|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
U.S. Midterm Elections and Western Annihilation Lev Navrozov Let us begin by quoting Winston Churchill: "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." That is, "democracy" (actually, Churchill meant "constitutionalism" plus "universal suffrage") is not an ideal – like Communism in the head of Marx – but a society that has evolved historically, exists in reality, and is better, despite everything worst in it, than any other society existing in reality. Of course, the Communism of Marx is the best society imaginable. No money. Everything is free of charge, like salt in a diner. Everyone works, that is, creates, out of the human urge for creativity. Trotsky explained that the average person would be what had been called "genius" in the old bourgeois society, while outstanding individuals would rise higher and higher above genius. Immortality would be discovered, to say nothing of medical treatment for all diseases.
Sound like paradise? The German poet Heinrich Heine wrote: No, not in heaven, but on earth,The only defect of this best society imaginable is that it cannot exist. The building of Communism in Soviet Russia lasted for more than 70 years, but ended up in the collapse of the Soviet dictatorship, while Trotsky was first exiled from Stalin's Russia, then depicted as the leader of global terrorism (like the braggart bin Laden is by the U.S. mainstream media today) and then killed by Stalin's agent, crushing his head from behind with an alpine ax.
In China, Marx, Lenin, and Mao are still apostles, but 57 years of building Communism have led no nearer to the ideal than did its Soviet building. It has been said in Soviet Russia and in post-1949 China that Communism will be built when it prevails on the global scale (as Marx, Lenin, and Mao proclaimed). The trouble is that the Western bourgeoisie has been resisting by military force this best society conceivable. It is not for nothing that the Chinese army is called the People's Liberation Army.
Story Continues Below
I am saying all this to show that my criticism of the "worst form of government" does not mean that, unlike Churchill, I know of a better form. Quite the contrary, I fear that this worst society except all other societies may not survive the post-nuclear superweapons being developed in China in cooperation with Putin's Russia.
Initially, in post-Roman Europe there originated (in England in 1215) constitutionalism – the legal protection of inhabitants against tyranny. Democracy, that is, universal suffrage (the right of every adult to vote), appeared in England only in the early 20th century. Yet the word "democracy" came to be applied to both constitutionalism (the constitutional monarchy of England and the constitutional republic of the United States), and to universal suffrage as though the two always go hand in hand.
Universal suffrage was basic to the general election in Afghanistan (democracy!) after the military overthrow of the Taliban by Western troops, yet even the mere intention of an Afghan to become a Christian is punished by death (the worst tyranny exercised by "democratically elected" Afghan authorities!).
Let us assume that the midterm elections in the United States on Nov. 8 will be impeccably democratic (impeccable universal suffrage). Let us ignore all possible abuse stemming from tricks with voting machines and suppose that every vote will be registered as one vote, no more and no less.
Elections came to the post-Roman West from Rome, where they came from the primitive tribes: members of a tribe elected their chief and/or their senate (a council of elders). If a tribe was endangered by a war against another tribe, the tribesmen voted for the strongest and most physically fearless tribesman to lead them into the fight with whatever sticks and stones such fights were fought by primitive tribes.
Today's warfare is not as simple as it was among primitive tribes millennia ago. The question is how can a "majority of the American people" know that those for whom they vote are the best leaders in today's world if most voters have never heard even the term "superweapons"?
Besides, the fitness of a chief elected by a primitive tribe for a war (fight) with a hostile tribe was clear from his muscles, his fearlessness, and other such fighting qualities. But how can an American voter today determine the fitness of a potential commander in chief for today's war of superweapons if the very phrase "superweapons" is used in the United States only by obscure fogies like Lt. Col. Thomas E. Bearden (U.S. Army, retired), whose book "Oblivion: America at the Brink" is unavailable in the New York Public Library and who has never appeared on mainstream television and has never been mentioned even by voluminous publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post? No one is surprised by the contention that only 1 percent of the adult population of a country, even the United States, can be scientists. Only 1 percent of this 1 percent can be outstanding scientists. And only 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent can be scientists of genius. But anyone can be a genius of geostrategy once he has been voted for by a majority of adults more than 99 percent of whom know nothing about today's geostrategy.
Evidently, by just looking in 2000 or 2004 at a totally unremarkable male of 54 and then 58 years of age and finding that the only sign of originality in his recitals of speeches, composed for him by his speechwriters, is his saying "nucular" instead of "nuclear" (though nuclear weapons had appeared before the potential commander in chief was born), a voter had to conclude in 2000 and 2004 that there could be, among 300 million Americans, no better commander in chief to ensure the survival of the United States in the world of – no, not nucular weapons, but post-nuclear Sino-Russian superweapons.
The elections are supposed to be based on the debates between the Republicans and the Democrats. Thus the argument of the Democrats in 2004 should have contained the following points:
1. The dictatorship of China is the gravest danger to the West in its post-Roman history: Given the relevant post-nuclear superweapons, China's dictatorship can, without conventional war, either annihilate the West or make it surrender unconditionally.
2. The fact that the Republican president and most Republican members of Congress do not even mention this mortal danger proves that they are the most dangerous traitors of the West in its post-Roman history.
3. The only rationale for the invasion of Iraq, a small Third World country, is its oil for the Bushes and their corporate oil shares-holding cronies (see Executive Order 13303, signed by George W. Bush on May 22, 2003). Minus that, the attempt to implant "democracy" in Iraq, as it was implanted in Afghanistan, is tantamount to clinical insanity.
4. It is said by Republicans that the invasion of Iraq was triggered by mistakes of U.S. and British intelligence. If so, official U.S. and British apologies are due. But none have been given. Which fuels the hatred of Islamic terrorists for the United States, England, and the West in general, and the total number of Moslems exceeds 1 billion.
No such arguments were presented by Democrats in the election of 2004. But when it became clear that the Iraqi venture was failing due to a Sunni guerrilla war, Democrats began accusing Republicans of having failed in Iraq, though no Democrat had foreseen a guerrilla war in Iraq either.
In the Bush-Kerry "debate" of 2004, China and its ally, Putin's Russia, seemed never to have existed.
Recently, China has reappeared – to help to convince North Korea to stop its testing of nuclear weapons, which the dictatorship of China began testing in 1964 and now is developing POST-nuclear superweapons. China has been doing what does not interfere with its aim of world domination, but pleases the West (contributing to China's development of post-nuclear superarmaments). Why not help to convince North Korea to stop its nuclear testing?
North Korea can always refuse to be convinced by China, with their tacit mutual agreement, while both Republicans and Democrats will be moved to tears by China's help in the Western inane "search for peace" under the assumption that the threat to peace can come from midgets like North Korea, but never from a giant like China.
The argument between Republicans and Democrats has been domestic: Thus, Republicans want to protect the wealthier half of the electorate from being ripped off by "progressive taxation" (the more money you have, the higher the percentage of it goes into taxes). Democrats want to help the poorer half of the electorate to get higher social benefits. But lower taxes and higher social benefits will not help the United States (and the West in general) to survive in the world of post-nuclear superweapons, developed by the dictatorship of China in alliance with Putin's Russia.
A Moscow correspondent of the British Broadcasting Corporation ridiculed the Soviet general election. "I am on tenterhooks," he jeered. "Tomorrow the election in Moscow! I cannot sleep, thinking who will win: Communists or –Communists?"
We laughed because we were bitterly anti-Soviet. Now I can repeat the joke, with this ending: "Republicans or – Democrats?" As far as the survival of the West is concerned, I see no difference between them, but the joke is more ominous than was that anti-Soviet joke, for it may mean the annihilation of the West. You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net
Editor's note: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |