|
...
|
The aim to study
a regime necessarily implies coming to terms with its
intended historical goals and measure its achievements
socially, economically and militarily.
One can presently--either be for, or against--the current US
war initiatives...if we believe, what President Bush, said
in his ultimatum to the world: ("You are either for us, or
against us!").
This totalitarian position--characteristic of the World
Order regime--should really be the departure, for any ground
theory, that defines; and analyses the new system of
governance.
The subject, provides ways, to explain its coming to power,
categorise its attributes, grasp the intended aims and
measure the level of zeal, on the battlefield.
Some
intellectuals continue to lament the appalling acts of utter
barbarity committed by so-called dictatorships in history
but do not realise the impeding horrors to be initiated by
"democratic" regimes at a world scale.
Racial tensions
and religious confrontations are about to escalate into a
world war.
They do not see
this fact, or decide not to believe in the fears spoken by
some, precisely because modern democracies are considered to
be freedom loving nations, democratic principles means
perceivably adhering to international laws and
conventions.
No matter which political background one has, the obvious
psychological block we all share is in the admission that
countries like the U.S. are not what they seem to be, or
perhaps never were.
The world, may
like to think: it is multicultural; respectful, and tolerant
of all races, and ethnic traditions--adhering to Human
Rights; and U.N. conventions--but this today is clearly
deceptive cynicism. The new world order regime has steadily
distanced itself from multicultural ideals (surprisingly in
an era of global emancipation). In the past decade
Liberal-worldists cloak themselves in very
Conservative-Nationalist shrouds: concerns for own security,
financial stability, even cultural survival. These slogans
call for self-sacrifice, for glories of empires and ways to
achieve world order, they also seem to be imbued with
populist sentiment as they imply notions of cultural
self-preservation.
The problem is that these same principles have once been
condemned as barbaric, racist, or fascist ideals, they were
unanimously recognised as militarist rhetoric used by
dictators of colonial or populist regimes of the last world
order to concentrate power for their cliques; they were said
to be totalitarian decrees ordained to effectively bypass
democratic rule of law; they were ideological mechanisms
meant to stifle opposition and maintain control of all
government operations.
Today our cherished international institutions meant to
preserve world peace and promote multilateral decision
making processes or dialogue between countries and cultures,
are openly condoning and encouraging unilateral policies,
preemptive military attacks, invasions of Third World
countries, forced exile of ethnic factions, deportations of
thousands of religious groups, and the establishment of a
regime of terror, bent on systematic destruction by way of
planned executions inside camps.
Until the end of
the Afghan war little attention has been given to what the
new world order regime hoped to achieve in its struggle
against world terrorism. Only sketchy plans had been
announced by earlier official press statements, but they
amounted to no more than restatements of the good intentions
of western democracies. Yet an important change of policy
was that long prison terms in unspecified types of camps to
hold alleged criminals, 'asocial', 'recidivist' terrorists
had now been approved of by wide sections of the population
and even world opinion, including many who supposedly find
offensive the idea of detention and torture of political or
ideological opponents to any regime.
It seems vital that world powers clearly outline their plans
and intentions, that they would state a clear intent and
purpose. For if we are to embark on a war of religion or
create a clash of civilisations--even if this occurs
unintentionally--at least we would be better prepared. As is
the case at present the global war on terrorism has no set
objectives or end goals--we know when it begins, but do not
know when it ends (if ever). We lack even a clear definition
of who the enemy is: is it the Arabs (making this a racial
war); is it Muslims (this would make it a religious war); is
it an ethnic, political, economic, fundamentalist, cultural
group? If the category is too broad i.e., those posing a
threat to the state, we may well include every activist in
the world.
It is a war to
the death without really knowing who's--who should be
killed, who deserves to be, upon what criteria of choice,
ours or theirs, and what is the extent and scope of the
elimination process. It should be a total war, but no one is
ready to admit its totality. If the powers that be are not
willing to, how can ordinary citizens? This obviously makes
any victory very difficult if not impossible to achieve.
Global regimes today recognise the need to control all
aspects of national as well as international life, including
the beliefs and attitudes of all people (locally and
abroad). International laws adopted readily promote sets of
ideas that everyone is expected to embrace without local
popular consent or elections. This is how governments of the
new world order regime concentrate authority in the hands of
their ruling elites that are then free to develop a cult of
personality of their own. Global leaders are now credited
with almost infallible wisdom, because no one dares question
their motives for fear to deprive the world regime of its
authority.
Populist
movements simply do not adhere to these principles, they do
not recognise the anonymity of shadow regimes that promote
puppet leaders who disavow any responsibility for their
actions.
Populist movements, now as in the past, categorically
renounce the dictates of established unions which use lies
and aggression to further capitalist gains and Marxist
territorial expansion worldwide.
Today, populism utterly rejects the usurpation of the
nationalist cause toward the expansion of those same regimes
(US-UK-USSR) which, in 1945, proclaimed to fight barbarity
in the name of humanity--but willingly used wars, nuclear
weapons, Gulags and camps against enemy opponents as viable
tools of democracy building.
The populist movement sixty years on continues to fight
social injustices, the lies and the extremism of the new
world order regime; it fights a political extremism that
seeks to define forms of popular expression into opposing
ideological left/right blocks; it fights an extremism that
sanctions religious intolerance, persecutions, wars and
inquisitions in the Middle East; it seeks an end to an
extremism that promotes racial conflicts without instituting
reciprocal laws (pacts) insuring mutual tolerance and
respect between all ethnicities, religions and nationalities
worldwide.
|
...
|