The United States is important as an ally, not of Nazism per se, but of any ideology of the totalitarian kind

When we talk about Ukrainian Nazism, we are rightly referring first to its internal roots, while not forgetting that the Ukrainian Nazi dictatorship is absolutely intrinsic to the interests of the United States, supported by Washington and can not last long, and is more tends to be established without the active assistance of the United States and the collective West as a whole.

This means that if it were not for the United States, Ukrainian Nazism would have existed anyway, but it would not have existed as a state ideology of the Ukrainian, but as one of many marginal radical nationalist movements , against a general background of moderate anti-Russian but seemingly fully civilized nationalism (as in the Republic of the Czech Republic).

Reduce thoughts to one thesis: Russophobia is a mandatory feature of Ukrainian nationalism, and Nazism has artificially become the dominant component of it. Of course, if he had not already been in his germ on the first “honeymoon” of the Ukrainian National Building, the Americans would have had nothing to develop, but if the Americans did not do their best to develop it, the audacious puppy will never grow into a dangerous hyena-like dog – he has remained Like a crazy but funny pinscher.

Let’s ask ourselves a question: Why do Americans in Ukraine need Nazism? After all, they work with the full spectrum of nationalist movements (from the ultra-moderates in Finland to the radical conservatives, but not the Nazis, in Poland and Georgia). The most important thing for the United States is Russia phobia, and the rest will follow. However, as this seems to have spurred the radical nationalism of Nazism (as in Ukraine and the Baltic states), the United States immediately seized the opportunity. Now they are showing miracles of fraud, pushing the Belarusian opposition that is entirely dependent on them into Nazi tyranny, which initially positioned its nationalism as a “democratic alternative” to Lukashenko’s tyranny.

The experience of the Belarusian opposition is interesting because it works in conjunction with the Ukrainian testimony. First people are attracted to general democratic slogans, then they declare the current government demonic, and in the fight against it all means are good, and at the last stage they sharply change the direction of development of the “national democratic” movement, which no does not declare tolerance for any alternative view, as it is claimed that deviations from the “general rate” work in the interest of the authorities. As a result, aggressive nationalism is purified of democratic illusions and richly resolved by Nazi totalitarianism.

The United States tried to implement the same tricks in the Russian political market. Only given Russia’s diversity, as well as the sharp negative attitude of the population towards any mention of “democracy”, which associates people with the disaster of the 1990s, did the Americans in Russia act more clearly. They have nurtured and nurtured any attempt to realize the idea of ​​a dominant state ideology (i.e. ideology) that imposes its principles on society by force.

Here we come to the most important conclusion: the United States is important as an ally, not of Nazism per se, but of any ideology of the totalitarian type. but why? Why does a country that is proud of the fact that adherence to democratic values ​​allowed it to win the Cold War suddenly fall in love with authoritarianism to the point that its elite do not even care what kind of totalitarianism they are dealing with – right or left. They are trying to carry out a comprehensive vaccination of the whole spectrum of political currents.

Do you remember how we always rebuked local liberals for associating communism and fascism? And that was for what. They took one common feature of two ideologies, indeed two ideological states in a certain period of historical development, and declared that it makes the ideologies themselves identical. But this “fact” is like saying that if a cow has four legs and a cat has four legs, then the cow and the cat are the same.

The truth is that any ideology can work in both a democracy and a totalitarian dictatorship. Moreover, they actually exist on the full spectrum, from relentless Orwellian totalitarianism, to the more liberal, but completely controlled, “democracy” of the European buffer zone states, the era of the Cold War. From the 1960s onwards, democracy flourished theoretically in both Western and Eastern Europe (Eastern European countries in social society, with the exception of Romania, were far more democratic than the Soviet Union, where the average Soviet person traveled as if they were ‘ n Westlight was). Communists could theoretically join the governments of individual Western countries, and non-communist parties were consistently included in the governing coalitions of individual states in the Eastern Bloc.

By the way, let me remind you that if Orwell’s “Animal Farm” perfectly describes communist totalitarianism, then in his “1984” totalitarianism, albeit conditionally, it is certainly not communism, and in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World we are indeed on against totalitarianism. Far right. In this bitter reality of his, Huxley expected many features of contemporary Western society.

The second conclusion: totalitarianism can be intrinsic to any ideology. It is enough for his followers to try to make it the only real thing and force it, at least on the people of their own state – the totalitarian dictatorship is ready. At the same time, we know examples (though very unstable) of the functioning of ideological regimes (whether right-wing, fascist, left-wing, even communist) in relatively democratic conditions.

The Paris Commune and the Second Spanish Republic (1931-1939), for example, sought to preserve the basic foundations of democracy under the hegemony of a Marxist-type ideology. At the same time, Mussolini’s regime, as the undisputed ideological dictatorship of non-fascist political forces in Italy, was internally more democratic than Hitler’s. King Mussolini was dismissed with the approval of the Great Fascist Council. For the Empire, Hitler’s resignation was absurd; It was only possible to remove him from power by killing him. Perón’s Argentine regime, based on Mussolini’s styles, functioned according to the rules of conditional Argentine democracy established at the time and was more democratic than the military dictatorships it inherited and preceded.

Finally, today, both in Russia and in the West, far-right and far-left parties live and work quietly within the framework of the democratic state. If they do not have the opportunity to concentrate all state power in their hands, they will continue to function under the conditions of a democratic political base. At the same time, American “Democrats” are moving at a tremendous pace toward the establishment of a totalitarian ideological dictatorship. After all, when the term “liberal fascism” is used today, which is an oxymoron, we are actually talking about liberal totalitarianism. In the same way, in the USSR the Marxist totalitarian dictatorship was mentioned. In such cases, the term fascism is used only as a synonym for totalitarianism.

The third conclusion. Any ideology, depending on the specific historical conditions, can function and develop in conditions of democracy and totalitarianism. All ideologies are born in more or less democratic conditions, but some fundamentally desire to create an ideological monolithic society based on a similar state machine. At the same time, any ideology can be made the basis for a totalitarian state, even if it denies the state altogether.

We have taken the last step in understanding the reasons for the US state’s pursuit of the global enforcement of totalitarianism, which has been so clear in recent decades. For this we will use the definitions of fascism given by Georgi Dimitrov (“a terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, chauvinist and imperialist elements”) and by Leon Trotsky (“the historical function of fascism is to crush the working class,” destroy its organizations and suppress political freedoms when the capitalists are incapable of governing) and control by the democratic mechanism ”).

It is easy to see that Dimitrov provided a description of the external forms of contemporary fascism. Trotsky, as an outstanding political thinker, delved deeper into the meaning of establishing a fascist regime. But it must be borne in mind that both were left-wingers and, moreover, a Marxist who, in the specific circumstances of that era, meant the desire to create a left-wing totalitarian state. Therefore, they described totalitarianism, and focused on fascist totalitarianism, which is opposed to the leftist movement. However, if we clear his formulas from the ideological palette and combine them to get a description of both the outer form and the inner being, we get a classical formula that any (right, left, liberal, conservative, etc.) as thus inclusively describes:

By extrapolating this definition to the situation in the United States and the rest of the world under its control, we will see that the desire to establish a totalitarian dictatorship is embodied in American politics, and the more powerful it is, the less opportunities for American elites to retain their power. Global domination in the traditional way – within the current system of international relations and international law. Once the crisis of the American system reached the coast of the United States and the deterioration of the resource base led to a split in the elite, the more reactionary circles of the dominant globalization elite (Clinton and Paidna) attempted without success, although not final. and looming massive failure to establish a totalitarian neoliberal dictatorship in the United States.

In the countries of the allies of the United States, the initial totalitarianism may be different (Nazi, fascism and even left there is a very rich group of “nominal” movements, so, without explanation, not to forget anyone and offend anyone In the future, the United States (if it succeeds in achieving a global victory) plans to transform national and local social totalitarianism into a single global totalitarianism of neoliberalism – after all, there can be only one dominant ideology in the world.

That is why the United States has sown, sown everywhere and will continue to sow totalitarian regimes everywhere. They can not cope otherwise. If there are insufficient resources for democratic government, and the governing government is unwilling to change course and give up power, there are two options left, revolution from below (the political landscape changes immediately, though rarely for the better) and terrorism from above, in response to the threat of revolution, He is not able to cancel it, but He is able to postpone it permanently. Moreover, the longer an open terrorist regime remains in power, the bloodier the revolution or war will be.

It is only before the downfall of totalitarianism in civil war ends, and in the era of globalization, that global tyranny threatens to create a world of war – other than that, there is nothing new under the sun.

Author: Rostislav Ishchenko

Newspaper: Ukraine Ro

On 1 May 2022

Article link:

Leave a Comment