Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘globalization’

Discover the Global Turkic Connection


Discover the Global Turkic Connection

Discover the Global Turkic Connection

This subject is so shockingly real and revealing to the extent that it is being deliberately hidden and suppressed over the internet and in the conventional mainstream academia and media.

Watch out for the Turkic Connection! To find out the true sources of slavery, NWO, counterfeited religions, and terrorism we have to go deeper than and depart the conventional mainstream academia, perceptions, and media.
In my opinion it is all about covering up and expanding the Turkic connection and Turanians.
1- Turkic Anatolia, (fake Caucasians),
2- Turkic Persia, (fake Shia Iranians),
3- Turkic Zionists (fake Jewish Israelite),
4- Turkic rulers of Arabia, (fake Muslim Arabs)
5- Turkic Indians (fake Hindu Aryans), and
6- Turkic Europeans (fake liberal Christians)

Most monarchies, bankers, and politicians in Europe and USA are of their making since the so-called English, French, American, and Russian “Revolutions”. These Turkic groups committed all sorts of crimes in Asia, Europe, Levant, Arabia, and Africa.

With just a little of common sense and investigation people can easily find the real historic Turkic connections between them beneath their deceptive mutual hostilities and malignant policies.

Donald Trump Versus the Liberal Leviathan


Liberal Leviathan

Liberal Leviathan

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”.

EU Targets Central and Eastern Russia


EU Targets Central and Eastern Russia

EU Targets Central and Eastern Russia

world population density

world population density

Europe has a very violent long history. This is due to the fact that it has very limited natural resources and land. The population density in Europe is the highest in the World. Add to this, it population is controlled by very selfish elites and groups who have insatiable greed and dangerous ambitions.

The concept of territorial expansionism is endemic in Europe. The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain “Lebensraum” (German for “habitat” or literally “living space”) as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories.

For Europeans, most of Africa is only suitable for looting resources, but African environment and its population is, considered by Europeans, unfit and hostile for colonization. This is equally true for all Asia south of Russia.

Australia; Latin America and Canada are not geographically adjacent to Europe. The remaining option for European massive territorial expansionism is only Russia.

Any weak government in Russia will allow the annexation of Ural; Siberia; and Far-Eastern Russia to Europe. Also, any policies of appeasement or defensive policies will certainly crumble against the consistent and aggressive European territorial expansionism.

The only peaceful solution to these threats to Russia is by bringing political and conceptual democratic revolutions in Europe to reverse the EU imperial ambitions.

 

Occupy’s Pledge to FIGHT BACK


Occupy's Pledge to FIGHT BACK

Occupy’s FIGHT BACK

Occupy’s Pledge to FIGHT BACK

We Didn’t Start the Class War

(This is a partial copy of online form from OccupyWallSt.org

To act now please check the form at: Will you help us wage resistance?)

The 1% wreck our economy, kill our jobs, seize our homes, assault our rights, destroy the environment, and sentence us to lives of debt and war. For years, we have petitioned our governments for change without redress and have fought tirelessly to elect politicians who only betray us. In a world where the 1% have usurped democracy and politicians refuse to serve the people, the people have but one choice—to fight back!

The relentless class war against the 99% must end. We’ve been deceived our whole lives into believing the only way to create change is by voting, but now we’re learning there’s another way. A revolution for real democracy is underway, and it falls on each and every one of us to fight together for our common future. We will cast the vote of resistance. We will take direct action to shut this broken system down and build a better world that works in the interest of all people, everywhere.

Will you help us wage resistance?

  1. I pledge to come out in the streets when Occupy calls for a day of action.
  2. I pledge to attend at least one meeting with my local Occupy group.
    Click Here to find one in your area
  3. I pledge to help promote #occupy news and actions via social media.
  4. I pledge to donate what I make in one hour to an Occupy-related project.
    Click Here for our curated list of places to donate
  5. I pledge to never go to work during a general strike.
  6. I pledge to help organize my co-workers to make demands. It doesn’t matter if I’m behind a desk, a cash register, or a machine—we deserve better treatment.
    Click Here to learn how
  7. I pledge to attend a direct action / civil disobedience training session.
    Click Here for NYC Summer Disobedience School
    Click Here for online video training
  8. I pledge to dump my bank and join a credit union.
    Click Here to find one in your area
  9. I pledge to start an affinity group to occupy something.
    This can be just about anything. Like a park, a farm, defending a foreclosed home, or holding a sit-in at your town hall or school. You might only need a half dozen or so dedicated people. Issue demands if you like, but don’t go home until they’re met. You can even use blockading to make it extra hard for them to remove you. Remember: Occupying is a militant nonviolent tactic meant to assert control over physical space by reclaiming it for a new purpose while disrupting the ability of your adversary to use that space, thus forcing recognition of your cause. You don’t need a permit any more than Martin Luther King Jr. needed permission to hold sit-ins at lunch counters. This is the very meaning of civil disobedience, but it also means you’ll be risking arrest so you should consider seeking legal counsel beforehand. How much does change mean to you?

Source: Occupy’s Pledge to FIGHT BACK

email: general@occupywallst.org | help line: +1 (516) 708-4777

Pledge to Fight Back

Fellow occupier, we need your help to end the relentless class war against the 99%. Sign your name to something better by taking the FIGHT BACK pledge at OccupyWallSt.org.

http://occupywallst.org/fightback/

Why should I promise to fight? Because the 1% wreck our economy, kill our jobs, seize our homes, assault our rights, destroy the environment, and sentence us to lives of debt and war. For years, we have petitioned our governments for change without redress and have fought tirelessly to elect politicians who only betray us. In a world where the 1% have usurped democracy and politicians refuse to serve the people, the people have but one choice—to fight back!

How can I fight? Occupiers use direct action

to create change, because it works better than voting and is way more fun. Read the pledge to learn how to use some of these tactics.

“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.” – Howard Zinn

Click here and pledge to flight back today!

If you’ve already signed, please forward this to a friend or consider a donation to support a part of the occupy movement.

Best wishes for Russia and Putin


Vladimir Putin cry at victory

Vladimir Putin cry at victory

My heartily congratulations for the election of Vladimir Putin.
Wishing you peaceful, strong and prosperous Russia; and greater role in the stability, development and justice in world affairs.

I am sure they will compensate developing nations from the failed hopes and disappointments resulted from the previous U.S. presidential election.

The RAND Corporation: America’s University of Imperialism


RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development)

RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development)

By Chalmers Johnson, TomDispatch.com

[This essay is a review written by Chalmers Ashby Johnson for the book: Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire by Alex Abella]

The RAND Corporation of Santa Monica, California, was set up immediately after World War II by the U.S. Army Air Corps (soon to become the U.S. Air Force). The Air Force generals who had the idea were trying to perpetuate the wartime relationship that had developed between the scientific and intellectual communities and the American military, as exemplified by the Manhattan Project to develop and build the atomic bomb.

Soon enough, however, RAND became a key institutional building block of the Cold War American Empire. As the premier think tank for the U.S.’s role as hegemon of the Western world, RAND was instrumental in giving that empire the militaristic cast it retains to this day and in hugely enlarging official demands for atomic bombs, nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers. Without RAND, our military-industrial complex, as well as our democracy, would look quite different.

Alex Abella, the author of Soldiers of Reason, is a Cuban-American living in Los Angeles who has written several well-received action and adventure novels set in Cuba and a less successful nonfiction account of attempted Nazi sabotage within the United States during World War II. The publisher of his latest book claims that it is “the first history of the shadowy think tank that reshaped the modern world.” Such a history is long overdue. Unfortunately, this book does not exhaust the demand. We still need a less hagiographic, more critical, more penetrating analysis of RAND’s peculiar contributions to the modern world.

Abella has nonetheless made a valiant, often revealing and original effort to uncover RAND’s internal struggles — not least of which involved the decision of analyst Daniel Ellsberg, in 1971, to leak the Department of Defense’s top secret history of the Vietnam War, known as The Pentagon Papers to Congress and the press. But Abella’s book is profoundly schizophrenic. On the one hand, the author is breathlessly captivated by RAND’s fast-talking economists, mathematicians, and thinkers-about-the-unthinkable; on the other hand, he agrees with Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis’s assessment in his book, The Cold War: A New History, that, in promoting the interests of the Air Force, RAND concocted an “unnecessary Cold War” that gave the dying Soviet empire an extra 30 years of life.

We need a study that really lives up to Abella’s subtitle and takes a more jaundiced view of RAND’s geniuses, Nobel prize winners, egghead gourmands and wine connoisseurs, Laurel Canyon swimming pool parties, and self-professed saviors of the Western world. It is likely that, after the American empire has gone the way of all previous empires, the RAND Corporation will be more accurately seen as a handmaiden of the government that was always super-cautious about speaking truth to power. Meanwhile, Soldiers of Reason is a serviceable, if often overwrought, guide to how strategy has been formulated in the post-World War II American Empire.

(more…)

U.S. Constitution no longer model for developing democracies


U.S. Model is Losing in Developing Democracies

U.S. Model is Losing in Developing Democracies

Adam Liptak wrote on The New York Times, on February 6, 2012, the following:

The Constitution has seen better days. Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.

In 1987, on the Constitution’s bicentennial, Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. version.”

A quarter-century later, the picture looks very different. “The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere,” according to a new study by David S. Law of Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteeg of the University of Virginia.

The study, to be published in June in The New York University Law Review, bristles with data. Its authors coded and analyzed the provisions of 729 constitutions adopted by 188 countries from 1946 to 2006, and they considered 237 variables regarding various rights and ways to enforce them.

“Among the world’s democracies,” Professors Law and Versteeg concluded, “constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s.”

“The turn of the twenty-first century, however, saw the beginning of a steep plunge that continues through the most recent years for which we have data, to the point that the constitutions of the world’s democracies are, on average, less similar to the U.S. Constitution now than they were at the end of World War II.”

There are lots of possible reasons. The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.” (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)

Other nations routinely trade in their constitutions wholesale, replacing them on average every 19 years. By odd coincidence, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1789 letter to James Madison, once said that every constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years” because “the earth belongs always to the living generation.” These days, the overlap between the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and those most popular around the world is spotty.

Americans recognize rights not widely protected, including ones to a speedy and public trial, and are outliers in prohibiting government establishment of religion. But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

The Constitution’s waning global stature is consistent with the diminished influence of the Supreme Court, which “is losing the central role it once had among courts in modern democracies,” Aharon Barak, then the president of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote in The Harvard Law Review in 2002.

Many foreign judges say they have become less likely to cite decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in part because of what they consider its parochialism.

“America is in danger, I think, of becoming something of a legal backwater,” Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia said in a 2001 interview. He said that he looked instead to India, South Africa and New Zealand.

Mr. Barak, for his part, identified a new constitutional superpower: “Canadian law,” he wrote, “serves as a source of inspiration for many countries around the world.” The new study also suggests that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart.

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

There are, of course, limits to empirical research based on coding and counting, and there is more to a constitution than its words, as Justice Antonin Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October. “Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights,” he said.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

Source: By Adam Liptak, The New York Times, Published: February 6, 2012

Adam Liptak is the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times.
Mr. Liptak, a lawyer, joined The Times’s news staff in 2002 and began covering the Supreme Court in the fall of 2008. He has written a column, “Sidebar,” on developments in the law, since 2007.
Mr. Liptak’s series on ways in which the United States’s legal system differs from those of other developed nations, “American Exception,” was a finalist for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize in explanatory reporting.
In 2005, Mr. Liptak examined the rise in life sentences in the United States in a three-part series. The next year, he and two colleagues studied connections between contributions to the campaigns of justices on the Ohio Supreme Court and those justices’ voting records. He was a member of the teams that examined the reporting of Jayson Blair and Judith Miller at The Times.

%d bloggers like this: