The Upcoming Elections in
Iraq
The New Stürmer - Year 2005
Before reading this week’s article let us look into true definitions of some words which our world is full of this days.
DEMOCRACY:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic---negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, and anarchy.
REPUBLIC:
The people of public officials best fitted to represent them derive authority through the election.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:
- 1 an executive and
- 2 a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all the power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
- 3 a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
- 4 certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of these four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
Xenocracy
In to day’s world there is one Greek word one should know and learn the meaning of - that word is xenocracy. This word as you see consist of two parts: xeno and cracy. The first meaning alien, strange, foreign. The second meaning rule. Set together these two words mean: rule by alien - rule by foreign.
In to day’s world - or rather during the last 55 years of the last century - all western countries have been XENOCRACIES.
Superior to all others
Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.
Constitutional. The founding fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, and with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy---and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."
Why Democracies Fail
A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship. (Written by Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler, nearly two centuries ago while the 13 original states were still colonies of Great Britain. At the time he was writing of the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.))
Before 1928 the exact and truthful definition of Democracy came from two Greek words. Demo and Cracy---meaning mob and rule. In a democracy 51% rules over the 49%. Whereas, In a representative Republic a majority of 2/3 (66.33%) rules.
Dear kindred and fellow Aryans
What have the Alien Soldiers been doing since Iraq was invaded?
The foreign soldiers in Iraq have done some of their "jobs" before the start of the war:
They have taken away all the WMD that was not in Iraq. Further these soldiers have "freed Iraq of Saddam", not that I recall that the majority Iraqis asking USrael to help them getting rid Saddam.
They have mistreated the Iraqi citizens and imprisoned some hundred thousands of them.
They have bombed many Iraqi towns and cities to rubble - killing children and old persons.
They have lotted Iraqi museums.
They have stolen part of the Iraqi oil wells and transferred them to Jewish owned companies.
All Iraqi reactions and attack on their own people for betrayal of country and people.
I trust you do see why so many Iraqis are showing their contempt for the occupational soldiers and the Iraqi handymen.
The upcoming election
On January 30, 2005, the Iraqi people, hopefully, will go to the election polls to elect their new president and parliament. This, according to the occupational forces, will be a free democratic election; but, in actuality, it is being established on USreal's bayonets.
The Iraqi interim government will not allow an election in all sections of the country because not all of the country is safe enough for "democracy." In spite of this, occupational forces claim an election in Iraq will be a democratic one. President Putin of Russia has said that an election can not be held in Iraq as long as the country is occupied. However, the USreal and the UK claim Iraq is a free country and therefore, can hold democratic elections even though many political parties have withdrawn from the election. The main Sunnite political party and its leader, Mohson Abdel Hamid, say that Iraq can not hold elections because there is not sufficient safety and security in the country. Not even the Shi’ah political party say an election can be held. They give the same reasons as the Sunnites.
What is more important for not holding an election is that not all of the Iraqi people will be able to participate. This is according to both the US and Iraqi administrations; they intend to allow only part of the country to elect candidates to the new parliament. This is very important since this parliament will be deciding, and debating, on a new Iraqi constitution. An election for such an important task MUST be for the entire country NOT just part of it. What is more important is that such an election must be held in a free country not occupied by foreign forces.
Because the elections can not preform freely, the international mass media will evaluate the outcome as undemocratic, and the internationalists will judge the elections as a fraud or whatever they decide to call it.
Other elections. Other times
After WWII Norway had an election, autumn of 1945. At that time Norway was occupied by UK and about 93,000 Norwegians were forbidden to vote in the election. These 93,000 Norwegians were suspected of membership in the Nasjonal Samling, the national party before and during WWII. Had these 93,000 been allowed to vote the composition of the first storting, Norwegian parliament, after WWII would have been different.
The last lawful government of The Third Reich, in May 1945, had all been imprisoned. This act of imprisonment of a lawful government, was against all international laws. Between May 1945, and until a new and free government could be elected, West Germany was occupied and ruled by the US and UK allied forces; then in 1949 the US occupational forces allowed a "free" election in Western Germany. East Germany was occupied by the Soviet Union, and separated by the Berlin Wall.
It is interesting to know the true facts of how the Germans felt in regards to which party they would vote for in 1947. Over 70 per cent of all Germans wanted a national socialist party. But such a party, or any other party, which wanted Germany as a strong nationalistic country, could not be allowed to participate in any post WWII election. The Jewish-dominated allied forces went on with their oppression of the free German spirit until 1949, when they decided it was time to allow "free democratic" elections in western Germany.
Some former NSDAP members and soldiers had started new political parties and wanted to participate in the elections, but none of these parties' candidates received enough votes to be elected to the parliament, although 70 per cents of all Germans had said they wanted a national socialistic party to govern them. By 1949 the public "majority" had changed their minds. Those who like to trust in fairy tails may believe that. The election in 1949 and all elections up and until 1960 were fixed in order to bring "democracy and freedom" to one of Europe’s most homogeneous countries. Yet no one cried out that the elections were fraudulent. The Zionists knew a bacillus can not survive in a healthy body. They also knew there would ever be a bacillus in any Germanic country, if, as seen from the vantage point of the Zionists, they could keep the Germanic soul inflicted, they could control not only these Germanic states, but later the whole of Europe.
Back to Iraq
What has actually happened in Iraq since President Bush Jr, in May 2003, declared his victory and the end of the war to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq? Iraqis have learned what the new constitution will contain and they want no part of it. The resistance from the Iraqis has increased and the number of soldiers killed fighting for a Zionist democracy and freedom keeps growing. Even to a 'naive' man as Bush Jr, it must be clear that most Iraqis do not want to live under Zionist rule. They rebel against the unlimited occupation which USreal has started. If the US and UK have brought freedom and democracy, and have made the Iraqis ready for an election, then they should clear out of the country and let them have this democracy and freedom---if they want to keep it. At least it will put an end to the unnecessary killing of innocent people and military.
Will the election be free and democratic?
The UN general secretary Kofi Annan has expressed to the puppet President of Iraq his doubt if the election can be held due to the large resistance against the occupational soldiers in Iraq. One of the many other USriael puppets, the Iraqi Prim Minister, Iyad Allawi, has also expressed such doubts. But the Prime Minster is not even worried about the USrael’s bayonets securing his own life.
The US administration have no worries neither regarding the military resistance nor the fact that not all Iraqis can participate inn the election. US administration claim the upcoming election will be a democratic one since politicians from all parts of Iraq are on the various list which will be used in the election. It is always interesting to hear what politicians say to protect their silly positions.
The New York Times, on January 8, 2005 expressed neither worry nor doubt about the "democracy" or freedom in the upcoming election in regards to the foreign military presence in Iraq. In its editorial it expressed worries whether or not the various parties will stand firm against interference from Iran after the election. According to The New York Time’s editorial the two main Shiite parties, the Dawa Islamic Party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq - Sciri, could be influenced by the Iranian leadership. It is very remarkable that The Times is not worried if an election in Iraq can be a free and democratic, as long as the military situation remains in Iraq. Had any other nation been under occupation - by foreign nations not friendly to Israel, the editorial would surely have shown concern regarding the possibility for free elections.
It is surprising that The New York Times does not mention the fact that the election will a partial one since most of the country’s citizens will be excluded from participating because the phony government can not protect the election polls and advisors in all parts of the country. In view of this fact, an election can not be carried out because it will not meet the requirements for free elections.
As usual, the USreal friendly newspapers accuse the Shiite political parties to be corrupt. According to The New York Times the two parties mentioned above have received economic support from Iran. No newspaper, which I am aware of, has accused both US political parties to be corrupt since they get support from both Israel and Jewish groups around the world.
It should also worry The New York Times that Iraq will be occupied after the election, in fact the occupation will last as long it takes to fully brainwash the Iraqi people. Iraq, according to the agreement between the puppet Iraqi leadership and the occupational forces, will hold the largest US military outside USA. A nation under such occupation can not be called free in the true sense of the word.
Why does USreal need an election now?
USreal needs an election now because they want to present Iraq as a free country to the Islamic world before they go on with further business to start transforming other countries to their special form of democracy. Furthermore, USreal needs to present a new Iraq to the UN General Assembly hoping to get its cooperation in suppressing the Iraq and other countries in the Middle East.
Under no circumstances will USreal allow any freedom loving Iraqis to establish a base for political reforms before the election which shall agree to the new Iraqi constitution. A constitution which will make USreal a puppet power under Israel, over Iraqi politics in the coming years.
A consequence of the new constitution will be that the free investigation into the circumstances related to war on Iraq will be blocked by the new government. It will, in the future I believe, be forbidden to present the years Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq as anything but bad.
Iraq, if left alone, will in the future be a true democracy.
In the face of Chutzpah , Jewish audacity and outright lies, resistance must be a national duty.
Heil og sael
Return to Top of 2005 Edition
No comments:
Post a Comment