Skip to content or view screen version

British empire?

ram | 14.04.2003 21:36

Who thinks that it is about the American-Century blah blah blah. It seems that there are idiots here in the UK blurting real shit.

...postmodern....europeans...lots of bollovks...***s!

The only moral justification for a democracy is that it allows the citizens to elect a good government. If the citizens fail to do that, then democracy loses any moral legitimacy it had. In electing Tony Blair with a landslide majority, the British electorate elected an evil government. In June 2001, they did that for a second time. Neither the Blair government, nor the democracy that produced it, are legitimate. The mere fact that an evil or unjust government was democratically elected, confers no existence rights on that government.

Ask yourselves whether you are not racists inside?
If not, first learn to say clearly that British soceity is racist. Then do something about it.

ram
- Homepage: http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,680095,00.html

Comments

Hide the following 5 comments

article's more interesting than your post

15.04.2003 11:42

the article's actually quite interesting, if only from an academic point of view. the word 'post-modern' seems to get your hackles up, and it is one which is bandied about a lot without much thought. Here the author's using it to mean 'moving beyond the state as the principle organising structure in society'. I agree that it's bollocks to claim that we have done any such thing, the state and it's monopoly on 'legitimate' violence is still THE structue of society, but he makes interesting points on the way in which aspects which were sovereign to a single state are becoming negotiated BETWEEN states. Another word for this process is globalisation. So 'modern' states are those which still believe in a state in competition with others, narrowly defined national interests etc, and pre-modern ones are those in which the monopoly of legitimate violence of the state has been overcome by competing internal factions (mainly rebel froces and organised crime). I would say these are 'post-modern' too, they've just moved beyond the supremacy of the state in another direction. I know you (ram) are on an anti-white supremacy trip, but I don't think you have to see this analysis of states as implying a hierarchy of 'us' the enlightened and 'them' the darkie pre-moderns, but you're right that the author pushes this view, ('one law for us at home, the law of the jungle out there in the jungle') in justifying an emperial approach to the states outside an 'enlightened' post-modern world.

post-modernism is supposed to include the death of grand narratives of history, including the myth of linear 'progress' to an enlightened future/present, so we can use p-m against the author in rejecting the idea that 'we' have got it right. p-m is also supposed to reject universal or foundation values, and yet the doing away of traditional values is just a poorly veiled promotion of the dominance of capital and commercial values, the 'cool' especially as the driving force of spectacular commodity society. The US can been seen as reverting to pre-modernism in pushing simplistic modernist solutions of conquest and self-defined 'good and evil', whilst those supposedly struggling pre-modern states are challenging the state and its suppression of traditoonal value, of morals, ethics, respect for the environment etc.

Sorry if that was boring, too much coffee I think....

anarchoteapot


nope not boring ...

15.04.2003 12:48

...only proof that the author's idea as I pointed out has followers in every sector of British soceity.

Yes I am pointing out 'white supremacist' ideas here in the form of ...
US shit or european shit
put more practically Dollar or Euro...


..but why do you infer that I am in a 'non white superiority trip'?!

I am only criticisig the fact that whites are commiting huge crimes in the (wrong) mode of superiority.
This is what we in the white nations can realisticaly tackle and is actually our duty if we are to consider ourselves humans.

ram


hmmm....

15.04.2003 14:59

I wasn't suggesting I agreed with the author's views, just clarifying his/her terms. I don't think you're on a non-white superiority trip, just that you push race to the foreground in this and your other postings (linking 'white nations' with imperialism). Personally I don't consider states/nations (not the same as a state) as black, white, yellow or brown, but as globalising (capitalist exploiters) and globalised (capitalist exploited)

anarchoteapot


Well let me enlighten you then..

16.04.2003 12:20

Globalisors are white (Japan is a white stooge as there are no white colony for miles in that area and everyone knows this..)

and the victims are non white.

Clear, grasshopper?

ram


what?

16.04.2003 21:39

ram, i thought for a while that you really had something to say. That you´d broaden your thought about racism and stuff a bit further and get somewhere but it turns out your really racist too: Only white people are globalists and exploiters... please tell us why you A) come to this conclusion B) as an anti-racist who doesn´t believe in races, as more than the social constructs they are, find it important to argue on this level of races and C) thinnk that non-white people are in someway different non economically productive or "nice".

Surely this is just racist crap!

Mike