Thursday, February 28, 2008

On Democracy

I have a pet definition for democracy:

Nations are Organisms, Democracy is like a nervous system and a negative feedback loop. If you don’t have pain receptors, or if they are compromised by a pathogen, you will die sooner or later. That is exactly what leprosy does. It only takes the feeling away from your body and extremities in general. As the disease (and therefore the insenstivity) progresses, you get little cuts, you never notice them because your nervous system is compromised, and you keep losing limbs. Eventually you die or become hideously disfigured.

This is why the western countries fight to the death to protect their democracies and the first thing they do is destroy democracy (hit them over the head to cause unconsciousness) in countries which they want to control.

Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, countless South American and African countries are examples. I won’t even mention the fools in the Arab countries individually.

Everywhere, they start with subverting the nervous system of that nation and then destroy the second most important thing which can cause democracy to come back (gain consciousness ) and that is the Education system.

You have to wonder why Israel which has WAY more existential threats than Pakistan has always had democracy (more obnoxious than just slapping desks that fauji idiots in our country hate because it “doesn’t look good”) .. By a mere coincidence (being sarcastic here) all the sleeping giants around them DON’T.. they all have nice and tidy dictators.

Not only that, they have Khilaafah idiots running around saying Democracy is “UnIslamic” and these people just happen to be based out of UK. How co-incidental is _that_ ????

Our enemies don’t want us to ever gain consciousness while they are cutting and carting away our body parts. First thing you do is “anaesthecise’ the victim. And subverting democracy in a nation is akin exactly to that.


libertarian said...

Very insightful in many parts. Can't agree with the conspiracy theory threading the post. While there might be sufficient cause for subverting democracy in oil-rich places, why would the "powers-that-be" bother with Pakistan and African countries? It's more pain that it's worth. And if control were the driving factor, why would they "allow" democracy to thrive in India? And would they not actively encourage China's authoritarian tendencies?

Taban Khamosh said...

I agree, it does sound a bit conspiratorial in places, but then again, sometimes real conspiracies also sound conspiratorial ;-) But in this case it is because i really haven't developed the idea properly and just dumped it here.

I think the west supports dictators not just because they are dictators, they support dictators when they are 'their' men. Examples are Battista vs. Castro. Shah vs. Khomenie etc. No point having a dictator if he purges all your moles and is useless from a geo-political perspect (and a pain in the ass most of the times )

Pakistan was colonialism's toe-hold (my theory) as they were leaving India. It turned out that it was win-win for everyone involved except of course the unfortunate Pakistani's . It is not a mere co-incidence (IMO) that Pakistan has been a total TOOL of the west in their geo political games (first against USSR, and now against emerging threats of China and Russia).

Pakistan is strategically extremely important, and therefore must not be allowed to have an independent national course of action.

The extraction of resources and general strategic control of Africa is very important for the west and instigating insurrection in various African "nations" has become almost a rite of passage for the up and coming war mongers in the establishments of Europe. Case in point is the involvement of Thatcher's own son in the planning and near execution of a coup against a small african country (don't remember which now).

If there wasn't an independent govt in South Africa, this operation would have gone on without anyone finding out that someone from the British establishment was involved in it.

Speaking of South Africa, the same model of destabilization is being used against it as well, and as the memory of Nelson Mandela and other freedom fighters fades from the minds of the newer generations, first corruption will be encouraged and then military coups ("to fix this abomination") will be supported, executed and perpeteuated.

India is a good example of why they didn't try. I don't know much about India's internal politics but my total guess is that the British, after being completedly exhausted in WWII were forced to leave off india but could not let go of geo-political ambitions, so Pakistan was created. This gave the British the time to rebuild and maintain a tenuous foothold in the subcontinent through Pakistan.

They knew that the Indian leadership is more connected with the masses and more astute than the rag-tag bunch of League'ers who wer e basically in it for themselves (some things never change eh?)

So I think they concentrated their efforts on keeping Pakistan subjugated by proxy and their proxies, the generals did a very good job of keeping India frustrated.. but India, because of it's democracy and possibly sheer luck puled through. We were destroyed in the process by our own generals who became proxies for foreign powers (I suspect knowingly yet callously and banally)