Tuesday, 17 April 2012


Republics were spiritually setup to protect the will and vision of the people, the peoples intention was the base element which provided the stem for the republics to be established going back to the American revolution later followed by the French revolution and not excluding the early revolutions of the 20th century which were the Russian and Chinese  revolution. These revolutions brought about the constitutions that made the very soul of the existences and essentialist of the society which wanted to emancipate themselves from tyranny, slavery or injustice.

 The man within the republic viewed himself as an integral part, an entity that is entitled to be dignified and respected due to his contribution to the existence of the republic. The people developed the notion in the struggle to establish a republic that whatever entity which makes the composition of the republic thereafter, whatever law or entity that springs out or which came after the existence of the republic must not in any way be against or systematically deployed against their emotional, spiritual, socio-economical and physical well-being. Simply put, the social contract of the republic was set up by the people and for the people.
Ability to speak freely against aggression, injustice in all its ramifications and fight for what is right brought about the concept of a republic, and in turn for the territorial republic itself to jointly protect the physical man against any danger that might or technically willing to take away his un-disputable rights.

 The changing dynamics of the social contract in republican states around the globe in the modern age is a great concern to many, the aim and grand vision of the founding fathers of the existing republics has been completely eroded by their grandchildren and those who came to seek refuge in the newly found freedom which men of all kinds desire.It is apparent that the territories which claim to be republics today do not play the role conferred on a thriving republic based on the principle which the founding fathers envisage. The dreams of men who sacrificed their lives to build the beauty of a successful republic all around the world, which was designed to protect the interest of the people is being jettisoned for the protection of what is termed to be an imaginary territorial entity called the state.

The state which is an imaginary territorial landscape occupied by a people with all imaginary boundaries created to separate people within and without has created tension even among the people that the republic was meant to protect. The republic which was meant to protect the people has been taking away from the people systematically by creating the concept that the state must be protected by the people. Simply put, the republic is no more active to protect the people, but the people are to protect the state, which is the territory they occupy against intruders, which makes the people within to be at the whims and caprice of their “programmers” leaders who claim to hold the territory on their behalf.

 At this stage all laws made for or against the interest of the people within must be accepted by the people due to the impression that their challenges are no more from within which brought about the existence of the republic but from the outside. The concept of those who wisely stole the birth right of the republic and created the image of the state was perfected by educating the population that the danger to their republican freedom must always and will always come from the outside and this was successful by simply annexing the people to become slaves to the state.

The governments which run territorial republics around the world place value more on the imaginary lines of geography, economics, social life, religion, etc. Thereby conditioning the people within and without, making them to lose concentration, misplacing priorities on what the state ought to do and in turn those who enjoy the state use the men whom were meant to be protected in laborious activity to gain more to their personal goals and effectually making the people to consistently serve the state. The man within the state now knows that at any given time his life and freedom which is expected to be protected by the republic that his great-grandfathers’ fought for could be arbitrary taken by those who would protect the state for their megalomaniac interest and not for the collective interest. These acts which are common in the present day republics are a testament to the fact that the state does not exist for the people but the people exist for the state, which makes me to ask which one comes first?

The present day republics have neglected the core essence of its existence and chasing shadows which the people are beginning to realize, the propensity for the people making a revolution might not be certain but an evolution which will make the people to realize their place in the scheme of the political landscape is gradually dawning on them with the advent of alternative news media and the social media which creates room for information sharing without the input of the state collaborator.

It is evident that people will continue to exist while these imaginary boundaries will gradually cease to exist with the speed at which the human societies are evolving in the 21st century. But this will happen when the education and information which people rely upon from the state begins to erode. It would be expected that for those in government which claim to be “republics of” must not continue to build barriers to draw out demarcation lines to enslave its people within the state, but start searching and working assiduously to break new grounds in human relations not by force but by diplomacy so that the state would return and embrace the essence of the freedom which true republic was built upon.

Friday, 6 April 2012


Press TV has made many in Europe to know more about world politics within the little time it beamed its signals to the western world. Many Press TV viewers said within 3 years, they were more educated about world politics beyond what BBC has done for 60 years.

When Press TV station is banned in the UK and later in Germany to stop broadcasting news content to its European viewers about the western world's political and economic activities, its evident that the political lords, mainstream media and their supporters are scared about the alternative media which does not bow to political pressure and do not want competition.

Silencing alternative source of information by the political authorities is detrimental to the society at large, people will go along way to get information which they will rather believe due to the closure of other media  broadcast stations in their country, just because they know the truth about their society can only come from the outside sources which do not bow to home pressure. The world at large is a global and complex village and the news programmes on the traditional mainstream news stations which have existed for decades has to compete with the recent voices heard from developing nations like Iran.

The marriage between the mainstream media and government has made the fourth estate which should have provided the people with unbiased information pitched its tent with its home country political authorities and allies. Today the war that is being fought is an information war, which every nation sees as the only means to capture hearts and minds. A nation which deny its citizens the access to view alternative news content simply puts itself in the position of a losers in information warfare.