The Positive Affirmation of
Democratic Self Determination

The Declaration of Independence was written in America in 1776 and the English language has changed so much by now that most of it is completely incomprehensible.  We have therefore re-written it in a form that every English speaking politician in the World will recognize.

When in the course of progressive paradigms, it becomes advisable (after due regard to the legitimate hopes and aspirations of dissenters) for one heterogeneous society to demonstrate a right to non-agreement with a separate legislative entity,  and to seek positive recognizance as a synonymous body politic, appropriately substantiated by the Supreme Deity/Deities/Objects of Worship (depending upon each individual's similarly valued religious beliefs)  a non-opinionated cultural tolerance to the temporary inconclusary mental acceptances of personhood offensively pre-assumes that they may at their considered discretion democratically communicate the exceptional occurrences which spacially inconvenience them to the non-combination.

We wish to propose these ambiverities to be popularly acceptable, that all ambigenic persons are biologically introduced non-discriminatorily, that they are similarly centrically provided by humankind with certain retained assumptions, that among these are biological viability, optional opportunity and the voluntary acceptance of individually favorable sensory fulfillment.--That to confirm these assumtuals, democratic institutions are the global norm, maintaining their non-oppressive hegemony through the tacit approval of society, --That whenever any governmental structure becomes counter-productive to these legitimate aspirations, it is admissible for the community to re-substantiate or dis-substantiate and to elect a terminologically advantaged alternative, based on aspirational expectations and creating a favorable infrastructure capable of maintaining mutually advantageous circumstances for the global family. Consideration of alternative scenarios will indeed suggest that traditional, popularly acceptable establishments may be considered unsuitable for regime change for superficially non-strategic reasons and his/herstory shows that persons are mindful to acquiesce to imperfect situations rather than to contra-accept the status quo. However, should a terminologically excessive sequence of non-standard actions and arbitrary undemocratic considerations indicate am imminent likelihood of capitalistic patriarchal hegemonic discourse, it is their popularly agreed non-obligation to decline acceptance of this administration, and to agree policies for peaceful co-existence. Circumstances in these culturally imperialistic regions have been less than perfect and the need for constitutional change is now paramount. The his/herstory of the phallogeneric reigndom of Britain is a database of alleged proprietorial imperfections calculated to contribute towards a lack of regional social viability. To confirm the non-contradictory nature of this hypothesis, present the case for popular critical analysis.

 

He has incompletely approved communally beneficial obligatory customary codifications.

He has negatively assented to the mandate of arbitrarily imposed councilors and has been dilatorially active in the de-imposition of his veto.

He has convened inconvenient assemblies, location-wise, with consequent energy depletionary affects upon attendees.

He has destabilized democratic assemblies for negatively synergizing with his socio-oppressional tendencies.

He has adversely encouraged the integration of non-indigenous populations into the community.

He has counter-improved the concept of democratic accountability by the non-appointment of factual assessors.

He has established dictatorial and fiduciary precedence over factual assessors.

He has created non-beneficial bureaucracies.

We have been given a non-consensual allocation of security measures.

A martial disciplinary system has been superimposed over the democratic institution.

He has introduced involuntary non-traditional practices and enacted ethically dysfunctional ordinances:

For the heterogeneous distribution of ordinance-empowered military personnel.

For excusing their neighborly acts, such as the terminal inconvenience of community members;

For contributing towards unsynchronic financial relationships with the global market;

For requesting non-discretionary financial contributions;

For negatively empowering our community leaders to arbitrate on factual matters;

For situationally transposing jurisprudence;

For encouraging non-compliance with traditional practice and promoting acquiescence to new legislative paradigms;

For instituting alternative systems of macro management;

For assuming an unrequested executive hegemony;

He has taken us into protective custody with the declared intention of freeing us from our previous oppressors and re-building our economy which has been destroyed, for our own good, by his just and surgical strikes;

He has exploited the natural wildlife of our oceans, disturbed our coastal ecology, inflicted collateral damage on our cities and offended against our human rights.

Along with his coalition allies, he has inflicted civilian casualties which he claims are regrettable but unavoidable;

He has encouraged demonstrative outbursts against acceptance of the prevailing socio-economic situation particularly amongst members of the indigenous populations whose legitimate concerns about albinocentric monoculturalism have such merit that they occasionally result in seemingly-inappropriate behavior patterns.

Our frequent requests for compensation have met with negative approval.

We have raised our concerns with our British siblings that their legislature proposes to interdict our decolonization and we have reiterated our narrative about our bioregional exchange. We have appealed to their cultural sensitivity to show non-support for these socially divisive actions but they have been aurally inconvenienced and differently logical. We must therefore consider them to be factually not dissimilar to all other non-aligned identity groups; partners during periods of stability and co-prosperity, involuntary combatants during the exercise of our legitimate foreign policy.

We therefore, the democratically empowered negotiants of the United States of America, appeal to the Supreme Deity, Deities or Objects of Worship to witness the non-discriminatory nature of our aspirations for an alternative paradigm and with the consensual approval of the community we propose to reclaim our executive franchise and expedite our decolonization from the cultural imperialism of the monarch of England and, as an autonomous entity, perform our regulatory, statutory and commercial perspectives, and in unambivalent cognizance of the preservation of our well being by the Supreme Deity/Deities/O of Ws etc we mutually interface our biological viabilities, temporary custodial advantages and individually perceived moral sufficiencies.

And if that doesn't work, we'll Nuke the bastards.

Make love, not war.  Co-create fraternal liaisons of an amatory conceptual purpose at the UK Singles Club dating agency !