By Stanley Collymore
The United Stasi of America conceitedly lecturing the legitimate governments of Zimbabwe or others on their supposedly stolen elections simply because the local electorate in those countries saw through the treachery and sycophancy of and resolutely refused to vote for the west’s favoured stooges buttressed by scrupulously maintained mechanisms in the countries concerned to prevent these toadies from corruptly cheating their way to power on behalf of the west’s colonialist and imperialist hegemonic global agenda is nothing less than sour grapes at seeing these potential satrapies of the west roundly rejected by the local voters and is also akin to the pot calling the kettle black.
The entire world saw and knows what blatantly went on in the USA’s presidential elections of 2000 and again in 2004 giving an entirely new meaning and dimension to the term highway robbery. But there was also monumental theft and election fraud covertly carried out in several previous US presidential and other national elections as well. So the US is in no moral position to get on its sanctimonious high horse concerning the results of other peoples’ elections, either fairly or fraudulently carried out, that it doesn’t like; and brings to mind the Biblical injunction, first remove the beam from your own eyes if you want to criticize the mote in the eyes of those you’re hostile to.
It’s the same with Britain that automatically, embarrassingly and like a feckless, fatuous and all too eager to please her lover mistress does everything that the US demands of it; except that in Britain’s case that transcends both perversely and pervertedly into an Oedipus Complex relationship since Britain was the Mother Country of the once backwater, and still is, North American colonies that morphed into the United Stasi of America. For even in our purported green and pleasant land our supposedly democratically elected governments are woefully unrepresentative of and light years distant from the electorate’s true will; but it doesn’t stop these regimes from claiming, assuming and corruptly abusing the political power they’ve arrogated to themselves.
No national regime in the UK whether independently as a single political party or in mutual coalition with another party, as is currently the case between the Tories and the Lib-Dems, has in historical memory even going back to for them the halcyon days of the rotten boroughs, and most certainly not in contemporary times, secured in excess of 50+1% of the registered electoral vote and consequently couldn’t say and certainly in today’s terms can’t either to be in possession of a popular mandate to rule the country. Nevertheless it doesn’t prevent such UK regimes, either arrogantly or in a totally disconnect manner from the vast majority of ordinary members of the public, from acting as if they do. Even Tony Blair with his supposed 1997 New Labour landslide managed only to garner less than 33% of the votes cast in that general election in which just 45% of all registered British voters bothered to participate.
So work the maths out for yourselves if you can in educationally dumbed down and intellectually challenged Britain more preoccupied with reality TV, facile so-called TV entertainment; the sordid lives and antics of fatuous, harebrained alleged celebrities egotistically and emotionally in love with themselves, and a general public possessed of short term memories and even shorter attention spans that’s evidently too dumb by far to think for themselves, relying instead on what their perceived social betters, those in charge of the country, and a Pavlovian controlling media that routinely, self-interestedly, and quite successfully too as it happens, condition them how and what to think, whether you still think or can objectively believe that the emergence of British governments, or more aptly regimes, in such ludicrous and markedly unrepresentative circumstances can honestly be said to have been democratically arrived at, much less are truly representative of the will of the people?
And if you concur with me that our national elections are an orchestrated farce and the resultant regimes that they produce in their wake are sorely lacking in every aspect of democratic credibility and accountability, a situation that’s even more disastrously intensified at local government level where routinely only between 10-15% of registered voters, which in itself is a tiny fraction of those eligible to vote but who don’t even bother to register to do so because they know from firsthand experience just how corrupt, nepotistic and out of touch these local councils for the most part together with their jobsworth senior appointed officials across the board and deeply mired in their mindboggling ineptitude are, and consequently voluntarily choose not to take part in these elections.
How on earth then can the likes of David Cameron, others in his regime, or for that matter those that are intimately associated or nepotistically connected with them and who persistently and enormously benefit either politically, financially or both from what’s essentially a profoundly corrupt British electoral system that is also fundamentally unfair, or their counterparts in the United Stasi of America, the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – since these are the main culprits for overly castigating others for allegedly indulging in exactly what they’re deeply involved in doing themselves – morally or in any other way, come to that, dare point the finger of accusation at Zimbabwe or any other country that they’re racially or ideologically hostile to? And as invariably turns out to be the case those are generally their only determinant reasons for doing so.
Additionally these western countries, in particular the United Stasi of America, Britain and France, are also highly instrumental in instigating brutal coups, regime changes and the savage assassination of democratically elected leaders of several sovereign states that they don’t like, and doing so principally because these countries don’t share or subscribe to in any way to the unilaterally perceived interests of these western states; conduct that is so colonial 19th Century and in of all places the 21st Century.