Moubarak Steps Down

[Makedonetz]

Looking at the news Yemin and neighboring country's are following the trends of democracy. Hopefully the Military who are in power now dont turn on the people in Egypt.

[Mr Brandy]

Looking at the news Yemin and neighboring country's are following the trends of democracy. Hopefully the Military who are in power now dont turn on the people in Egypt.

Makedonetz - is democracy the trend that you think is coming to Egypt and the middle-east! I think radical Islam is more likely.

[Serdarot]

The Egyptian people have just overthrown a murderous tyrant and some on this forum deny them this most fundamental right by making up ridiculous international conspiracy theories about it being "arranged" by the Americans (who have every reason to support Mubarak as they have done for 30 years, along with his ideological predecessors Sadat and Nasser) for the supposed purpose of repeating such a revolution in Iran.

Do any of those posters actually have the slightest understanding of the specific circumstances in Egypt, or do you base your ideas on delusional paranoia? Perhaps you would do well to live under the same conditions as the Egyptians did and then have a good think about whether it was the people who grew tired of oppression or some uber secret American agenda that overthrew Mubarak.

The Macedonians, rather than waiting for some foreign "saviour" (read sugar daddy), or in some cases fearing one, would do well to learn some lessons from these and other peacefull revolutions. Primarily, the necessity of a moral revolution, or in other words, changing the mindset of the people as a precursor to liberation.

i agree that we should learn to use peacefull protests/revolution

but rest is bs US supported Saddam Husein more than 20 years, and on the end they hang him.

the tyrant off power, and the demoNcrat(?) El Baraday will be installed

or you concider Muhamed El Baraday as a person with integrity, who deserve to be the new leader of Egypt?

[DirtyCodingHabitz]

I think radical Islam is more likely.

Stop watching propaganda media. Let the people of Egypt run their country!.

[Vangelovski]

i agree that we should learn to use peacefull protests/revolution

but rest is bs US supported Saddam Husein more than 20 years, and on the end they hang him.

the tyrant off power, and the demoNcrat(?) El Baraday will be installed

or you concider Muhamed El Baraday as a person with integrity, who deserve to be the new leader of Egypt?

Serdarot,

I don't think they're looking for a new "leader", I think they're after a democratically elected government. What matters is that the Egyptian people CHOOSE their government, that they choose FREQUENTLY, and that their government is LIMITED by the constitution.

[indigen]

Serdarot,

I don't think they're looking for a new "leader", I think they're after a democratically elected government. What matters is that the Egyptian people CHOOSE their government, that they choose FREQUENTLY, and that their government is LIMITED by the constitution.

In my view, "democracy" is a mirage and quite delusional to believe that it truly exists anywhere (least of all in the "West") for any prolonged length of time. Class interests will always take over and those who control money and material assets, domestic or foreign (more the case these days in a globalised world), will end up having the greatest influence and control in any given nation/state. Only nations with strong nationalist ideology at times will rock the boat and take a unified stand for national interests against actual or perceived threats. But good puppet masters could easily economically bleed hyper-nationalist states, as happened to HellAss, by stoking the nationalist fire and selling them very expensive weapons and eventually collapsing their economy and thus paving the way for political and economic influence/domination.

What is the opinion/views on South Africa, did the martyrs of the 1976 Soweto Uprising (mostly students and youth) die in vain and is Mandela a true national hero or a deception made in the west by whites fearing (and aiming to undermine) black nationalists (Pan-Africanists and Black Consciousness) political strands that were sweeping Southern Africa at the time?

Is Ghandi the "hero" he was/is painted to be or is he a western projection (and amplification) to undermine a much stronger nationalist and anti-colonial political movement that could have given the world another revolution similar to China's under Mao?

[Vangelovski]

In my view, "democracy" is a mirage and quite delusional to believe that it truly exists anywhere (least of all in the "West") for any prolonged length of time. Class interests will always take over and those who control money and material assets, domestic or foreign (more the case these days in a globalised world), will end up having the greatest influence and control in any given nation/state. Only nations with strong nationalist ideology at times will rock the boat and take a unified stand for national interests against actual or perceived threats. But good puppet masters could easily economically bleed hyper-nationalist states, as happened to HellAss, by stoking the nationalist fire and selling them very expensive weapons and eventually collapsing their economy and thus paving the way for political and economic influence/domination.

What is the opinion/views on South Africa, did the martyrs of the 1976 Soweto Uprising (mostly students and youth) die in vain and is Mandela a true national hero or a deception made in the west by whites fearing (and aiming to undermine) black nationalists (Pan-Africanists and Black Consciousness) political strands that were sweeping Southern Africa at the time?

Is Ghandi the "hero" he was/is painted to be or is he a western projection (and amplification) to undermine a much stronger nationalist and anti-colonial political movement that could have given the world another revolution similar to China's under Mao?

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the situations of either South Africa or India, but, in my view, China's Maoist revolution was an absolute disaster. Individual freedom and natural law was thoroughly violated, and for the most part, continues to be to this day. The negation of foreign influence at the expense of natural rights and responsibilities is a contradiction of terms - only through the exercise of individual natural rights and responsibilities can individual and national freedom be preserved, along with a just system of government. Having a murderous totalitarian regime decimate the people at will does nothing of the sort.

I do agree, however, that democracy, in its purest sense, is neither possible nor desirable. In my view, republicanism built upon biblical principles (natural law) is only reasonable and logical system of government. However, for it to be sustainable, the people need to be aware of, and committed to, this type of government.

[George S.]

Look at the democracy?? in macedonia the govt gets in with 25 to 30% vote much like the last election in australia of 35% of the vote.They have to get in by hook or by crook.So much for democracy.Especially when in macedonia they have to do deals with the albanians.

[Vangelovski]

Look at the democracy?? in macedonia the govt gets in with 25 to 30% vote much like the last election in australia of 35% of the vote.They have to get in by hook or by crook.So much for democracy.Especially when in macedonia they have to do deals with the albanians.

George,

Seeing as you oppose democratic methods of electing governments, perhaps you can provide us with an alternative and explain why, in your view, you believe its better?

[George S.]

I'm in favour of democracy where the rule is for the majority.When you got governments made up with 25% of the vote that is a pretty weak government & have no mandate to govern in their own right.I'm also in favour of a kingdom that is for a country to be run by a king or queen.Provided they do everything that is good for the people.But i prefer democracy that is for the people by the people.Vangelovski i don't oppose democracy as such but you have to be realistic that a government voted in with 25% of the vote is pretty weak & clearly they don't have a mandate to do anything.It's all a sorry state of affairs that's democracy for you.

[indigen]

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the situations of either South Africa or India

I am actually quite well versed in SA politics (though a bit rusty these days) but a recent documentary aired on Australian TV (ABC or SBS), at around the time of the Football World Cup in 2010, was even more revealing and Mandela himself was confessing to much detail of how he arranged a political deal (with white police chiefs and big business) for what they have there now, which is something akin to our FA but only difference being the Africans are the vast majority of the population and growing more than the rest whilst in Mk the Ghegs are growing and Macedonians are declining.

, but, in my view, China's Maoist revolution was an absolute disaster. Individual freedom and natural law was thoroughly violated, and for the most part, continues to be to this day.

Certainly many mistakes were made and millions of lives were lost but given the economic and political conditions that existed at the time, China is a lot better off as a result of the revolution. Most Chinese would still revere Mao as a national hero and the party/nation still says he did 70% Good and 30% bad! :-) I am sure those that were at the end of the 30% bad policies (e.g. cultural revolution) might have a very different opinion of him but China is nation of which most Chinese are/would be proud of today and Mao is still father of the revolution to them.

Here is an example of Chinese economic/political policy after Mao:

Shishi qiu shi : Seek truth from facts

This was the credo of the reformers who from 1977 onwards began 'to set the political agenda for China after the death of Mao. It meant that facts rather than ideology should be the criterion of the 'correctness' of a policy; the policy had to work in practice. Deng Xiaoping himself had said, 'It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse.' Mouse-catching (expertise) was now at a much higher premium than political colouring. This of course contrasted completely with Mao's suspicion of hard-headed empiricism. For Mao, the Foolish Old Man (a character in an ancient Chinese fable retold by Mao to encourage people to continue to struggle despite enormous difficulties), had shown that 'human will conquers heaven' and had refuted the scepticism of the so-called experts.

It seems their cat is catching lots of "mice" and China is booming economically and their national interest are much more asserted and protected under their current system. Any "democratic" turmoil, as happened in old USSR, could see all that go down the toilet and they will be very weary of any such political push that emanates from external agitation.

The negation of foreign influence at the expense of natural rights and responsibilities is a contradiction of terms - only through the exercise of individual natural rights and responsibilities can individual and national freedom be preserved, along with a just system of government. Having a murderous totalitarian regime decimate the people at will does nothing of the sort.

It may be a contradiction in terms but are there any comparable large former colonial countries (Asian or African) that have achieved the economic development on their own terms other than those where US has pumped much money and resources due to military and political agendas, e.g. South Korea and Taiwan (both of which were not very democratic for very long periods of time)?

I do agree, however, that democracy, in its purest sense, is neither possible nor desirable. In my view, republicanism built upon biblical principles (natural law) is only reasonable and logical system of government. However, for it to be sustainable, the people need to be aware of, and committed to, this type of government.

Any practical examples we can examine?

[Vangelovski]

It seems their cat is catching lots of "mice" and China is booming economically and their national interest are much more asserted and protected under their current system.

They have a long way to go and without respecting individual freedom they will never get there. The economic success they have achieved to date is miniscule compared with the United States and Europe, especially when you look at it on a per capita basis. Further, it was free market reforms, not socialism, that led to its current (albiet still limited) economic growth.

Any "democratic" turmoil, as happened in old USSR, could see all that go down the toilet and they will be very weary of any such political push that emanates from external agitation.

Totalitarianism will always be prone to "external agitation" because tyrants will never win legitimacy or support from the people they purport to rule. This is almost impossible in republics that protect, rather than violate, natural law.

It may be a contradiction in terms but are there any comparable large former colonial countries (Asian or African) that have achieved the economic development on their own terms other than those where US has pumped much money and resources due to military and political agendas, e.g. South Korea and Taiwan (both of which were not very democratic for very long periods of time)?

Are there any former colonial countries that have genuinely embrassed respect for natural law and the free market, rather than pretending to and implementing totalitrian, socialist and/or corrupt political/economic systems?

Any practical examples we can examine?

The American republic for at least the first 100-150 years of its existence. The secularisation of its society, and the resulting prominence of moral relativity has turned it into the mixed bag that it currently is.

[Onur]

Democracy is some kind of illusion created by some elite groups and this is valid for western world too.

People are just getting encouraged to think that they are really choosing the rulers themselves but this is not the case. In our age, it`s so easy to manipulate the masses and let them vote for whoever you want and "best thing" is, these people wouldn't even be aware that they are getting manipulated but they would think like they are doing the choice themselves.

Actually IMHO, this is what should be in every country. State business is so precious and important that it shouldn't be allowed to be controlled and ruled by a clueless mob aka ordinary citizens. There should be a group of highly intelligent elites who thinks and decides best for their country.

You can call me elitist but i believe that this should be the case and this is already the reality in every state in the world atm. Do you really think USA citizens are ruling US or Australians ruling the Australia???

The question is; these elites are really working for their own country or not. The problems starts if they are working for the benefit of others but not for their own state.

[Vangelovski]

Democracy is some kind of illusion created by some elite groups and this is valid for western world too.

People are just getting encouraged to think that they are really choosing the rulers themselves but this is not the case. In our age, it`s so easy to manipulate the masses and let them vote for whoever you want and "best thing" is, these people wouldn't even be aware that they are getting manipulated but they would think like they are doing the choice themselves.

Actually IMHO, this is what should be in every country. State business is so precious and important that it shouldn't be allowed to be controlled and ruled by a clueless mob aka ordinary citizens. There should be a group of highly intelligent elites who thinks and decides best for their country.

You can call me elitist but i believe that this should be the case and this is already the reality in every state in the world atm. Do you really think USA citizens are ruling US or Australians ruling the Australia???

The question is; these elites are really working for their own country or not. The problems starts if they are working for the benefit of others but not for their own state.

You should spend some time acquainting yourself with the topic in more detail rather than just repeating the usual anti-everything soundbites. Perhaps you can identify the specific "elites" that really control Australia and the United States and explain to us in detail how it is they manage to do this?

Further, if you really believed what you just wrote in relation to "elitism", you would not be on here expressing your views, you would have let some “highly intelligent elite” do the thinking for you. Like everyone else that makes a pathetic attempt to deny natural rights, I will offer you the same advice – lead by example and refrain from exercising your inalienable rights to freedom of thought and expression.