Protect Democracy & Expose Western Liberal Democracy

Posts tagged ‘nationalism’

Three Dimensional National Democracy (3DND) Proposal


Three Dimensional National Democracy (3DND)

Three Dimensional National Democracy (3DND)

Three Dimensional National Democracy (3DND) is a proposal for an innovative system of wider representative governance. Three Dimensional National Democracy (3DND) 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 buildup 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 National Democracy (3DND) 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.

Natural Nationality and Citizenship Law (NNAC)


Natural Nationality and Citizenship Law

Natural Nationality and Citizenship Law

This is a draft of a personal idea to create a new nationality and citizenship law. The aims of this law proposal are:
1- To save nature and develop the environment;
2- To protect the indigenous or first people and their responsibilities, economy and cultures;
3- To give freedom to new-born to choose their nationality, religious belief and culture.

The Principles of Natural Nationality and Citizenship Law (NNAC)
1– Any land, as a part of nature, cannot be owned by people, governments or individuals; but nature can only be served.
2– Replace the concept of ownership with guardianship for all assets that cannot be produced or manufactured.
3– Any piece of land and all other natural assets can only be utilized and developed in return for annual rental contract fees.
4– The annual rental fees shall be collected by the government and paid to the local first people.
5– Any consistent negligence, abuse, or misuse of natural assets rental contract shall revoke the utilization and development contracts.
6– Individuals and groups shall own the manufactured and products of land and all other natural assets but not the assets themselves.
7– A first people are the known first inhabitant of a territory of land known indigenous tribe. Any first people are the only legitimate guardians of the territory of historic land where they live.
8– The rights of nature’s guardianship of any first people must be respected and protected by all people and governments and international organizations.
9– Citizenship shall have different categories depending on the levels of duties and rights eligible for each category.
10- Citizenship categories shall include: mature citizens; those below maturity of age; refugees; foreign contract workers; residents for long time; and honored persons.
11- Nationality is a timed legal contract between an individual and a first people, and first people are the only authority to grant nationality.
12- Nationality cannot be maintained for life or inherited or to be granted to non-citizens or to those below maturity of age.
13- Nationality can only be granted after an individual proves to any first people the allegiance of mindful devotion, heartfelt love, and mutual interests.
14- Nationality shall be renewed periodically; and may expire or be revoked by either party of the contact once any condition of the contract is legally ceased to exist.
15- Nationality is independent of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, residency, parents’ nationality, marriage, and place of birth.
16- Infants and below maturity of age are considered universal citizens and without nationality, political responsibilities and religious affiliation.
17- Governments shall only implement and process the decisions of nationality taken by each local nation of first people.
18- Decisions concerning citizenship and immigration shall be taken by governments according to the established laws and regulations.
19- Renewal and revocation of nationality contract shall be organized and maintained by the specialized courts of each local nation of first people.
20- The Natural Nationality and Citizenship Law (NNAC) shall gradually replace the current nationality, citizenship and immigration laws and regulations.

Any Form of Imperialism Is Utterly Evil


Any Form of Imperialism Is Utterly Evil

Any Form of Imperialism Is Utterly Evil

Africa must learn from its history and its present time; and also from World’s history and contemporary struggles.

Imperialism Is Utterly Evil whether it is Western; Eastern; Arabic; African; or any other form. The United States of America; The United States of Europe; a United States of Africa; or other Imperialist designs are against the national interests and sovereignty of free nations. Unity is extremely good; but what kind of unity that could be praised?

Unity is like marriage cannot involve abuse; injustice; or violence. Both are contracts between free people with equal rights and they require continuous consent.

Any successful form of government must recognize and adhere to these facts. That is why federation or confederation of nation-states is much better than those grand schemes of elite tyranny, such as the USA; The EU; and a United States of Africa. Unity grows slowly from healthy seeds; and it is not comfortable prison or slavery.

Those African leaders who called for a United States of Africa are trying to straighten a healthy curve and make shortcuts. Tribalism and nationalism are the building bricks for a stronger African continent. There is no good reason to marginalize or defame Tribalism and nationalism and at the same time to call for African; European; Asian; or American Unity.

The Financial Times Admits Agenda For Centralized Dictatorial Global Government


The Financial Times Admits Agenda For Centralized Dictatorial Global Government

The Financial Times Admits Agenda For Centralized Dictatorial Global Government

The Financial Times Editorial Openly Admits Agenda For A Centralized, Anti-Democratic, Dictatorial Global Gov’t

The 4th Media News | Tuesday, June 26, 2012, 11:52 Beijing

The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.

For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty. Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media.

Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.

A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed.

“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.

Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of “soothing language” that is used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.

Meet Henry Kissinger Baritone

Meet Henry Kissinger Baritone

“But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on,” says Rachman. “Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.

“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

“So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government,” concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful”.

Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” writes Rachman.

So there you have it – one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.

Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the world’s most influential newspapers admits to the fact?

Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?

The CIA-MI6-Mossad Installed Muslim Brotherhood into Power


Installed Muslim Brotherhood into Power

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Western Trojan Horse that has come to power in Egypt thanks to the indispensable support of the CIA-MI6-Mossad brotherhood.

The 4th Media News | Friday, June 29, 2012, 14:48 Beijing

“The West’s ability to install a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, with it’s substantial regional standing and influence would be a serious blow not only to Syria, but to Iran as well. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is already echoing calls by the US and Israel for “intervention” in Syria.” – Tony Cartalucci,“US Struggles to Install Proxy “Brotherhood” in Egypt.”

“The USA has got its candidate into power in Egypt.” – Aangirfan, “USA Takes Over Egypt.”

Stuxnet and Flame are not the only viruses that have been created by the U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies. The Muslim Brotherhood is perhaps Washington’s most successful and dangerous virus that it has injected into the veins of the Middle East. It is an intellectual virus that destroys critical thinking among Muslims, excites their animal passions, and makes them act against their own interests.

With this virus firmly embedded in Egypt’s social and political life, Washington has guaranteed its position in the region for years to come. But by no means does the Muslim Brotherhood have anything close to a majority of popular support in Egypt. Since half the country didn’t vote in the election, the new president Mohammed Morsi only has the backing of “26% of the full electorate.”

Whatever course Morsi decides to take Egypt in the coming months, it is already clear that his government will resemble a gang even more than the one currently in power. The only difference is that Washington wanted the Muslim Brotherhood on top in Egypt, so it won.

What does Morsi’s win in Egypt mean for relations between the Western world and the Islamic world? I don’t know. But say goodbye to the Arab Spring, and say hello to the Islamist Summer. Washington’s Muslim Brotherhood is the new face of Egypt. In the past year, similar radical Islamist groups have taken over in Libya and Tunisia as the result of illegal Western interventions.

Well played, Washington, London, and Tel Aviv. Now you have your war against Islam. Now you can point at the bad guys, the rising Islamists, and tell your populations to hate and fear.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a Western Trojan Horse that has come to power in Egypt thanks to the indispensable support of the CIA-MI6-Mossad brotherhood.

9/11 didn’t do enough to stir the passions and subdue the Western mind under a dark cloud of terror. The rise of Islamists in the wake of the CIA’s Arab Spring might do the trick. The West has the jitters now. The Muslim Brotherhood is in power. Oooooh, so scary. “Oh my God, not the Muslim Brotherhood. O’ Government Master, please keep me safe from those bad guys. I’ll do anything you want.”

The success of the Muslim Brotherhood at the polls is a big win for the Israeli government, which was secretly supporting Morsi all along.

How does Israel win? It can identify the Muslim Brotherhood as a powerful enemy of Israel that’s been democratically elected by Egyptian voters, and continue to portray Arabs as anti-Jewish extremists. Israel’s PR machine was spinning into gear even before the votes were counted. Israel was like, “Let’s go Muslim Brothers. Win, baby, win. Win so we can have war.”

After helping Washington to put Islamic extremists in power across North Africa, Israel can say to the world, “Look, we’re surrounded by our enemies, the rising Islamic extremists. Help! Help! I’m drowning! I’m drowning! Help!” And Washington will respond, “Oh, my dear Israel, you poor thing, here are more weapons for your new acts of aggression. Start new wars, as much as you like. We’re right here behind you, and we’re not going to let you drown.”

Washington’s new Islamist pawns in power in the Arab world could become very unpopular and an anti-Islamist coalition may rise and defeat them. Or not. The victory of the Muslim Brotherhood shows that America’s last days in the heartland of Arabia are still very far away.

The Excavator

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/cia-mi6-mossad-brotherhood-trick-egypt.html

Related:

5 Facts That Prove Radical Islam Is A Child of American-British-Israeli Intelligence 
Whose Spring? The CIA’s Hand In The Rise of Islamists And International Terrorist Groups
Giving Americans And Muslims Reasons To Fight: 9/11, Al-Qaeda, Drones, And Counterinsurgency

USA-EU; Gulf Arab States and Turkey Arming Violence in Syria


US State Sponsored Terrorism Official Policy

US State Sponsored Terrorism Official Policy

A strange coalition between the USA-EU; Gulf Arab sheikhdoms and ambitious Turkey is arming violence in Syria. The whole acts in Syria are definitely not about democracy. They are aimed at destroying Russia; Iran and nationalism in the region.

It is part of the wider plan of corrupt western so-called “Arab Spring”. The claimed “Spring” should start in the globalist USA; in Gulf Arab Sheikhdoms and in the secret-societies-controlled Turkey.
Now it is more obvious that terrorism has become public government foreign policy in the USA-EU; Gulf Arab sheikhdoms and Turkey.

Lebanon intercepts ship bearing arms destined for Syrian rebels.

The Express Tribune News Network published on April 28, 2012:

By AFP

[SELAATA, LEBANON: The Lebanese navy intercepted three containers of weapons destined for Syrian rebel forces on board a ship originating from Libya, a security official told AFP on Saturday.

The cargo contained heavy machine guns, artillery shells, rockets, rocket launchers and other explosives, the official said. A second security official said the Sierra Leone-flagged Lutfallah II had previously obtained a permit to enter the port of Tripoli in northern Lebanon before being stopped by the navy on Thursday night.

The vessel was towed to Selaata, a small port some 50 kilometers (30 miles) north of Beirut. News reports said the ship had called at the Egyptian port of Alexandria en route from Libya.

An AFP reporter saw three army trucks leave Selaata for Beirut with the seized containers, escorted by eight jeeps and a helicopter. A resident told AFP that the ship weighed anchor in the morning, escorted by the navy to an unknown destination.
The security source said that the captain and crew were handed over to military intelligence officers in Tripoli for further questioning.
Syrian authorities have repeatedly charged that weapons are being smuggled from Lebanon to rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.]

Gulf Move to Arm Syrian Rebels Swells

Special Report: UPI.com
Published: April 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

[DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, April 10 (UPI) — The United States has indicated it won’t block Persian Gulf monarchies seeking to arm Syrian insurgents fighting the Iranian-backed Damascus regime, although Washington says it won’t do so itself — for now, anyway.
U.S. President Barack Obama, seeking to win re-election in November amid a weak economy, doesn’t want to become entangled in a conflict in Syria.

But, some analysts say, letting the Saudis and their neighbors funnel arms to the disparate forces arrayed against embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad gives the administration a fair bit of wiggle room.
The Americans say they fear that arming the Syrian opposition, particularly the Free Syrian Army slowly taking shape, will accelerate a long-dreaded civil war that would then be harder to stop.

At the recent Friends of Syria conference in Istanbul, the Americans and their allies warned that unless Assad called off the regime’s attacks on Syria’s people and implemented a U.N.-backed peace plan, rebel forces will be provided with weapons from outside, sharply ratcheting up the intensity of the insurrection.

“That in effect gives Washington’s blessing to a Saudi Arabian bid to arm the opposition,” the Financial Times observed.
At the very least, it marked a shift in the U.S. administration’s position of seeking to avoid a sectarian civil war in Syria, primarily between the Sunni Muslim majority and the Alawite minority regime, that could spill over to Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan.
Memories of Afghanistan and Iraq are never far away.

Britain and Turkey have indicated they wouldn’t stand in the way of the Saudis and the gulf states.
Western officials say they haven’t detected large-scale weapons transfers to the FSA, which is seeking to forge a cohesive alliance among the fragmented Syrian opposition groups.

But they said the Saudis, who have long been firmly opposed to the Syrian regime founded by Assad’s father in 1970, are turning a blind eye to arms purchases for the FSA by opposition Syrian businessmen in the Persian Gulf.
Syrian opposition figures have been reportedly meeting Saudi intelligence chiefs in Turkey and Europe to determine what arms the FSA needs.

Anti-tank missiles to counter the regime’s crippling armor reportedly have top priority.
“The decision to arm the rebels has been taken in principle but it has not yet been implemented,” said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Institute of Strategic Studies, a Saudi-funded think tank in Dubai.

Russia and China, Assad’s main diplomatic friends after his Iranian allies, have stymied U.N. and Arab League efforts led by former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and backed by the West. The breakaway move by the gulf powers may have short-circuited those.
But, at its core, the Saudis’ strategy has more to do with the Sunni-Shiite split in Islam, Syria’s Alawites being a Shiite offshoot, and countering Iran than anything else. And in the long run, that religious fissure is probably more deep-rooted and enduring than any other factor concerning Syria.

There are wider considerations for the Americans. They’ve found that on the geo-strategic level the conflict tearing apart a longtime opponent who has frequently stymied U.S. policy in the Middle East has other benefits.
The Saudis and their partners are increasingly at odds with Moscow and Beijing, who have blocked international initiatives Damascus didn’t like.

That suits the Americans just fine. They’ve been alarmed at the diplomatic gains Russia and China, eyes on the gulf’s oil, have been making in the Middle East of late, mostly at the United States’ expense.
“Taking advantage of the profound sense of insecurity and alienation sweeping the Saudi regime, the United States is about to realize the dream project of shepherding the GCC states into its global missile defense architecture,” observed veteran regional analyst M. K. Bhadrakumar.

The gulf states, long-riven by historical dynastic rivalries, had balked at working together on missile defense until the Iranian threat began to loom large in recent years.

Now, Bhadrakumar noted, “geopolitical the arc of the United States’ global missile defense system extending from Central Europe through Turkey is … poised to take a leap across the Middle East to graze the waters of the Indian Ocean.
“In sum, Washington ties in the oil-rich Persian Gulf and can always revisit the crisis in Syria in due course.”]

Friends of Syria Salary to the Rebels

İstanbul : Turkey | Apr 02, 2012 at 9:29 AM PDT By Guryea Janu posted on Allvoices.com

[The Syrian National Council has announced that the Syrian President Bashar fighting against the government will be given salaries for the rebels. In Istanbul, Turkey city friends of Syria Syria after a meeting of the opposition in the Syrian National Council has announced that the Syrian government leave with the soldiers will be given money.

70 Western and Arab countries in the meeting of foreign ministers of the government of Syria to increase pressure on the procedures. Syria named friends of the organization of the meeting was the second. To participate in the conference of the foreign ministers rich gulf countries according to the Syrian National Council tens of million dollars will be provided monthly.

During the meeting, the Syrian National Council, Burhan galyun said the Syrian National Council, all the free Syrian army officials and soldiers and other members to pay the salaries will take the responsibility.However, this is that the Syrian National Council on the Syrian people spokesman. During a news conference of Turkey to the Syrian foreign minister Ahmad grandfather warned that the United Nations and the Arab League’s joint ambassador by Kofi Annan peace plan proposed by final.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also have the same stand, said that the president Bashar al-Assad have more time for delay and causes. Although before the meeting on behalf of the Syrian National Council was demanded that rebel soldiers or free Syrian army weapons should be made available during the conference, but many countries including the United States and Turkey opposed it. He said that free Syrian army weapons war prepared to increase the possibility. However, Russia, China and important countries, including Iran not participate in the meeting.

On the other hand, the Syrian government on anti-government rebel combatants announced to win. It should be noted that the United Nations According to the president al-Assad against the last one year in protest issued till now more than nine thousand people have been killed.]

The European Union Is an Evil Plan


European Union Treaty of Nice

European Union Treaty of Nice

1986 was a turning point in the history of Europe in which the  Single  European  Act  was  signed  by  EU  governments. The Act was meant for providing  for  the creation of a single market in which people, goods, capital and services can move freely around the EC. But are they the real objectives of transforming the EC to EU?

The Treaty of Nice was signed by European leaders on 26 February 2001 and came into force on 1 February 2003. It amended the Maastricht Treaty (or the Treaty on European Union) and the Treaty of Rome (or the Treaty establishing the European Community).

It was widely accepted that the Treaty of Nice has failed to deal with the basic question of wide-ranging institutional reform, the European Union institutions being widely viewed as overly complicated, and hence the establishment of the European Convention, leading to a new IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) in 2004, was agreed at Nice.

Opponents of the Treaty claimed that it was a “technocratic” rather than “democratic” treaty, which would further diminish the sovereignty of national and regional parliaments, and would further concentrate power into a centralised and unaccountable bureaucracy. They also claimed that five applicant countries could have joined the EU without changing the EU’s rules, and that others could have negotiated on an individual basis; something opponents to the treaty argued would have been to the applicants’ advantage. They also claimed that the Treaty of Nice would create a two-tier EU. Opponents pointed out that leading pro-treaty politicians had admitted if referendums had been held in countries other than Ireland, it would probably have been defeated there as well.

The Commission and the European Parliament were disappointed that the Nice IGC did not adopt many of their proposals for reform of the institutional structure or introduction of new Community powers, such as the appointment of a European Public Prosecutor. The European Parliament threatened to pass a resolution against the Treaty; although it has no formal power of veto, the Italian Parliament threatened that it would not ratify without the European Parliament’s support. However, in the end this did not come to pass and the European Parliament approved the Treaty.

Nationalism and national sovereignty have no place in the new EU which is totally different from the original Treaties  of  Rome of the EC. With such plans it is very obvious that big economies in Europe are the only masters and winners in a vast European superstate.

%d bloggers like this: