The Fallacy Of Representative Government.

Who can say what the difference between a valid government and an invalid government is?
The 'real-politikers' would suggest that any group of people who could factually claim to speak for a geographical area would be a 'representative government'.

Hence they achieve the spectacle of allegedly valid, 'Western' governments actually sitting at table and talking with governments like the old Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, Red China.

At other times there are governments which are declared 'outlaw', which is to say that they do not kow-tow to the majority views of other less harmful governments.
So Afghanistan and Iraq are invaded, and Iran and North Korea are (ineffectually) threatened.
Red China is always 'among the first to condemn'.
After all, they have a moral postulate to project.
Then they sell more arms and threaten more neighbours in the name of their oh, so sincerely held 'dreams' of reunification, ie victory by stealth.

But what is the consistency of these policies?
Why some and not others?
Well, the evil of Afghanistan was such that thousands of New Yorkers were murdered one morning in 2001.
Iraq had previously invaded Kuwait; the opponents of the Iraq attack took the 'causus belli' pretence as a decider for foreign policy, saying, as the 'West' had failed to do, that one 'needs to be in hot pursuit' to invade.

They did this, because, as they have for the past 75 years, they look for the apparent weakness in the intellectual positions of the defenders of civilisation.
That is to say, the nay-sayers have no actual position to project;like all parasites, they exist solely on the reflected energies and invention of other people, having no essential truth of their own, but simply a system of devices, devices which are supposed to act in the psyche of other people who really are trying to make a difference.

They await the day that they can feel their faggot hegemony made real by the surrender of millions, at which time they will finally try to get a life, fail, and take up killing sans-pretence.

But how did these people get a foot in the door?

Through the fallacy of 'representative government'.

The essential fiction that the creeps worked hard to feed(and it worked very well until 1980) was that a nation should be left to its own devices as long as somebody could claim to speak for it.
If there were a few problems, these would soon be ironed out if we welcomed Herr Hitler and Mister Stalin into the fold of nations.
And this is what led to the 1939-45 war.
This should have put an end to them, but they are there, like pus oozing from under the scab of an old wound.
And they will go on reappearing until we finally determine for once and for all to eliminate woolly thinking from our position on the status of government.

Government is secondary.
It doesn't speak for anybody; individuals speak, other individuals agree or not.
Government is not validated by the destruction of alternatives.
Government is singular, and every replacement should represent a revolution in the sense that there is no ship of state with alternative captains, but a new ship after every vote.

And until it is safely docked and can't take any of us to places we don't want to go, it isn't representative of any kind of peace or consent.