globalist. It is not because of a specific care of "immigrants" that the state is repressing nationalism, but it is rather the immigrants which are a convenient argument-in-reserve for diminishing social rights. The reason why the state want mass-immigration is because it wants to destroy the self-concious working class to serve the "adaption" to the libertarian new world order.

The idea is to put it into people's brains that welfare statism is "racist" and therefore "bad", "evil" and "immoral", something deemed possible due to usage of the "meme of solidarity". That is just a part of the adaption though.

Another part of the adaption is NATO membership.

We get to learn that NATO is the international police force for punishing "tyrants", "barbarians" and enlighten "uneducated" people, in remniscence of 19th century imperialist propaganda. The truth is that the wars that NATO has undertaken (not taking the Iraqi War into the equation) has all produced tremendously BAD results from Europe.

The Kosovo War in 1999 for example.

It was started to punish the "dictator Slobodan Milosêvic" (who had been twicely elected, once as president of Serbia, once as the president of Yugoslavia) for fighting Albanian islamic terrorists. Milosêvic, a moderate social democrat, was defined as a new Hitler, and demonised beyond comprehension, called an "evil Serbian ultranationalist". It could be interpreted as NATO prefers islamism over nationalism, but there is another dimension there as well, and that is the destruction of the Serbian state, which naturally and voluntarily represents a Russian foothold deep into Europe.

If Croatia... catholic, pro-west Croatia had waged the same war, they would have been supported by NATO, because they are pro-west, and not pro-russian. The war in Yugoslavia in 1999 was the culmination of the 1991-1999 war described in the Krutov manifesto, where western intervention was crucial in destabilising border regions near or within the borders of the former Soviet empire.

What positive effects did the war in Yugoslavia have for Europe?

It led to a wave of unprecedented ethnic cleansing of Serbs, the indiscriminate destruction of orthodox shrines, and the establishment of a second Albania, a harbor of criminality and drugs, under protection of the West, payed by European tax-payers.

Another such war was the war in Afghanistan, which albeit with a stronger casus-belli twarted an efficient regime and replaced it with gangsters who increased the heroine production thrice. Eventually, this misuse of heroine reached Europe, where it trashes the lives of European children.

Therefore, we could conclude that pro-west imperialism is in character anti-european and pro-US. By committing ourselves to the war-wagon of USA, Europe is ensuring it's subordination under American initiatives. The reason why European leaders chose to ally with USA, is that they know that without the USA, Europe would within a decade be restructured around anti-capitalist, anti-western sentiments, ariound "totalitarian" and "populist" ideologies.

We in CRAP would cheer such a development, not at least because it would probably give people like Rudolph J Rummel a stroke.

Conclusively, we could also state that NATO policing is based on establishing "elite democracies" built around the "mythology of moderation", the idea that the bourgeoisie represents the current and "civilised" manners, the politically correct values. Therefore, the facist dictatorship in Colombia is a "liberal democracy", while the popular democracy in Venezuela is a "populist dictatorship".

Ethiopia is pro-west, and could invade Somalia or practicing genocide at home and receive subsidies, while Sudan is anti-west and therefore is deprived of national sovereignty.

Third world states are doing genocide because their population growth, because their ethnic tensions, because they are FAILED STATES. The only thing which could solve ther inner self-contradictions are the conclusions of said genocides.

Anti-western policies are pro-european.

Therefore, the more we hear that a regime is breaking human rights, the more we should cheer for it. Human rights has always been violated. It lies in their nature to be violated.

Heck, CRAP would cheerfully violate article 17 in the charter of Universal Human Rights when we come to power. And we will sure laugh when the parasites are crying. The more they cry, the more we will enjoy it.

The conclusion is: NATO interventions must be opposed, not because NATO are war-criminals or that Iraqis, Afghans (not Serbs, because Serbs are Europeans and therefore evil ultranationalists according to the mainstream left establishment) are suffering.

NATO-interventions must be opposed even if they are directed against a dictator who is working to erradicate his own people and sadistically tortures or starves millions to death, and even if the intervention would clearly temporarily improve the conditions of people there.

NATO-interventions must be opposed because they are beneficial to the onslaught of globalism, to the advance of capitalism, liberalism and cosmopolitanism.

NATO-interventions must be opposed because they are pro-west and therefore inherently anti-european.



1 comment:

Leo Sundberg said...

Very Cheerful to read - indeed!

Personally I who read this is no communist, but an old-school social democrat. The kind of social democracy in Sweden that meant Folkhemmet (home of the people; the swedish welfare state), public health care and virtually full employment. This was before the doimoi-immigration, liberalism and EU-cosmopolitism. Even though in it's rethorics an internationalist (and earlier even revolutionary) party, the social democrats in Sweden primarily was a pure interst party for the working class. Nationalism in both finance market and migration was adopted since favoring the workers. This in close cooperation with the labor unions for blue collar workers (swedish LO, like TUC in UK or AFL/CIO in USA).

To long extent, your analysis is very interesting, considering the view of science in today's left. Focus is on the soft science as gender-, ethno- and queer theory, while the economy and tech is (sadly) being unnoticed.
Not that gay or black people are of less value. Simply that all these tolerancethinking is subject to strict subordination of chic cosmopolitan ideals of market liberalism.

Todays leftists focus on these issues mainly, since they have capitulated to capitalism as the regime of truth. In lack of any substant opposition to the capitalism, they are "opposing" social codes that has little or none to do with capitalism itself as an economic system. It is the veiling of a failure to mobilize the working class to fight back against their class enemy. Not necessary with violence, but at least with strikes and a class conscient rejuvenation through propaganda.

As a S.D. I have to take the oppurtunity to express my doubt in revolutionary ideals. Communism itself soviet-style does sure have some advantages (Stalin's 5-year plans were an economic wonder!), but since we have free elections there is no justification for armed coúp dê etàt. Commandment of the state police and the army is all that is needed to expropriate the capitalists. These are not emplyed by capitalists but the democratic state.

Sure enough, the tragic history of Chile was a failure. And so BECAUSE the marxists DID not control the army.

Anyways, for the swedish audience, I recommend my blog. I represent a "hard" material socialism, with influxes of the follow ingredients: nationalism, protectionism, atheism, collectivism.