Trump Movement Leads Republican Democracy to Demolish the Myth of Liberal “Democracy”.
Ten Facts about Republicanism versus Liberalism:
1- The marriage of democracy and liberalism is not inevitable, it is an illusion.
2- Liberalism is not democracy, they are not only distinct but even conflicting.
3- Liberalism does not imply Democracy, but only indicates globalism.
4- There are serious conflict of interests between Liberalism and Democracy.
5- Liberal “Democracy” is actually a mere capitalist globalism, and against national interests and security.
6- Liberalism is not at all about freedom of the people, it is only about the freedom of capital and transnational corporations.
7- The original authentic democracies were republicans, only the fake modern democracies are liberal.
8- The rise Liberalism goes hand in hand with the erosion of sovereignty and the rule of law.
9- Liberalism is soft aggression with strong expansionism, while Republicanism is hardworking with energetic patriotism.
10- Republicanism promotes national unity and international cooperation and in direct collision with Liberalism seeking globalist alliances and conflicts.
Posts tagged ‘democracy’
Trump Movement Leads Republican Democracy to Demolish the Myth of Liberal “Democracy”.
The awesome win of Trump is the biggest blow to the “international liberal order” or the “Liberal Leviathan”. That is why they are deceiving peoples in the USA and the world by defaming President Elect Trump and using all sorts of lies, protests, and threats against him and his supporters.
The “international liberal order” is purposely misinterpreting Trump’s stands on immigration, religion, sexuality, trade, national security, foreign relations, defense, health, taxation, environment, energy, and women.
The “international liberal order” was not made by Americans and it was not made for Americans. It is made by foreign globalists for their own benefit. The USA and the rest of the world were abused and exploited by such greedy immoral order.
By simply searching Google, or any other search engine, with “international liberal order” the results make it clearer why the awesome win of Trump is the greatest step in the right direction, not only for the USA, but also for Europe and the whole world.
The results of this search are:
1- The Future of the Liberal World Order, Internationalism After America, By G. John Ikenberry, The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) (a Rockefeller controlled organization), May/June 2011 Issue says:
“As the United States’ relative power declines, will the open and rule-based liberal international order Washington has championed since the 1940s start to erode …”
2- Liberal international economic order, Wikipedia, says:
“In international relations, the liberal international economic order (LIEO) is the global free trade establishment. Critics sometimes refer to LIEO as the Washington Consensus, which implies that this system works mostly in the favor of the United States at the expense of smaller countries.
LIEO is said to be shaped by supranational institutions. The World Trade Organization, for example, creates and implements free trade agreements, while the World Bank issues structural adjustment loans to Third World governments that include conditions ranging from opening up their markets to Western businesses to privatizing public utilities.
Among the firmest underlying assumptions of free market thinking is that as regulations are removed, global trade becomes more efficient and peoples’ needs are better met, allegedly resulting in less poverty, and consequently, stability and peace.
Critics point to rampant abuses of laborers and citizens in the Third World by multinational corporations, as well as the negative effects on public health caused by privatizing public utilities. Another criticism can be the dumping of metals and other wastes into the environment of such nations by corporations. This often effects local environmental health and peoples, most often by industrial facilities such as factories.
Third World countries are particularly incensed by the continuing existence of tariffs on United States and European agricultural products, which they claim run counter to the spirit of free trade and prevent them from taking full advantage of the global marketplace.”
3- Is the international liberal order dying? These five countries will decide, Peter Harris, September 25, 2014, The National Interest says:
“President Obama’s speech to the United Nations was a spirited defense of the current world order and America’s role within that order. It was an acknowledgement that the liberal internationalist status quo is far from invulnerable and, in fact, is gravely under threat; and a warning that the widening and deepening of international cooperation, peace and security require good intentions and assiduous effort on behalf of nations. Today’s relatively benign world order is the result of farsighted decision-making by past leaders, Obama told his audience; its maintenance is now the charge of today’s generation.”
4- The Collapse of the Liberal World Order, Stephen M. Walt, June 26, 2016, Foreign Policy says:
“The world is entering a period where once-robust democracies have grown fragile. Now is the time to figure out where we went wrong.
Once upon a time — that is, back in the 1990s — a lot of smart and serious people believed liberal political orders were the wave of the future and would inevitably encompass most of the globe. The United States and its democratic allies had defeated fascism and then communism, supposedly leaving humankind at “the end of history.” The European Union seemed like a bold experiment in shared sovereignty that had banished war from most of Europe. Indeed, many Europeans believed its unique combination of democratic institutions, integrated markets, the rule of law, and open borders made Europe’s “civilian power” an equal if not superior counterpart to the crude “hard power” of the United States……”
5- The liberal international order is under fire. The United States must defend it., Editorial Board May 21, 2016, The Washington Post, says:
“HARDLY A day goes by without evidence that the liberal international order of the past seven decades is being eroded. China and Russia are attempting to fashion a world in their own illiberal image; Britain is debating a departure from the European Union; Austria’s front-running presidential contender espouses fear of migrants, trade and globalization; and far-right parties are thriving in Europe. The radical Islamic State group wields merciless violence on its own lands in Iraq and Syria and exports terrorism beyond. In the United States, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has attracted millions of voters by campaigning against some of the foundations of American leadership in the world such as the defense alliance with Japan and South Korea ….”.
For more details about the “international liberal order” or the “Liberal Leviathan” read:
Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order, G. John Ikenberry (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011).
No doubt that Trump represents a Transatlantic movement and aspirations that are well received internationally and that will serve America and the world against the “international liberal order”.
There is no other way to avoid the evil Clinton than to vote for Trump, he can save America and the world from the rotten Establishment and the secret societies that killed JFK.
Facing an individual is much easier and repairable than being under a Mafia.
If international ruling elite in Europe are detached form their USA power house and defense system this will devastate them and even they may assassinate Trump.
Trump is not a professional politician and that is a credit and surely his manners and policies will be corrected and improve by experience because he is a businessman and he will limit the goals of foreign policies on peaceful businesses.
Stopping the current disastrous policies are necessary but Trump’s alternatives are not yet clear but surely it will be practical and for the wider interests than the current ones.
I expect him to extend hands to other political groups to strengthen his position against the international Establishment.
Therefore, be pragmatic and vote for Trump, then guide him with supportive assistance.
I wonder why experienced politians in the USA cannot recognize the opportunities in this year’s presidential election? They must have much better negotiating skills and try to get the best out of this appalling race. All people know for long time that it is impossible to get ideal presidential candidates, and you cannot wait for vain.
Instead of complaining from the empty half (unfit candidates) why don’t you cultivate and build on the little available (chance of change). Now, it is already clear that no other candidate can appear or win. Why don’t you work together with Trump first, instead of dividing voters, to dismantle the bad Establishment then later participlate in forming real democracy in USA?
Electing Trump is a great chance for collective leadership that he will have no choice to refuse. He simply cannot rule alone against entrenched powerful interests. You miss this chance and the USA is doomed.
Trump is not the best choice but the best chance
South Asia Analysis Group Paper No. 5446 By R.Upadhyay Dated 2-Apr-2013
Some Statements of the Leaders!
Maulana Mahmood Madani, General Secretary of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind while addressing a rally in Delhi on March 5, 2013 demanded reservation for Muslims in proportion to their population along with various other demands for the community.
Last month Dr. Syed Zafar Mahmood, President of Zaqat Foundation of India put forward a 15-point charter of demands for Muslims like establishment of Indian Waqf Service, de-reservation of Muslim dominated constituency, evolving procedure to nominate Muslims in public position and establishing equivalence between Madrasa and other education.
In March 2012 Syed Shahabuddin in a public meeting appealed to the Muslims not to vote for Congress if their demand for reservation in Government jobs and educational institutions is not fulfilled.
Raising repeated communal demands is not new for the Muslim leaders. With never ending demands through various organisations like Muslim Personal Law Board, Waqf Board, Muslim Personal Law Board, Minority Commission and various other Islamic organisations and institutions, the Muslim leadership not only debars the community from developing a sense of national identity and a scientific outlook but also push them under the control of the Islamist orthodoxy.
The Islamist Mullahs, not to be outdone, tend to for an alliance with these self-seeking Muslim leaders to keep the community away from the mainstream secular and democratic environment and goes for a separate identity for their community which would only harm the interests of the community in the long run.
Historically, the Muslim ruling class belonging to Arab, Turk, Central Asian and Afghan ancestry always treated the natives of the sub-continent as conquered and subject race. Ironically, they even kept the local converts isolated from the socio-religious life of mainstream Muslim society and treated them as inferior Muslims.
A Turkish cleric Ziauddin Barani, a leading courtier of Mohammad bin Tughlaq(1325-1351) issued aFatawa-i-Jahandari appealing the Sultan to protect the Ashraf (High born Muslims) and keep the Ajlaf (Low born Muslims) firmly under their control. Referring Quran in support of his views, he insisted that the Sultan should consider it as a religious duty to deny the Ajlaf access to knowledge, branding them as mean and despicable. He further advised that “teachers of every kind are to be sternly ordered not to thrust precious stones down the throat of dogs or to put collars of gold round the necks of pigs and bears …”. (Yoginder Sikand quoting Mohammad Habib & Afsar ‘Umar Salim Khan, The Political Theory of the Delhi Sultanate and translation of Ziauddin Barani’s Fatawa-i Jahandari Circa 1358-9 A.D. page. 49). The subsequent Ulema often quoted Barani’s Fatwa-i-jahandari to prove this widely shared superior attitude of medieval Muslims towards the Ajlaf.
Despite the prevailing hate-native mindset of the ruling class Muslims, Moghul Emperor Akbar ((1556-1605) adopted a strategy to win over the Hindu rulers by encouraging marriage alliance between the daughters of the Hindu kings and the Muslim ruling class, accommodating some Hindus in his court and withdrawing the jaziya tax imposed on the Hindus. He himself married the sister of Man Singh. He also introduced Deen-e-Ilahi in 1582 to accommodate the ethical aspects of different religions. But the other face of Akbar is not known to many even now.
Many do not know that Akbar changed the name of Prayag to Allahabad (also pronounced as Ilahabad) in 1583 to commemorate Deen-e-Ilahi. This was much against the religious sentiments of the Hindus who still revere Prayag as Tirthraj (King of all the religious places). Similarly, there was hardly any instance that girl from ruling Muslim class ever married any Hindu.
Whatever little effort Akbar might have made to woo the confidence of the Hindu rulers, the orthodox Islamists particularly a hate-Hindu and hate Shia activist Shaykh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564-1624) of Naqshbandi Sufi order declared Akbar,s actions to be blasphemy to Islam and denounced his reign as where “the son of guidance was hidden behind the error”.
For his work in rejuvenating Islam and opposing the heterodoxies of Akbar, Sarhindi is described as Mujaddid (Renovator of Islam). His tirade against the Hindus and Shia Muslims through letters written in Persian not only to his disciples but also to the influential Muslims in the court of Jahangir had a great influence in turning the heterodoxies of Akbar to orthodoxies, which were pursued by all the successive Muslim rulers from Jahangir to Aurangzeb. His considerable and long lasting influence on Muslim intellectuals had a permanent impact in putting a stamp on Islamic orthodoxy to Indian Islam.
With the fading glory of Islamist rule followed by political disorder after the death of Aurangzeb, Shah Waliullah (1704-1762) another Islamic mystic of the Sufi tradition of Sunnism carried forward the legacy of the Islamist orthodoxy of Sarhindi and propagated his religio-political thought that was based on the ‘Persio -Islamic theory of kingship’ (Shah Wali Allah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page 397). He wanted the Muslim society to return to the Prophet era for the political unity of the then Muslim rulers. He translated the writings of Sirhindi from Persian to Arabic to inspire the Muslim Indians.
The political rise of non-Muslims like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers was so unbearable to Shah Wali Ullah that he took it as a consequent danger to Islam of its political heritage. He therefore, wrote to Shah Abdali, Amir of Afghan saying, “…all control of power is with the Hindus because they are the only people who are industrious and adaptable. Riches and prosperity are theirs, while Muslims have nothing but poverty and misery. At this juncture you are the only person, who has the initiative, the foresight, the power and capability to defeat the enemy and free the Muslims from the clutches of the infidels. God forbid if their domination continues Muslims will even forget Islam and become undistinguishable from the non-Muslims” (Dr. Sayed Riaz Ahmad in his book ‘Maulana Maududi and Islamic state’ – Lahore People’s Publishing House, page 15 – 1976). It was the effect of Waliullah’s letter that Abdali attacked India and defeated the Marathas in third battle of Panipat in 1761.
Waliullah’s political Islamic theory not only kept alive the religious life of Indian Muslims linked with their inner spirit for re-establishment of Islamic political authority in India but also deprived them of a forward-looking vision. Being so much obsessed to his Arab origin he was strongly opposed to the integration of Islamic culture in the cultural cauldron of the sub-continent and wanted the Muslims to ensure their distance from it. “Waliullah did not want the Muslims to become part of the general milieu of the sub-continent. He wanted them to keep alive their relation with rest of the Muslim world so that the spring of their inspiration and ideals might ever remain located in Islam and tradition of world community developed by it”. (The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent by Istiaq Hussain Qureshi, 1985, page 216). “In his opinion, the health of Muslim society demanded that doctrines and values inculcated by Islam should be maintained in their pristine purity unsullied by extraneous influences” (Ibid. page 215). The religio-political ideology of Wali Ullah made a permanent crack in Hindu–Muslim relation in this sub-continent, which undermined the self-pride and dignity of integrated Indian society.
Waliullh’s son Abd al Aziz (1746-1823) carried forward the legacy of his father as a result India faced violent communal disorder for decades. Aziz’s disciple Saiyid Ahmad of Rai Bareli under the deep influence of the jehadi spirit of the faith propounded by Waliullah and Sunni extremism of Maulana Wahab of Saudi Arabia launched jehad against the non-Islamic power of the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh with a view to restore Dar-ul-Islam (A land, where Islam is having political power). Though, he was killed in the battle of Balkot in May 1831, Muslims in the sub-continent still regard him as martyr for the cause of Islam.
Islam in Danger:
The slogan of ‘Islam is in danger’ – is profoundly embedded in the hate- ideology of Sarhindi, Waliullah and Sayid Ahmad Barelvi. The successive Muslim thinkers drew inspiration from their religio-political thought and carried forward his mission, which ultimately gave birth to the Islamic politics in India.
Tired with their successive failures and final loss of the Moghul Empire to the British in 1857, the demoralised Muslim leaders adopted a new strategy to re-strengthen the community by launching movement for Islamic revivalism.
Since the loss Muslim power to the British in 1857, the former ruling class Muslims developed a sense of embattled community and were bent on retrieving their lost status. They were suspicious of the formation of Indian National Congress and took it a well designed conspiracy of their former subjects to frustrate their attempt to restore the lost Islamic power.
The post-Mogul leaders from Sir Syed Ahmad to Mohammamad Ali Jinnah while carrying the ideological legacy of Sheikh Ahmad Sarhindi, Shah Waliullah, Abd al Aziz Syed Ahmad Barellvi and Mawlana Wahab of Saudi Arabia succeeded in creation of Pakistan which was the logical outcome of their separatist frame of mind.
Post Partition of India:
The problem of the Muslim masses in post-partition India is that their leaders were mostly the descendants of the pre-British ruling class that was still suffering from the medieval mental load of superiority to the native Indians whom they treated as a conquered and subject race during Muslim rule. They stayed back in India after partition voluntarily but were not ready to either understand the secular and democratic reality of the country or prepared to be content with the constitutional right of equal citizenship. They have no problem in enjoying special constitutional privilege, democratic dividends, complete political, economic, educational and religious liberty, but have no inhibition in raising communal demands when it suits them. Therefore, instead of guiding their community members for living together with the non-Muslim majority as equal citizens they have turned them into a demanding community in the name of religious minority.
Using religion as a protective device for their communal politics they create irrelevant emotions by equating Islam with language, things, culture, tradition, ideas and values of Persio-Arab regions not only to keep the Muslim masses under the perpetual mental siege of medievalism but also to push them away from fundamental issues that face the whole of the country. They do not realise that introducing religion for political game is counterproductive as it would only communalise the Indian society.
These leaders remain insensitive towards the political, social, economic and educational aspirations of the Muslim masses as they treat them also as a subject race because of their Indian origin. They never think in terms of the modern world view of democracy and secularism as their objective is mainly to secure acceptability in Indian politics by using the descendants of the native converts as personal vote bank.
The most unfortunate part of the situation was that those leaders who considered themselves superior to the people of Indian descent did not re-formulate the neo-political aspirations of the whole community in the changed scenario. A free hand was given to the Islamic clerics for continuing the movement for Islamic revivalism.
Jamaat-Ulema-e-Hind dominated Muslim leadership due to the mental burden of self-acclaimed cultural superiority to the natives remained so obsesse to the loss of their socio-political domination over the former subjects that they “hardly seem (ed) to be in a mood to be content with the mere rights of equal citizenship”( Narahar Kurundk ar, “The Muslim Problem in Indian Politics,” in Quest 67, October-December 1970).
Initially, the Muslims were a demoralised minority after partition. Their leaders compromised with the ruling establishment and maintained low profile but within a couple of decades when the political dominance of Indian National Congress started diminishing with many states coming under the rule of coalition partners, they could recover and exploit the vote-greedy political parties. The financial support from the oil-rich Muslim world added to their organisational growth. The gradual consolidation of the voting strength of the community and rise of regional and caste-centric parties when coalition government helped them.
Although, Maulana Azad tried to convince the community members to be realistic in the new political environment, his appeal to the community for their integration in the secular democratic mainstream of the country failed to get desired result.
The leaders of the community never made any effort to counter the movement of the organisation like Tabligh Jamaat marching from village to village and encouraging Islamic obscurantism which even condemned the Muslims who were not keeping beard or wearing traditional Indian dresses etc. No campaign was launched by any Muslim leader to guide the community that how should they live in secular and democratic environment.
It is a fact that the Muslims cannot come to power at their own but it is also a fact that so long the political parties are caste and region centric none of them is in a position to come to power without the support of the Muslims. The leaders of all political hues without exception are responsible for this state of affairs
How does one deal with the combative statements quoted in the beginning of this paper? The remedy has to come from within. These leaders who do not appear to be interested in the welfare of community make irresponsible demands for their own personal ends. They must be rejected by the common man and woman of the community.
This is a proposal for an innovative system of governance. Three Dimensional Democracy (3D or XYZ Democracy) aims to replace inherited western-designed political system to make real reforms and development in any economy and its power structure.
Looking closely into the build up of any nation in the world, they might be grouped at least in three different ways. The first category is social; in terms of ethnic and tribal cultures. The second category is political; concerning ideological and intellectual affiliations. And the third category is economic; regarding professional and business activities.
Modern liberal democracy which is based on majority rule is one-dimensional and unable to protect and promote various interests. Thus, it usually interacts with people in accordance to their political party affiliation only. They drop from their considerations any social and economic attachments. And therefore, these affiliations seek essential outlets through illegal political practices and corruption. This is because the disregard of recognition does not lead to disappearance of social and economic affiliations.
By so doing, Liberal Democracy creates threats to the interests and the very existence of minorities and to social peace and to the different functions of state institutions. Therefore, monopoly of power by a political party and its hidden dominant ethnic group and their privileged elites, even for a limited period, destroys democracy and disfranchise the rest. They undermine social, political and economic justices permanently. This situation results in creation of civic police dictatorships working through legal and constitutional legitimacy conferred by the established system.
The alternative is clearly in distributing power in the three axes. This could be achieved by considering the nation in its social; economic and political layers or aspects; analogous to a three-dimensional cube.
The first axis (X) is the Social Dimension relating to tribal, ethnic and cultural affiliations and composition.
The second axis (Y) represents economic dimension; in respect to professional, business and trade affiliations and composition.
The third axis (Z) regarding the political dimension; dealing with partisan, ideological and intellectual affiliations and composition.
Reinventing democracy by creating Three Dimensional Democracy (3D or XYZ Democracy) is about advocating
1- The right of all citizens to elect and have at least three representatives in their parliaments to protect their distinct social, economic and political interests.
2- Parliament must be gradually equally shared by men and women in the three different assemblies.
3- The powers of trade & business unions; and also cultural communities must be increased to level with political parties.
The international markets are not following the deceptive “supply and demand” rule.
Look at this picture and it tells a sad story. It is better to look the other way around and say a fucking bucket of chicken is more expensive than a barrel of oil. The wrong mentality of the West pushes to make anything they produce very expensive and make the resources of other nations very cheap.
And they call Economics a “Science”!! how on Earth the Supply and Demand” rule applies in this case!! Economics is an art and in the West it is pornographic.
This is organized crime.