Counter-Propaganda.com

Genocide and democracy – is stable democracy possible without preceding genocide?

07 04 2006

Genocide apparently is a necessary stage of building modern democracy in big states. Democracy functions well only in the countries the politically homogeneous societies of which were historically created by ethnic and religious genocide.

question

Do the benefits of the modern British democracy justify the XIX century genocide of Scottish Highlanders?

They do justify it

They do not

They justify it for the English

Genocide is considered one of the most horrible crimes. Every ideology maker from the US or Western Europe will tell you that genocide is impossible in true democracy, especially in their respective country.

Western democracy works appropriately only in homogeneous societies

It is obvious that, with few exceptions, democracy functions stably only in those states in which there are no hostile ethnic or religious groups capable of organising armed fight.

The same is true for the newly ‘democratised’ countries where the democracy copied from the US or Western Europe works well only in those societies in which there is no strong ethnic or religious minority that seek cultural freedom or political independence.

Some multinational European states, namely the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, collapsed immediately as soon as they started following the democracy practices of the West. Even their successors that contain several influential ethnic or religious communities, such as Bosnia, Serbia or Moldova, are in serious trouble.

Democrats must sometimes resort to genocide

The dominating national or religious groups often have to fight freedom fighters (separatists) in order to preserve the territorial integrity of their countries. If the last are actively supported by a numerous and determined religious or national community, genocide is practically indispensable.

Genocide was the only feasible way out for the Serbs fighting against the ruthless Kosovo Albanians, who were armed and cunningly instigated by some special western agencies, and for the Russians in Chechnya.

The recognised ‘followers of western democracy’ also have to rely on genocide from time to time. For example, the last Turkish repressions against Kurds and the US policies in Iraq when Americans slaughtered or disintegrated many communities of freedom-loving Sunnis must be called genocide.

Religious genocide paved the way for ‘western democracy’

When proudly blabbering about freedom, human rights and the right of self-determination, American and European ideology makers and propagandists as well as all the ordinary self-confident democrats never pay attention to the fact that the historical conditions that were favourable for emerging of ‘western democracy’ were created by the greatest genocide in the human history.

For more than one and a half thousand years, Christians persecuted and murdered European non-Christians until only some weak and non-militant Jews left alive.

Genocide was a traditional Christian means of fighting wars and solving disputes – many Christians that were defeated by Catholics, such as Albigensians or Hussites, were also physically exterminated.

Religious genocide has in recent times been common practice in many Western European countries that are now called ‘democratic’

In the wake of the Reformation, religious wars in Western Europe often resulted in merciless slaughter of the defeated. Ruthless genocide of Protestants was carried out in most places where a decisive victory had been celebrated by Catholics.

Therefore, when religious wars had calmed down, there left mostly religiously homgeneous states in Western Europe.

Ethnic genocide also was an important stage of democracy building

It is difficult to imagine how ‘the great western democracies’ would look now if they did not perform timely ethnic cleansing. In the US, American Indians were mercilessly exterminated, and the few remaining ones were driven into concentration camps.

In Britain, the same happened to Scottish Highlanders – many of them were murdered or forced to emigrate by the English army or by the famine of 1845–1849 that obviously was instigated by then British government.

If genocide has not been carried out properly, it obviously costs a lot to modern democracies. For instance, the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland and the Basques in Spain continuously make the governments resort to utterly undemocratic measures.

Do ‘the western democracies’ have a moral right to speak with an air of authority and impose their will on the weak and poor?

Democracy is not an invention by the Industrial Revolution. Democracy existed in many cities of Ancient Greece and Medieval Europe.

Then democracy had no prospects elsewhere, because it works really well only in the homogeneous societies without considerable unsatisfied minorities. There were no that big homogeneous societies as in the modern states. They have been created by genocide.

Genocide was the principal tool of building the unicultural Europe that the Christian fanatics are so proud of; genocide was the main cause of the horrible fact that in once multicultural and multireligious Europe, there survived only ‘the true Chistians’, who were so similar to each other that they could establish many-millioned democratic states.

Therefore, it is difficult indeed to understand why the western states are so proud of their democracy, why they pretend to have a moral right to always demonstrate their deep resentment at any attempts of genocide in the recently founded developing countries, especially the democratic ones. In any case, the new democrats are just trying to follow the way of their elder colleagues.

The ambition of the West to preserve the territorial states established in the place of former colonies impedes consolidation of democracy and creates conditions favourable for genocide.

Many African and Asian states were created on the basis of former colonies, and in most of them there are several radically different ethnic or religious groups that have mutually incompatible visions of the state. Peaceful political compromise is therefore practically impossible; thus, all the attempts of introducing a ‘western style’ democracy end up in the genocide of the weak there.

The US and its ‘allies’ do not permit such states to split, so military dictatorships are the only reasonable way out of violence and poverty in many multinational African and Asian states.

For instance, in Iraq there are three quite different groups that hardly can fit together in one state: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. If Iraq could get divided into three separate unicultural states, perhaps a functional democracy could be built there. Unfortunately, the US does not allow that to happen, and Americans are still trying to impose ‘democracy’ on Iraq by their own methods, among which genocide of non-submissive Iraqis plays an essential role.

Seemingly, the governments of the US and its ‘allies’ are especially interested in preventing true Muslim democracies in order to have a pretext for occupying the countries rich of natural resources, for stealing oil and for genocide of freedom-loving nations.

Clean your house before starting to fight for human rights. Or what?


Enter the first and the third digits! please, permit pictures and cookies

name   

   

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

Confucius

Counter-Propaganda.com

Counter-Propaganda.com – en

the symbol

Counter-Propaganda.com

news

order the news

via e-mail via e-mailRSS RSS

via social networks

the symbol

©  Giedrius // 2005 - 2017