in

It’s not nationalists v. internationalists; it is international fascism v. international democracy.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

International democracy is the world’s main need in order to avoid a WW III. Here is why:

International democracy would be like the U.N. except with enforcement ability.

This means that it would retain almost all of the features of the U.N.’s Charter, such as the General Assembly, which is on a one-nation-one-vote basis, and the Security Council, which is aimed instead at preventing any of the major powers from expanding its empire near or up to the border of any other, because doing that would enable or at least greatly facilitate one superpower to invade that other one and so to initiate a Third World War, which the U.N. as originally conceived by FDR had been intended to PREVENT.

Another required change from the existing Charter is that it must clearly indicate that the United Nations concerns ONLY international laws and NOT intranational laws. This ALSO means that neither the laws nor the enforcement capabilities (but the current U.N. has none of the latter, no enforcement, and this must be rectified) pertain to any ‘international human rights’, because ALL human rights can effectively be legislated and enforced ONLY on a NATIONAL — not at all upon an international — legal basis. Even intranational genocides cannot be effectively dealt with by any international laws, but ONLY international ones can be. (For example: Hitler’s was international and therefore would have been coverable under international laws. Also, what Israel is now doing to Gazans would be, because Gaza is legally under the jurisdiction of Palestine, not of Israel, and so this too is an international genocide — which the Truman-designed U.N. is powerless to prevent.) This means that genocides and ethnic cleansings that are purely intranational can be effectively dealt with ONLY by diplomatic intranational means within and between individual countries, NOT by any international body.

On January 25th of 2024, Amnesty International headlined “Emmanuel Macron’s participation as guest of honour at India’s Republic Day celebrations sends out a worrying political signal”, and argued that France shouldn’t be cozying-up to Narendra Modi’s bigoted Government. However, while that would be true as a matter pertaining to Indian national laws and their enforcement, it is NOT true as a matter of international laws and their enforcement. America’s NBC News published then a photo with the caption “French President Emmanuel Macron waves from a vehicle alongside Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a roadshow in Jaipur, part of the French leader’s two-day visit with an eye on sealing lucrative deals with the world’s fifth-largest economy”. NBC News and Amnesty International are agencies of the U.S. empire, which wants there to be something they call “R2P” or Responsibility to Protect, which would ‘authorize’ them to issue international sanctions against or even to invade foreign countries, in order to install ‘democracy’ and ‘international human rights’ (which don’t actually exist) there. Their R2P is a hoax that is supported by the U.S. empire in order to ‘justify’ its many (and mostly illegal under international law) international sanctions, coups, and invasions so as to expand even further its empire. Right now it virtually surrounds both Russia and China, the other two superpowers (exactly what FDR would have clearly outlawed in the U.N.’s Charter) — and France’s Government wants to be a fourth superpower except that it is even more blatantly hypocritical than America’s Government is, and so it both endorses and itself violates America’s R2P.

International laws cannot constructively be based upon either America’s blatant might-makes-right fascist imperialism, or France’s ‘softer’, even more hypocritical, type of fascist imperialism.

FDR’s reason for conceiving the U.N. was to outlaw internationally ANY empire, but he tragically died on 12 April 1945 two weeks before the San Francisco Conference in which the Charter for the U.N. was written between 25 April and 26 June 1945.

There need to be international laws, and there needs to be a world government to draft and create them, and to enforce and impose them against violators of them; so, the problem today isn’t that the U.N. exists, but instead that it isn’t the international democracy of nations that its anti-imperialist inventor, FDR, had intended it to be. That needs to be corrected. The current U.N. Charter’s Amendment provisions (Articles 108 and 109) would enable that to be done if the U.S., UK, and French Governments wouldn’t block it at the Security Council. They are the malefactors that want to increase their empires more than they want there to become a U.N. that transforms into being an authentic international democracy of nations that can prevent there being any WW III. Above all, the U.S. Government will be making this decision. If it refuses to do so, then the responsibility to punish it for refusing to do so falls upon each and every other nation.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Report

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Crass
Crass
January 28, 2024

Yet again, I will have to emphasize the original meaning of the word Fascist. The Shortened Oxford Dictionary, published in 1933. Fascist, 1921. [ad. It. fascista, f.fascio group.] one of a body of Italian nationalists organised under Benito Mussolini to oppose Bolshevism. Hence Fascism, their principles and organisation. Therefore, International Fascism would be an International movement, to oppose the neo-Bolshevik Cultural Marxist agenda, that is insidiously destroying Western Nations.  The only country that seems to be opposed to the Trotskyite Internationalism (international democracy), that is been inflicted on the Western Nations, is Russia, therefore I would define Russia as Nationalistic… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by Crass
Crass
Crass
Reply to  Crass
January 28, 2024

The trouble with you Eric Zuesse, is that you redefine the original meaning of select words, like Fascist, and redefine the word to mean Tyranny, as in a despotic reign of terror.

Last edited 3 months ago by Crass
Crass
Crass
Reply to  Crass
January 28, 2024

Fascism was set up as a Bulwark against insidious internationalism (“international democracy”), which is liberal egalitarianism or Communist universalism if you like.

Every country in the west desperately needs to embrace Fascism (to oppose Bolshevism), or they will face a genocide by the Internationalism/Communist universalism, been inflicted on them by the demonic enemies of humanity. 

LillyGreenwood
LillyGreenwood
Reply to  Crass
January 29, 2024

i get paid $200+ per day using my mobile in my part time. Last month i got my 4th paycheck of $10,865 and i just do this work in my part time. its an easy and awesome home based job. Anybody can do this.
.
.
.
.
More Details this Link————–>> https://shorturl.at/hoqT4

Last edited 3 months ago by LillyGreenwood
penrose
penrose
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
January 28, 2024

Do you mean the War Monger, War Criminal, and Consummate Liar Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who brought about War with Japan and conspired with his War Monger and War Criminal Partner in Crime Winston Churchill to start WWII?

They both should be hanging in effigy at the Hague.

Crass
Crass
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
January 29, 2024

anti-imperialist inventor, FDR

Franklin D. Roosevelt was the commander in chief of the US Empire and a supreme imperialist. 

Crass
Crass
Reply to  Eric Zuesse
January 29, 2024

There need to be international laws, and there needs to be a world government to draft and create them, and to enforce and impose them against violators of them;

A world Government! That is the end goal of the Jewish Trotskyites.  

Commit
Commit
January 28, 2024

It is nationalists vs cosmopolitans. Internationalism originally meant cooperation of nationalists of different nations against cosmopolitans.

G2mil
January 28, 2024

A big problem with the UN is that tiny nations like Nauru with 11,000 people have the same vote as billion person nations like India and China. Should vote power be weighted per the population?

Crass
Crass
Reply to  G2mil
January 29, 2024

The United Nations was the brainchild of a collaboration between the war criminals, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt and it was the latter who coined the name ‘The United Nations.’

The biggest problem with the United Nations, is the very fact that this nefarious organisation still exists, which allows the so called ‘UN peacekeepers’ to rape Women and Children with Impunity, in a plethora of war zones and Failed States throughout the world,

Last edited 3 months ago by Crass
penrose
penrose
January 28, 2024

It should be Decent People versus the War Mongering and War Criminal Psychopaths, like Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, who manage all too often to claw their way to power and ruin nations and lives.

penrose
penrose
January 28, 2024

If you kill 10 people, you are a serial or mass killer.
If you kill 10,000,000 people, you are a great statesman.
Like Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill.

Jamie
Jamie
January 29, 2024

How come you write WW III rather than WWIII? I’d like to know your rationale for doing that, because as you say, you’re a historian so if you write it that way it’s probably the correct way to write it.

penrose
penrose
January 29, 2024

Matt Taibbi tells us who our enemies are and how they operate:

“The 2024 presidential race increasingly looks like it will be decided by lawyers, not voters, as Democrats unveil plans for America’s first lawfare election“

The fix is in. To “protect democracy,” democracy is already being canceled. We just haven’t admitted the implications of this to ourselves yet.

Jdog
Jdog
January 29, 2024

Fascism:
1. the tenets of a centralized totalitarian and nationalistic government that strictly controls finance, industry, and commerce, practices rigid censorship and racism, and eliminates opposition through secret police.

Sounds a whole lot like the US today. The difference is that the controllers are a group of Corporations, that own the government through legal bribery.

Crass
Crass
Reply to  Jdog
January 29, 2024

That is the post WW2 redefinition of Fascism, after a plethora of atrocity propaganda stories, brainwashed the vast majority of the population. 

The pre war definition of Fascist, was of a Political movement to oppose Bolshevism.

Jdog
Jdog
Reply to  Crass
January 30, 2024

Who cares what the definition was 90 years ago. We live in the post WW2 world.

Crass
Crass
Reply to  Jdog
January 30, 2024

Unsurprisingly, you are happy to use the 1984-esque redefinitions of words, in their Newspeak Dictionary! 

Last edited 3 months ago by Crass

Trump disses NATO. Australia, UK; prepare for WW3. REPO Russian assets. US stops funding UNRWA.

Trump Tanks “Bipartisan” $60 Billion Ukraine-Border Deal