Theocracies, Democracies and clearings.

I read an article in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs that illustrated the virtues of withdrawing from Iraq sooner rather than later. I tended to agree with the points of the article, that were analogized in an example of Spain circa 1800 and later Italy in which the peasants rejected an offer of democracy and liberation to support their ecclesiastical and feudal overlords. Race and culture prevailed over liberation. people get ignorant and vote aginst the foreigners and for the local demogogies, or vote by associating in the pack-mob with explosives and Kalashnikovs.

One of the false assumptions about democracy is that people will vote for it de novo. I believe that is incorrect. They will revolt de novo perhaps; yet not establish a democratic society. A democratic society needs some sort of elite to guide it through a Republican phase (no reference to the U.S. federal sort intended, it has gone to the seed of neo-Corporatism). Britains democracy took 600 years to evolve to the point of reaching ordinary people much. Iraq hasn't had 600 years although the Stalinist-Saddamite meatgrinder eliminates tribalism quicker than that.

Iraq has no sponsoring elite to guide it. Some might say that socialism is a preparation for democracy, yet I would say that socialism is more of a preparation for neo-Corporatism than for individuality.

The nations around Iraq will fear anarchy and civil war, and will intervene to force some sort of authority. It is notable that fundamentalist terrorist will fight Americans simply because they are Americans and wear expensive perfume the Arabs don’t like.

The U.S.A. would suffer fewer casualties by invading every few years if a terrorist government forms than by camping in Iraq to wheedle oil from a puppet regime.

Yet of course, the present Iraqi election and government should be given U.S. military assistance and support for some 6 months or so as a draw down occurs. Integrating Iraqi military forces with a populist Iraqi Government should be the main objective for some time. An orderly withdrawal of American forces over the next year at a regular pace would help to convince the people of Iraq that the U.S.A. presence isn’t an occupying power but was instead a liberating Army.

Democracies that formed spontaneously and without corruption would require a human nature that is beyond earthly ability. Each individual would need to meet with the others and recognize the fundamental inalienable human rights of the others; in fact that sort of Utopia never happens associated with a particular geographic region.

Another requirement of Democracies are that they must be exclusive of some others. In ancient Athens there was a very limited enfranchisement. Some few citizens that did vote equally enslaved the remainder basically. In the modern democracies enfranchisement is limited or conditional, or the nations are isolated, remote, militarily strong or in the process of failing. A Democracy is limited to a specific class of individuals named citizens that have full decision-making power over their geographic region, or it is not a democracy. Vast influxes of illegal aliens over porous borders, aloof Globalist rulers and etc. are not supports for a democratic society.

Autocracy, neo-Corporatists Globalism, Communism, International Socialism, borderless capitalism, a royal power or secular ecclesiastical governments with a catholic inclusion are each inimical to a self-determining democratic society in several characteristic including those of going over-the-borders of individuality and law. The borderless broadcast media is an essential corrupter of individual and civil rights of democrats.

The Roman Empire was definitely not democratic, although the populism of bread and circuses for the mob or middle class effectively satisfied some of the popular restiveness.

In the United States some of the Christian Commercial broadcast media seems virtually a sycophantic tool of Satan’s broadcast media phenomena in that they do support entirely worldly political policies that have no relevance to the Bible at all. At some point quite early real Christian ideas and work separate from politics and worldliness, yet the broadcasters always return to political spin and even social terrorism.

That isn’t a new phenomena. The Catholic Church in the dark ages became too worldly and political and it continued until a downhill slide began a few centuries ago. The Bush Christian commercial sympcasters seem to choose out whatever sermons will support their Patron or attack his political enemies, and that is the trouble. Even if Bush supported a couple of Christian values, he also opposes political values such as environmentalism and economic rights of poor Americans that are of meaning to many Christians not enfeofed and nurtured by the Republican Party.

It is a paradox that some Commercial Christian Broadcasters may lead some to faith yet themselves be lost to worldliness. I now begin to understand why Senator McCain took that turn away from the Virginia Beach crowd in the 2000 primary, rather disastrously before the SC run. They have gone overboard in moving toward a false Christian political alliance with Globalist political forces.

Christians can assert their political values plainly, yet they must do so in a non-partisan way. They cannot afford to sign off like idiotic blank check party ticket voters thus rubber-stamping approval of all sorts of daft and evil policies they cannot understand. It is an unfortunate thing that some commercial Christian are too loud spoken on political areas, perhaps using extracts of the Bible to support their political points, because they are not political scientists, competent historians, liberal scholars of western civilization etc. in many issues simply sabotaging progress and human rights that have been paid for in blood over the millennia. They have the cold-blooded arrogant political idiocy to attack liberlaism to the point of nihilation instead of trying to rescue it from the sewer through which the flag has been dragged in recent decades of homsexuality, drugs, prositution, socialism and so forth.

Instead of daft party support Christian broadcasters should just support issues they are comfortable with and hope for candidates and parties that will include those within a moral context.

If the Republicans ran a candidate with a surgically altered blue forked tongue that was against abortion but was pro-logging and for drilling ANWR, would Pat Robertson support him? Christian commercial broadcasters need to express moral and Biblical issues, yet remain unaffiliated in order to avoid being manipulated by worldly forces into simply supporting the rich and most powerful and all times as they do seem to do presently in parts of the U.S.A.

The political choices in America are not legally limited to just debauchocrats or Globalist republicans as the sycophant broadcasters seem to believe. Expressing objective opinions about politics instead of Partisan ones can allow other political developments to occur that might be consistent with the nation’s constitution, democratic history and other economic advantages in addition to the protection of moral values. Commercial christain broadcasters in being so worldly, conniving and political extreme in association with Globalist Republicans put a lot of pressure on real Christians relying on the Bible instead of broadcasts that should not occur.

I hope that the blood lust of many commercial Christian broadcasters to follow the Bush administration and annex Iraq onto Global oil’s branch of neo-Corporatism will not produce a blind-lust for extended deployment of American forces in Iraq far beyond the upcoming Iraqi election.

The potential to restructure Iraq with international intervention should the new government fail to defend itself and a civil war ensues exists. A new international support structure could follow. I do not know why anyone believes that it is in America’s best interests now to maintain a large military presence in that nation. Iraq probably will move ahead as a commercial nation that will want freedom to travel, trade and prosper for its citizens. The U.S.A. cannot force it and should not try even if some misguided sycophants of Global Oil believe it must.