The New Trinity of resistance: long term partnership, or brief affair?

r.jpeg

It is common knowledge that while mutual friends can help facilitate a rapprochement between adversaries, it is usually common enemies that seal the deal. 

In no other occasion in recent history has this theory been proven to be more correct as it has been recently with the rise of the new anti-Kurdish alliance between Iraq, Turkey and Iran. 

Russia, who is a friend of all in the region, and enemy of none, has played a pivotal role in realigning the balance of power in the Middle East, ever since its involvement in the Syrian war in 2015. Russia has proved to be the most reliable as well as the most powerful geo-strategic arbiter, whilst conducting successful military operations alongside the Syrian Arab Army in the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda. Russia’s gambits have not only paid off on the ground, but they have produced far-reaching and ultimately positive geo-political consequences.

Russia has been taking the lead on matters of military, security and trade with Iran and Turkey, and more recently with Iraq. Russia has been selling military equipment and defensive weapons to all of the aforementioned countries, as recently as last month. Iraq, most crucially has been pivoting closer to Russia, openly seeking closer diplomatic relations as well as buying Russian weapons. Turkey, a NATO member and Russia have enjoyed excellent diplomatic relations despite formerly being on the opposing sides in the Syrian war, and recently signed a number of energy deals as well as weapons sales, specifically the sale of S-400 Russian anti-aircraft missiles. Iran, who has been a crucial ally in every sense to Russia and Syria during the Syrian conflict, is also enjoying historically good relations with Russia.

Earlier this year, Russia invited Turkey to be a guarantor of a peace Memorandum held in Astana of which both Russia and Iran are members. The three nations reaffirmed their commitment to the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Syria. This turned out to be another gambit by Russia, one which has slowly, and quietly led to Erdogan withdrawing his support for the anti-government militant factions in Syria.

Therefore, one can say with confidence that Russia is the most influential entity that binds all these powers together. It would, however be inaccurate to state that it was solely Russia that drew them together in the first place. While this new Trinity connection is not all that surprising given the recent shifts in the balance of power, it is nevertheless groundbreaking for many reasons.

It was America that laid the groundwork for the Iraq-Iran détente when it illegally invaded Iraq in 2003. America failed to take into account the majority Shia population in the country and their loyalty to Iran and subsequent Iranian influence in the country. So instead of sowing further discord between Iraq and Iran, the US intervention led to these two once adversarial nations forming a tight unit though not before launching violent sectarianism albeit in a localised context. Ironically, America also drove the two countries apart decades earlier.

The US has essentially handed Iraq over to Iran on a plate. Add to that Ankara’s diplomatic tensions with Washington over America’s support of the Kurdish militants in both Syria and Iraq and the failed 2016 coup against Erdogan which Erdogan openly blames on the Obama administration, and we can safely say America has officially left the casino more or less depleted.

With America no longer being the primary obstacle to peace and security in the region, it has become clear since the unconstitutional Kurdish referendum for independence in Northern Iraq held in September 2017, that the Kurdish separatists are now the biggest adversary to Iraq, Iran and Turkey. 

The Kurdish separatists are opposed to anything that promotes territorial integrity, sovereignty and peace in the region, therefore much like ISIS, they pose an imminent existential threat to the new anti-Kurdish tripartite resistance.

Just this month, President Erdogan held a meeting with the Iranian Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei in Iran where they discussed the Kurdish problem and agreed to take ‘every possible measure’ to prevent a would be Kurdistan in Iraq. This is highly significant, considering that, with a few exceptions, Turkey and Iran have been historic rivals. Both Iran and Turkey fear that a would-be independent Kurdistan in Iraq might embolden the PKK in Turkey and PJAK in Iran to follow suit. Furthermore, Turkey will not tolerate a war on its doorstep, especially one involving Kurdish militants. The fact that Erdogan launched a war on his door step in Syria and lost, means he is unlikely to repeat a similarly haste and ill-judged decision, not least because he fears Russia's response. It is worth mentioning that Turkey and Iran also agreed to cooperate on trade.

The Kurdish threat extents beyond the KDP. Israel has been aiding military and monetarily the Kurdish separatists for decades now in order to destabilise and weaken secular Arab states. There is a danger, one which Iran, Iraq, Turkey and even Syria are aware of, that if a so-called independent Kurdistan is formed in Iraq, it could form an 'Israel crescent' of aggression against both the traditional Shia resistance and the new aforementioned Trinity. An independent Kurdish state built on sovereign Iraqi territory could theoretically and in all likelihood practically, easily link up with Kurdish militant movements in Turkey, Syria and Iran, thus completing an Israeli proxy crescent that would threaten the sovereignty and security of each state. This of course would be unacceptable to all states in the region and this is why they have acted accordingly. Indeed, Erdogan stated in his message to the Kurdish separatist factions, 'The fact that Israeli flags are waving there will not save you, you should know that.' 

CONCLUSION

Now that the Iraqi Army has won the Battle for Kirkuk, a symbolic victory that defines the beginning of the end of imperial rule and subsequent devastation in the country, the possibility of an independent Kurdistan has rapidly diminished.

This applies specifically to the more militant Kurdish Democratic Party under Masoud Barzani, who are considered extreme even by other separatist Kurdish factions. It is worth remembering that Kirkuk is rich in oil and it is not included in the constitutionally autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq so the Kurds never had any business being there fighting in the first place, beyond fighting ISIS.

It is clear that Iraq has finally retaken control of its sovereignty and territory and can defend itself against Kurdish aggression. Whilst Iraq and Iran share the same regional interests and likely will for the foreseeable future, where does this leave Turkey under Erdogan, whose proxy terrorists were actively working to divide and destroy Syria until fairly recently? Will he sustain his new-found friendship with Iran, a staunch Assad ally? Well he abandon his imperial ambitions in a practical sense, once the Kurdish threat is no longer a reality? Furthermore, with Iraq announcing its plans to build nuclear facilities which could unofficially present Iran with an opportunity to discreetly build nuclear weapons in Iraqi soil, how will this affect the overall balance of power?

All this remains to be seen. However, much like in real life, unification over a common adversary is rarely sustainable. Alliances amongst friends however, are. Perhaps if all three parties limited their ambitions to cooperation on trade, we may see some positive change. 

Awakening through suffering: Why Arab Unity is the only answer to modern crises

d9443cef80c5fdad44c5b7f8ca5704b2--gamal-abdel-nasser-old-egypt.jpg

                                               by Nedka Babliku

With the opening of the 59th Damascus International Fair this month after a five-year hiatus, one can assume with cautious optimism that Syria has won the war against terrorism and Imperialist aggression, if not yet militarily, certainly intellectually and spiritually.

The Fair was a major success with a huge turnover, a victory that the people of the proud and secular Ba’athist Syrian Arab Republic have every right to celebrate, not least because the theme was national revival and infrastructural renewal, with exhibitors from 23 different countries showcasing their products.

The people of Syria have shown tremendous moral resistance and grace ever since its independence in 1946, despite being on the receiving end of perpetual Israeli aggression, and more recently, of Western and Gulfi financed war that has ravaged the country since 2011.

But it is not just Syrians who have demonstrated a great deal of courage under sheer terror and destruction. The Palestinians who are being oppressed, starved, displaced and murdered in the 21st Century by the illegal and genocidal Zionist regime in Tel Aviv have also shown tremendous resilience. What’s more, the Israelis are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, while the Palestinians have only stones, guns and the occasional crude rocket to defend themselves with.

As far as I and many others are concerned, there is no such thing as a Palestinian terrorist in Palestine, any more than there is such a thing as an Israeli holding a gun with a clean conscience. The fact that the Zionists are annoyed that the Palestinians don’t shut up and put up, is another matter. What is true, however is that the Palestinians have every right to do as they please in their land, and it is the occupiers, the European immigrant Jews, the colonialists, who are the real terrorists. They have constructed a fake state and made a career terrorizing the natives in the most sickening and inhumane manner imaginable. The Palestinians are surviving against all odds.

I say all odds because other than Syria, Palestine has no real friends in the Arab world. Hamas is an extremist group with a dubious record both militarily and morally. It only exists as controlled opposition, to maintain the status quo. It has failed to protect the Palestinian people, much less liberate them. Nothing good will ever come of Hamas; as far as many are concerned, they are traitors to both Palestine and to the only real ally of Palestine, Syria. Let us not forget that during the Imperialist war on Syria, Hamas was on the same side as al Qaeda/Isis and Israel who have sought to dis-unify and occupy the Levant for decades.

What is quite interesting, is that when the British offered the European Jews part of British Uganda, they rejected the idea and insisted on Palestine due to the biblical connotations, an unrelated but clever marketing tactic that they have mastered to perfection.

I am inclined to believe that the British and the Jews may have known at some level that the Arabs would have been an easy people to occupy and oppress. That is not to say that the Arabs are not good warriors, they are just not trained to kill. Frankly, they could not have chosen a more defenceless people, and there are historical and cultural reasons for this.

Arabs have had it comparatively easy as a people throughout history. They were united and taken care of under the Caliphates and they also enjoyed substantial autonomy under Turkish rule that the Greeks, Serbs, Armenians and others were deprived of. Perversely, this reality has allowed for dis-unification over petty and meaningless matters, precisely because they are intrinsically more united than many other peoples who have struggled for centuries to create what the Arabs have naturally.

The Arabs have a common multi-continent contiguous landmass with many resources, a common language, Islam and Christianity are accepted as two styles of worship of the same God/Allah. All of this has resulted in an Arab culture that has become dis-unified not in spite of, but because of unity.

Germany had to fight a war with its own states and foreign powers (Austria and France) to unify; Russia struggled against centuries of foreign invasion and wars; India is grappling with sectarianism as the socialism of Nehru is subsumed by Modi's radical Hindu extremism; Philippines suffered centuries of oppression, first under Spain and then under the United States. The Arabs, however have only been colonised by European imperialists as recently as the 20th century, and even though the states of the Arab world are technically independent, many still suffer from the cognitive dissonance of post-imperial malaise combined with a sense of independence and freedom based on the previous thousand years of Arab history.

If the presence of a colonial settler state of Israel combined with American military meddling across the Arab world cannot show the Arabs their existing advantages of historic unity, what can? Instead they have allowed themselves to be manipulated. The Shi'a/Sunni divides are getting worse while previously they had been better. The Arabs, once the most unified people in the world despite healthy local differences, are now fighting amongst one another over small differences. They are dividing and conquering themselves. They have set up their own gallows and then invited the imperialists in to perform the executions.

With the exception of Spanish barbarism in the 15th century, and the crusader aggression, the Arab people have never known suffering like they have in the 20th and 21st centuries. This tragic reality may instil a sense of perspective, and serve as a reminder that they are one people, that they can put their minor differences aside and fight the real enemies: Israel and the West.

There is only one leader in the Arab world today who clearly and sincerely articulates the importance of Arabism and unity against common threats to peace and prosperity. That man is Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. While Arab countries stand divided along sectarian lines and remain compromised due to alliances with imperial powers who retard the progress of Arab freedom and dignity, only Bashar al-Assad and the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party can provide a leadership strong enough to bring unity to the Arab world. This is a leadership that emphasises national liberation, personal dignity and collective prosperity. For the Arab world it is a choice between this, and oblivion.

the evils of social liberal imperialism

Gaddafi and assad.jpg

Originally published in theduran.com on 12 June 2017

 

What do you get when you combine the pomposity of pseudo patriotism with imperialist aggression and the hypocrisy of the so-called Western values? You get social liberal imperialism.

Social liberal Imperialism has become so widespread in the 21st century that it is amazing that hardly anybody talks about it. It manifests itself everywhere, from mindless every-day human interaction in Western societies to illegal interventionist wars the West continues to wage in sovereign lands and everywhere and in all manner of ways in between. Interventionism in the name of democracy has become the ultimate definition of today’s social liberal imperialism. The foreign nations and societies that have fallen victims to this ideology are neither equipped for, nor necessarily wanting of this Western style dictatorship. The illegal wars have not only become ingrained within so-called Western values, they have become religion; a way of life.

Social Liberal Imperialism is largely a late 19th century British development whereby those who were liberal in terms of social affairs, legalistic views of the state as well as economics, nevertheless felt that states abroad, whether it be Ireland or India were neither capable, competent nor responsible enough to govern themselves. At the turn of the 20th century, many liberal imperialist thinkers such as Cecil Rhodes began to write elaborate justifications for Imperialism based on supposed civilising values of the British culture. Late modern Liberal imperialism is distinct from traditional Conservative Imperialism which if bothered to justify itself, would do so by invoking the Melian Dialogue, which boils down to ‘might makes right’. Thus, traditional conservative imperialism, in the Western sense, is more honest than the pseudo-scientific attempt to universally rank cultures without any consideration for manifest realities.

Post WW2 Britain became a more-humble state, though gradually the liberal imperialist mindset began to reemerge, finally reaching its late modern zenith with Tony Blair.

Social liberal imperialism can be applied to all modern Western states who unilaterally invade, occupy, murder and steal resources. There is a slight difference, however between the American variety of social liberal imperialism and the British one: the Americans are neither ashamed, nor careful to conceal greed. The intent is clear. The modern British imperialists, however have deluded themselves into believing that invading and occupying foreign lands and people is the righteous thing to do, that it is their moral duty to educate and govern less sophisticated cultures. They are true believers, and far more dishonest. Whilst Americans do not hide their aggression, the British hide behind it, justifying the unjustifiable. Tony Blair truly believed invading Iraq in 2003 was the right thing to do, he still justifies it to this day, while George Bush has partly admitted that it was a mistake. That said, the same cannot be said about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Obama is the perfect example of someone who achieved high position through adopting so called liberal values. Yet nevertheless many in America, including former democratic voters, continue to hate him for the simple reason that he is black, even though he adopted policies that the racist Cecil Rhodes would have been proud of. In this sense, Obama is the quintessential American success story. He lied his way to the top and achieved it. In Britain, a character like Obama could achieve  junior membership of a private members club at best, whose elder members would continue to tell racist jokes behind his back.

It is difficult to understand just which values the West is so keen to export to foreign lands. The growing trend of Cultural Marxism in the West within the last 50 years or so, Globalism and open borders have resulted in a fractured society, one of sectarianism and identity politics. What are those British values that our politicians are so keen to export? And what makes them think that Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians want or need them?

What is wrong with Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian cultures? Are they not good enough? Not sophisticated enough? Not modern enough? Could the real reason that the West continues to support regressive movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East be to suppress the rise of Arab nationalism? Could this be because modernity and secularism are privileges reserved for the West? I believe it is. It is the western imperial master-slave mentality. But there is more. The Western neo-imperialists are fearful that if these countries adopt a more modern system that is successful and conscious of its own national pride, the people will seek to extract vengeance on the West. They unconsciously expect those in the parts of the world that retained their values during various occupations to be as sinister and duplicitous as they are. If only they knew they had nothing to fear. Nasser didn’t want to make England a protectorate of Egypt nor did Saddam Hussein want Europe and the US to become ruled by the Iraqi branch of the Arab Socialist Ba’ath party.

The glaringly obvious truth is that, the West no longer has a distinct culture as such. One could justifiably say that Syrian culture is far more civilised, far more cohesive and healthy than that of Britain or America. Syrians are patriotic, they believe Syria is the best place on earth, but they do not want another Syria elsewhere, and they respect people from other nations who are equally patriotic. In Britain, while it is perfectly acceptable for the British to express a love of their country, the moment a foreigner shows any sign of patriotism, it becomes a competition, be it of a subtle or aggressive kind, and the superiority complex of the British rears its ugly head. Why? Because in the minds of the British social liberal imperialists, British culture is superior to all. Believing one’s country is superior, is not a problem in itself, certainly not on a personal level. But there is something very wrong when it is implied that only a specific country is worthy of patriotism itself.

Oddly, and I can only imagine due to the influence of Cultural Marxism and Globalism, in some distinctly English liberal circles, it is frowned upon to express national pride. Yet, those who frown are quick to act superior nevertheless, though they are careful not to appear too brash. You wouldn’t find the likes of Prince Phillip in such circles. Yet, at the same time, one has only to look at the demographics of the London liberal elite, to understand that even these so-called liberals stick with their kind. If one of the tribe dares to criticise their system, they will be called eccentric and perhaps even ‘not one of us’, but if a foreigner does so, he or she will be called stupid, crazy or in need of education.

Cecil Rhodes famously said ‘Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life’.

What he failed to do is explain ‘Why’. The truth of the matter is, the sun is setting in the West. But the West is not yet ready to accept this grim reality, much less realise why. Neo-Imperialism, Cultural Marxism, Globalism, open borders, etc have destroyed national sovereignty, culture and pride. It has left people confused about their individual and collective identity. Anyone can be anything in Western society, indeed people are encouraged to be anything other than who they really are. All this at the expense of basic human needs which are denied to many in this so called civilised and progressive West.

No culture is objectively superior to another and nothing can justify wars. Cultures are merely different and people can decide on an individual basis what they think is the best. When a society has no definable culture however, one ought to fix matters at home rather than being so bold as to export a declining culture using force. A state can be a super power, without undermining a less powerful one. Russia is one such state.

 

Theresa May: neither the style nor the policies britain wants

Originally published in theduran.com on 12 June 2017

 

It seemed strange and somewhat vulgar that the only contribution David Cameron made during the June 2017 British general election was a photograph posted on Instagram of his and his wife’s feet while on holiday in Portugal.

On second thought, it is not at all strange that he has been eerily quiet throughout this saga. Apart from funding and arming jihadis in Syria and bleating ‘Assad Must go’ David Cameron has little in common with his successor Theresa May. While Cameron is an out-of-touch semi-aristocrat, May is bland and disdainful of humanity as a whole. Her Draconian policies of increasing bureaucracy, wanting to censor the internet, denying the Scots the right to a referendum are testament to the fact she doesn’t even like her own people much less foreigners. Not even members of her own party can relate to her. While Cameron & the upper-class hooligan Bullington set delight in antics involving pigs, booze, drugs and vandalism, Theresa May’s dirtiest little secret is, by her own admission running through fields of wheat. Yet, she is far more dangerous.

She is insincere, uncool and unimaginative. Whatever she may be repressing, is unlikely to be of a salacious nature.

There is also her weak stance on Brexit, implying she is not interested in remaining in the single market. Whilst Boris Johnson can flip flop between being a remainder and a Brexiteer and somehow make it comical, she cannot. Her lack of a tangible Brexit plan, and arrogant manner with which she has been addressing member states of the EU, is insulting as well as counter-productive. By contrast, Jeremy Corbyn does have a plan, and perhaps more crucially, he is certain to part with the European Union respectfully and peacefully, ensuring therefore a reasonable deal, perhaps on the Swiss model.

Most people with businesses to run, do not want to leave the single market, which may explain why traditionally safe Tory seats lost to Labour, the most notable example being the Kensington seat where Labour had never previously won and probably never will again. Why they voted labour and not Lib Dem, is a mystery. Though it is clear that many who voted labour were previously non-voters who have been suffering from more Greek style budget cuts and those at risk of losing their long-owned council homes to large corporations. I suspect many others were relatively young professionals who could neither personally relate to May and her punitive policies, or were apprehensive about the possibility of leaving the single market. Most likely both.

Ultimately, her personality or lack thereof is what cost her this election. Nobody wants a boring and arrogant old maid representing one’s country on the international field.

Did syria just wash its hands of the 'Kurdish problem'?

Originally published in theduran.com on 6 May 2017

 

The Kurds have released a number of statements with regards to the Astana Memorandum that appear to contradict each other. On the one hand, they referred to the decree calling for safe zones in Syria a ‘crime’, claiming that it would lead to sectarian partition and federalisation. But isn’t partition indeed what the Kurds – or at least many of them want and always wanted? In this instance, they share the same objective as the terrorist factions: to divide and conquer albeit to a much smaller degree and for vastly different reasons.

he reality is that, despite this positive memorandum drafted by Russia, Iran and Turkey to reach a peaceful settlement in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Kurdish problem is not going away anytime soon, in fact, it may become a problem all of its own.

Americans have positioned their troops between Turkish forces and Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces(SDF) in North-eastern Syria to act as a buffer zone. This, along with Turkey being a signatory of the Astana agreement and America feeling excluded, has exacerbated the existing fractious relations between the two countries. Having been so publicly shunned from international developments, especially ones approved by UN, America is moving closer to the Kurds, and further away from Turkey who seeks to weaken the Kurdish insurgency in the region. However, the two NATO powers are likely to meet again.

There are two reasons why America is so keen in aiding the Kurds. Firstly, Donald Trump has openly expressed sympathy for them, one might reasonably assume because they are secular. He likes them for the same reasons he likes Israel.

Secondly, having invested 6 years in this war, the Americans are unlikely to walk away without a small victory of their own. In this respect, it may well be that if the Kurds do not get their beloved Kurdistan, they may just claim a substantial amount of autonomy in the region. If the Kurds continue to insurge despite the new peace settlement, and if they – along with their American partners prove to be too much of a liability for the Syrian Arab Army, realpolitik may be the only practical and peaceful answer and President Assad being the pragmatist that he is, might well agree to grant them the autonomy they so desire.

If President Assad does not willingly succumb to the Kurdish demands, and if the Kurds, with the help of the Americans manage to establish a Kurdistan in the north, the problem could be manifold, but not so much for Syria who would be more or less absolved of the Kurdish responsibility if such a thing were to happen. That would be both a good, and bad thing: good because the Turks would re-direct their attention entirely to Kurdistan, bad because it is unjust that Syria should be forced to give up part of her land.

But the Kurds have already been emboldened by their territorial claim in Northern Iraq which if a Kurdistan were to be established, it would likely first be established in Iraq.

But will the Kurds be able to claim a part of Syrian land? If so, where would all this leave Turkey and America? It would leave them responsible for the Kurdish problem, fighting one another in Kurdish territory, with Turkish forces continuing their political and sectarian war against the Kurds, and Americans trying to prevent the Turks from destroying a would-be US satellite state, depending on how far Donald Trump’s administration is willing to go to achieve this aim.

five reasons donald trump was born to capitulate

Originally published in theduran.com on 10 April 2017

 

1. Emotional volatility


Most would agree that Trump is a highly emotional personality, some might say an unstable one. Either way, many of his supporters believed he was wise enough to avoid impulsive action of any kind that would threaten the safety and security of America and beyond. It was after all his strong anti-war rhetoric that won him many supporters across the globe.

I do not feel he is insane, but I do recognize he is emotionally susceptible to his environment. It is clear that the images of the babies from the recent alleged chemical attack in Syria triggered a visceral reaction in him that blinded him to the facts. It would not have been difficult for the cunning CIA to convince an emotional Trump that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for such crimes.

My worst fear about Donald Trump came true in my mind: despite the tough guy rhetoric, he is a slave to his emotions and easily beaten into submission. Time will tell whether he is sane or not, depending on whether he takes responsibility and apologises for his unprovoked attack on Shayrat air base.

 

2. Afraid to die

During a rally in Ohio when a protester tried to climb on stage, Donald was taken completely off guard and his body jerked uncontrollably revealing immense shock and fear. This was demonstrative of the fact that this is a man who loves life, and who has not truly considered the possibility of death. By contrast, Muammar Gaddafi was prepared to die for his principles. With much of the commentariat speculating that the CIA might want to do to him as they likely did to JFK, it is perhaps only now that Trump may have considered the reality of death. If this is so, it is yet another reason why he may have capitulated to the pressure from the Deep State to toe the neo-con establishment line. Either way, if he continues to confuse the wider public, he is not fit for office. In his latest speeches justifying the attack on Syria, he appears less animated, morose even. He simple doesn’t look or sound himself.

3. Loves his family too much

Nobody could deny that the man loves his family a great deal. No parent who loves their children and grandchildren wants to leave them behind. Perhaps he loves them more than himself after all. Some commentators have speculated that the attack on Syrian land was to placate Ivanka’s White House war party husband Jared Kushner at the expense of losing his apparently vocal anti-war adviser and close ally Steve Bannon.

 

4. Afraid to appear weak

Donald Trump has constructed a specific image for himself, one of a tough alpha guy who suffers no fools and can get any attractive woman he wants. The problem with living up to this image is that it is virtually impossible. It is a fantasy. Where does it end? Will he have to decimate the entire Middle East before he realizes he has crossed the line? Tough guys experience just as many obstacles and disappointments as any average person, albeit of a different kind, the difference is an average guy can’t afford to pretend otherwise.

Donald Trump has little humility, if any. One can only hope he matures and comes to grips with reality sooner rather than later.

 

5. Afraid to disappoint

There is no doubt that Trump does not like to disappoint, be it his children, the American people, associates and even the Deep State. He is not good at saying ‘No’ for fear of appearing uncooperative or weak. It is not so important whether his need to win derives from his inflated sense of pride or because he genuinely likes to do good and to please. I suspect the truth like with most things is somewhere in between. Either way, pathological fear of defeat can easily extend to reckless actions.

Again, a touch of honesty and humility would do him more good than harm, and might even soften some of his supporters who have been dismayed by his latest foreign policy blunder.

Did we expect too much from him, and too soon? Were we too forgiving of his apparent flaw? Or were we betrayed too much? There are many unanswered questions, and more to come before the truth becomes clear.

Inside the syrian arab army: why they fight and what they fight for

Originally published in theduran.com on 7 April 2017

 

I don’t know if it’s thoughtlessness, stupidity or perversion or a combination that propels many in the established media and beyond to accuse the Syrian Government and the Syrian Arab Army of crimes against humanity, against their own people no less. Those who truly believe Assad is capable of murdering his own civilians are either stupid, perverse or completely detached from reality and the human condition. Just why would Assad do that? Why are the men and women of Syria sacrificing their lives to fight against terrorism if they were to truly believe their President is a war criminal?


 
The truth is they don’t.  One might say with confidence that the majority, if not all of the members of the Syrian Arab Army love their President, and they love their country and want it to remain united and secular.  To deny their sacrifices, is to deny reality which only adds insult to injury. It is inhumane.

It is not common for leaders to commit genocide against their own. Pol Pot, Hitler and Mao are the best of the few examples in modern history of leaders who wantonly killed their own people on a mass scale. All of them killed for ideology and political gain and were, in a way by their own admission fanatics.

he truth is, the brave men and women of Syria who are fighting Western, Saudi, Israeli, Turkish and Qatari funded and armed Salafist extremists are not only sacrificing their lives, but the lives and well-being of their loved ones.

I have spoken to a number of individuals from the Syrian armed forces whose identity I shall conceal for their protection. It is clear that most of the Syrian army personnel are civilians and educated ones at that – doctors, engineers, pharmacists and so on. Many of them had to quit their jobs, leave their young families to fend for themselves as they went and fought.  Many have been killed, and more have suffered irreparable injuries.

The conditions in some camps are bad. One officer told me how he lost 45 kilos during a four month terrorist siege. Another told me how he watched his friends being killed by terrorists while he, starved and injured jumped in the Euphrates River along with a few others and were rescued by a group of Bedouins. This is just one grim example of what these brave warriors go through on a daily basis. One of their younger, educated members said to me, “There are no happy stories in war” when I asked if he would like to share a positive experience.

There is constant interruption of electricity in camps and no heating. Food is scarce, often all they can find is a potato or an egg to get them through the day. Some only receive as little as $75 per month from the government. They receive online threats of violence against them and their families from terrorists who hack their profiles.

Yet, nobody I spoke to ever considered leaving Syria.

Assad has zero reason to kill innocent children as falsely reported by the mainstream media and the ‘moderate’ head-choppers; after all the majority of his people love him and want him to stay. He is not by any objective standard a fanatic. His ideology is one based on pragmatism and Pan-Arabism as I wrote here previously. The demonization of Assad may well be remembered as the biggest, most deranged and profoundly vile propaganda scam in the history of Western Imperialism.

Bashar al-Assad and the brave Syrian Arab Army deserve only compassion and admiration. Those who wrongly condemn them deserve only retribution.

Donald Trump: hated for style, ignored on substance

Originally published in theduran.com 3 APRIL 2017

 

In true conservative style, Donald Trump’s views and politics have remained the same in the last four decades. The only thing that has changed is his delivery.

Judging from old interviews, it is clear to see how Trump has gone from a business and entertainment legend – a television person speaking in a similar manner to other television people, and generally about television people, to a legendary, larger-than-life figure addressing real people. His rhetoric in his younger days was smoother and more fluid; he was a different cat then, a calmer cat. But the context was also very different, while the content has barely changed.

In an interview with Larry King in 1987, he criticized US foreign policy, specifically its mismanagement of funds and subsequent high deficit at the expense of American farmers, the poor, the sick and the homeless. This was an honest man, talking to an honest host about honest and serious matters.

Fast forward to today, he continues to repeat many of the same things but in the manner of an angry frustrated older man. This is to be expected, since by his own admission he only went into politics because he was angry: angry with corruption and with unnecessary and expensive foreign interventions. One could accuse Trump of many things, and indeed he has been, but inconsistency is not one of them.  And for that alone, he deserves respect, especially since many politicians have proved notoriously inconsistent from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton and most recently Barack Obama.

The thing about Trump is that he is a polymath at heart. He could have easily been a full time entertainer, Hollywood executive, or Wall street CEO. But he is not a seedy Wall Street type, he does not share the same servile, self-serving disposition as many of those people do. He is not, despite his wealth, a member of that particular elite. And he is much too principled to dedicate himself to a lifetime of mindless entertainment.

Donald Trump builds things, from high towers to modest residential properties and he is proud of both. He is a very expressive man who can’t help gesticulating, shouts when angry, laughs when amused, taunts when attacked, so much so that he often reminds me of a cantankerous but well-meaning Balkan grandmother. And much like a worn-out Balkan granny, he has a great deal to be pissed off about.

And it is precisely his colloquial manner, the authentic display of who he is warts and all, that has warmed many to him, and alienated those who believe all Presidents ought to sound and act like Barack Obama. This dichotomy is increasingly less about his politics, and more about who he happens to be. Many of those who initially hated his policies, are now more or less indifferent to them and more obsessed with his apparent flaws helping therefore to elevate his status from a mere right-wing oligarch in their eyes to someone who transcends politics and social norms, objectively speaking. His politics are therefore largely irrelevant at this stage, he could well have been a Democrat and some his opponents might have hated him just as much.

But he has touched many ordinary people. His romanticism is growing, and he will likely be remembered in the same way JFK is remembered: with fondness and nostalgia. Many would happily sit with Donald Trump hoping to share a laugh, or better still, a good bitch and moan.  Ultimately, what most people truly want is a solid listening ear.

In syria social media has been the 'weapon of mass instruction'

Originally published in theduran.com on 24 March 2017

 

When the US and the UK invaded Iraq in 2003, those Iraqis who knew of the internet saw it as an exotic, alien entity. Mobile phones were scarce, and even satellite television was not permitted prior to 2003 while email services were mostly limited to government officials.

Would things have transpired differently had the Iraqis been able to electronically communicate their plight with one another and the world to help counteract the established corporate media’s fake narrative that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass destruction?

My feeling is yes, things might have turned out differently. Iraq might not have survived the invasion due to its sectarian make-up and heavy sanctions placed on it that greatly weakened the country, but at the very least there may have been less bloodshed and more political and military unity.

The Shi’ias, Sunnis and Christians might well have united in patriotic spirit to fight a common Imperial enemy and save their country had they only had the means to liaise with ease amongst themselves.

The Baa’th party had already instilled a culture of education and learning, so I’m certain that had the people had access to internet, the majority would have wholly embraced it and Iraq might have just survived and been spared of the inevitable terrorist and sectarian wars that it suffers now.

Many Iraqis who lived through Saddam’s rule admit they regret his absence and many only understood the objective of the war well after the invasion.

By contrast, when the NATO alliance began its wars on Syria and Libya in 2011, the internet was more or less as it is now. Both Libyans and Syrians had full access to Facebook and twitter.  Syrians admit that internet and particularly the social media has played a huge role in counteracting the established media’s lies and propaganda which has in turn helped establish an international movement, one that supports President Assad and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Syrian writer and commentator Afraa Dagher says:

Mainstream media uses the net and social media to divide and occupy our land and spread lies, especially lies about civilian bombings by the Syrian or Russian airstrikes.  By the same token, we, Syrians reveal their lies by posting original photos along with the real sources. The mainstream media show photos from Gaza, from actual videos of Songs , sometimes from Benazir Butto suicide bombings, and claim them to be in Syria. But we still post the truth, despite our limited net, we post about Hezbollah’s heroic efforts and the real crimes of Israel which they try to censor simply because they know the truth would win.  Recently, the NATO aligned media tried to spread lies about the collapse of our army in Jobar Damascus, lying about the control of the terrorists over Damascus, in the same way they lied about Iraq, making the world think that Iraqi people welcomed the American soldiers when in reality they did not.


The Libya situation is far sadder. Although Libyans had full (and free) internet access, they did not take to the internet in the same way the Syrians did, despite the near 100% literacy rate in Libya.  They did not share the same keenness and curiosity as the Syrians toward the outside world, partly due to the tribal mindset and partly because, unlike Syria who had Iran and Hezbollah – and later Russia step in to assist, nobody did the same for Gaddafi.

Gaddafi turned Libya from sand to the richest state in African history, turned tents to skyscrapers but the culture of learning was not imbedded in a people with a less than 10% literacy rate prior to Gaddafi’s rule.

The Levant, by contrast was always ahead in terms of ancient civilization and modernization, and this is why I don’t believe Libya would have survived the war one way or another.

As for the illegal break-up of the Soviet Union, there was little hope of things transpiring any differently because of the remarkable degree of treachery by Yeltsin and because the internet did not exist for ordinary people in 1991, when an overwhelming majority of Soviet citizens voted in a referendum stating that they wished to remain within a single state, the USSR.

Both during the referendum and in the aftermath of the end of the USSR, Soviet citizens could not share their views with their fellow countrymen and the world on social media because it did not exist. Had it existed, there could have been a real discussion and people like Yeltsin, who covertly conspired to dissolve the USSR at a secret meeting in Belavezha  Forest may have been held to account.

Nor was the internet advanced enough to serve any meaningful purpose in 1999 when NATO illegally waged war on Serbia, bombing civilian targets including schools, churches and television stations.  The only reporters on the ground whose voice were heard, were the NATO propagandists.

It is interesting that by being a moderate leader and trusting of his people and allowing them access to the wider world, both electronically and intellectually, Bashar al-Assad has inadvertently – or perhaps by design helped to keep Syria independent and sovereign, despite the established media’s lies that the ‘moderate’ rebels are winning.

In actual fact, the Syrian Arab Army is making great gains against the terrorist factions and other intruders. By contrast, the more aggressive Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi lost both their lives and nations, perhaps because they didn’t foster an environment that allowed their people to do something the established media never could: tell the truth from the perspective of the people about to be bombed to death.

It is deeply ironic that Bashar al-Assad once laughed at a warning Colonel Gaddafi made at an Arab league summit, when the Libyan leader said that anyone in the room could be next to hang from the American gallows.

It seems that Assad has learned from his own mistakes and those of others. He has become a man who has given his people the freedom to be independent and his assured victory guarantees his people will forever more have the independence that will assure their freedom.

Western liberals and the middle east: how y rejecting arab secularism they embraced wahhabi terrorism

Originally published in theduran.com on 21 March 2017

 

To understand how the liberal mindset has evolved, or rather devolved, one needs only look at Syria and Yemen and contrast it with the events and feelings surrounding the 2003 invasion of Iraq when many well-meaning left-wing liberals took to the streets in protest against the war.
 
Today, however, one can reasonably assume that the majority of the same people couldn’t care less about the Western backed illegal intervention in Syria, a war that not only has led to thousands of civilian deaths, poverty and displacement, but has also shattered the infrastructure and social cohesion that Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez worked hard to build for decades.

As for Yemen, sadly the crisis remains an abstract idea to many self-centred liberals in the West.

Their justification for their profound lack of awareness and empathy is that they’ve convinced themselves with the help of NATO mouthpieces BBC, CNN and other news channels alike, that Bashar al-Assad is a dictator.

Many said the same about Saddam Hussein but that didn’t prevent a million people from marching because they still had a degree of common sense left to understand that war is first and foremost, a terrible idea, one in which there are no winners. At the very least, they understood that the war was not about Saddam Hussein, but about an imperialist violation of international law designed to destroy an independent secular Arab state.

Now, however, they seem to have lost all perspective and become numb to reality.

I’ve heard many say that so long as there is no war in Europe, all is OK in the world. But if they are too ignorant to understand that the Balkan region, where international wars tend to begin and often end constitutes a part of Europe, how can they be expected to understand Arab secularism?

If anything, Saddam Hussein was more of a dictator than Bashar al-Assad could ever be, as was evident when Assad announced that he would pardon the terrorists if they would only put their weapons down.

Saddam Hussein by contrast would most certainly have executed anyone who rose against him on the spot.  In Iraqi terms he was right to do.  Those who feel this is too harsh, clearly know very little about Iraq – or indeed about Syria – and have never seen ISIS videos of beheadings and other atrocities.

Since 2003 and especially since Brexit and Trump, liberal aggressiveness has reached new heights.

Liberals always had a lunatic fringe, but now mainstream liberalism seems to inhabit a realm of total detachment from reality and a lack of honest understanding of world events.

Liberals’ tolerance for the perverse – including the insidious acceptance of Wahhabism – has increased significantly, and has meant that people can no longer distinguish right from wrong.  Perhaps if BBC were to show an ISIS video every day, people in the West would quickly get the idea, and gain some perspective. But liberals, especially those within the establishment media, are more concerned with their own existential crises than with real ones.

why baashar al-assad's brand of ba'athism is the right solution for Syria and for this age

Originally published in theduran.com on 6 March 2017

 

Ba’athism can be viewed from two different perspectives: firstly by its objective virtues, and secondly by its opposition.


Ba’athism, as a political theory, combines Arab nationalism with socialist ideas, high quality secular education, a mixed economy, and a strong central government that oversees a secular society in which all religions are treated equally and worship is freely allowed.

It was a philosophy adopted by several post-colonial Arab states. With the exception of a few occasions where Ba’athists argued over whether or not to pursue Nasserist Pan-Arabism, modern Ba’ath parties concentrate on a single state, although many still see Pan-Arabism as a noble ideal. This especially became the case after the Ba’athist party split in 1966 in Syria, where many of the new militant Syrian Ba’athists expelled the old guard, who fled to Iraq.

Iraq and Syria became enemies thereon, and relations between the two countries never fully recovered.

Young Syria was fraught with war and political instability. The joint Arab war against Israel in 1948 led to a military coup in Syria in 1949, followed by another coup in 1954. It was only when President Nasser formed the United Arab Republic in 1958, a country comprising Syria and Egypt, that Syria finally achieved some peace and stability. But shortly after, in 1961 and largely due to Syrian officials feeling dissatisfied that the majority of senior positions in the UAR being held by Egyptians, the union between Syria and Egypt was dissolved, leading once again to political instability in Syria.

However the March revolution of 1963 was the turning point in Syrian domestic affairs, as it set the precedent for the current Ba’athist model of governance led by Bashar al-Assad.

Syrians see 1963 as a huge step in introducing modernity to the country. Women were allowed access to higher secular education, big infrastructure projects were introduced as well as mass literacy programs. It is worth noting that one of the leading figures of the Syrian Ba’athist party was Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq who many consider to be the Father of Ba’athism.

Life for Syrians continued to improve when moderate Ba’athist and strong leader Hafez al-Assad took power in 1970 in what was known as the ‘corrective movement’, establishing thereafter the Syrian Arab Republic. The developments under Hafez al-Assad brought a significant degree of peace and stability in spite of Syria joining in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and policing certain parts of Lebanon during the Lebanese civil war. The Muslim Brotherhood was crushed during this period, making it possible for the Syrian people to live under a secular government.  Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father upon Hafez al-Assad’s death in 2000, and continues his father’s legacy of Ba’athism.

For a state that is surrounded by enemies and which has been under attack on all fronts from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Britain, the US, France and Belgium, and which has been under repeated attack from Israel ever since the 1967 Israeli occupation of Golan Heights, it makes sense for Bashar al-Assad’s government to take a tough line towards certain dissident elements, especially those entering the country from outside, who might be foreign agents threatening the safety and security of Syrians.

When looking at current events in Syria from this wider historical perspective, which is the only realistic perspective, it is clear that not only is the current secular Ba’athist model of governance which allows freedom and national sovereignty the optimal solution for Syria, but it is the only practical option delivering peace and prosperity when the only alternative is the Wahhabist theocracy of the Gulf states.  Importing that to very different society of Syria  would be a guarantee for more instability, destruction and violence.

Syria is a new state, especially when measured by the standards of ancient imperialist powers who for many centuries sought to colonise the Arab world.   Liberal north European models of democracy and governance have no relevance in a country still in the process of establishing its national identity, something it has only been over the last four decades.

Indeed, Bashar al-Assad has been a more moderate and tolerant figure than his father was. His government and parliament are comprised of all sects and religions: Alawites, Shi’as, Sunnis, Orthodox Christians and other varieties of Christianity.

While Saddam Hussein’s variant of Ba’athism was more distinctive, corresponding to the various existing factions in Iraq and containing elements of ancient Mesopotamian civilisations adapted to Arab nationalism, Syrian Ba’athism has remained consistent and true to its roots.

Syrians are first and foremost Syrians before identifying as anything else. It is for this reason that Bashar al-Assad’s government has granted equal rights to all, and privileges to none.

The independent Syrian writer Afra’a Dagher puts it thus:

I don’t belong to any political party. However the Ba’ath Party led by Bashar al-Assad is the main and best one for most of us; the key point is this party’s priority is about the unification of the whole Arab Nation. Therefore it is careful about the plot of removing the ‘Arab’ feature from the political party as it would present the opportunity for federalization, partition and ultimately destruction of the United State. The other party, the SSNP The Syrian Socialist National Party removed the word ‘Arab’ and seeks only Greater Syria. But then Syria would lose its national identity. I believe in the Ba’ath party principles, which the US and its allies are trying to break apart.


Therefore one can say with confidence that those calling for the overthrow of President Assad and his government are either ignorant of the historical realities and dynamics of the country, or they have a vested interest in destroying the secular, independent Syrian Arab Republic.

Either way, they agitate for the violation of international law.

Donald Trump is a triumph for the common man over the broken elite

trump cool.jpg

Originally published in theduran.com on 10 November 2016

 

Apart from the fact that that I love the man and all he stands for, I also got a wonderful hit of schadenfreude at all the doomsday scenarios urgently posted across the internet by the mainstream media and political cognoscenti who have seen their cosmopolitan bubble truly burst.

I get it, they’re pissed off. They too have feelings that ought to be recognised. Unfortunately, theirs is not a raw, authentic human anger, but a mechanical passive-aggressive variety with plenty of underlining condescension and a surprising lack of cognitive empathy. Subsequently they inspire neither sympathy nor respect, especially when they bleat, bully and patronize more than any other demographic on earth.

What’s worse is that many are not even aware of how they are. The entitlement and liberal brainwashing is so deeply embedded that, much like an alcoholic with alcohol, it has become part of a larger neurological problem. I wonder just how many generations it would take for this skewed western liberal psyche to repair and re-programme itself back to reality. This attitude was perfectly encapsulated in John Podesta’a advice to dismayed Hillary fans to go home, get some sleep, and wait to hear from the candidate the next day.

They will never admit that the system is warped and shattered, from Wall Street to Hollywood, nor will they ever admit that they created and subsequently derided and ignored millions of angry, disenfranchised and uneducated people with guns that they call “White Trash”. Frankly, if I were them, I too would happily own a gun.

What they don’t realize, or don’t want to, is that they are also insulting other demographics including the working class who have been put out of good jobs by globalisation and bad trade deals, those tired of political dynasties, black voters tired of democratic carrots and sticks and also tired of illegal Latinos taking over their communities. Others who don’t want Muslim terrorists in America, people who want an end to crooked free trade, those who want a fairer tax system, those who’ve been ripped off by Obama Healthcare whilst getting considerably worse treatments, and many, many more.

Neo-liberals truly do not care for humanity or culture, much less democracy. They believe their Harvard degrees are sufficient to make them above being a decent human being. They believe their ideas, beliefs, tastes are superior and therefore feel entitled to criticize anyone who doesn’t share the same views. They capitalize on the sick, the poor and the twisted, be it through wars, buying Marina Abramovich’s perverted non-art or attending weekly therapy for the rest of their lives. They mock expression and applaud suppression which leads to emotional and psychological arrest and subsequently an inability to deal with every-day living in a natural, healthy manner. When therapy hasn’t helped, they blame the therapist.

Donald Trump is the antithesis of all the above. He is expressive, natural, and hates perversion. He lives like a King and unlike Hillary, he loves America and can truly relate to all people – not just the common man. He’s good fun with a gift for comradeship, and intelligent without being anally retentive. And most of all, he loves peace and is accepting of human folly. We ought to be grateful that he has reminded us that human silliness is not to be derided, but rejoiced.

What’s there not to like?

Trump-Clinton Divide: Extremism In Defence Of Peace Is No Vice, Duplicity In Pursuit Of War Is No Virtue

Originally published in theduran.com on 7 November 2017

 

The only way to get the truth out of certain people, is to allow them to speak until they say something by accident that carries an unprecedented emotional intensity. That is the truth, one way or another, and sooner rather than later even the most prolific liar is bound to let slip.
 
This theory applies particularly to Hillary Clinton, a woman whose public persona is that of a refined, confident and reliable stateswoman: a perfect cover for a murderous psychopath who, alarmingly is too often mistaken for being simply boring. But she too, betrays herself, and one of the ways she does so is through projection: whatever Hillary or Bill are guilty of, she and her allies accuse others of those same crimes.

Watching Donald Trump repeatedly being blamed for Bill Clinton’s crimes by stooges often paid by those of a similar ilk to left wing feminist lawyer Gloria Allred, is both depressing and sinister. This lady has no qualms about destroying innocent men’s lives, indeed her avarice and contempt for humanity is not limited to men for she has made a career exploiting vulnerable women through offers of money, fame and grandeur in exchange for making false accusations against male celebrities. It is not difficult to imagine Allred finding a vulnerable woman with an unfortunate or questionable past and asking “Have you ever been in a room with Donald Trump? We can make some big money by saying…”.

She usually either loses or the case doesn’t go to trial.

By the same token, no pervert in the world will let on that he is a pervert, certainly not deliberately and publicly. If Donald Trump were an actual rapist, he would not be so stupid as to constantly give himself away with meaningless pseudo-sexist remarks. On the contrary, sick people usually go to great measures to prove otherwise, often going as far as gaining occupations pertaining to a specific perversion, or orchestrating protests and campaigns against causes they are guilty of themselves. This is a well-known defence mechanism called ‘Reaction Formation”.  Jimmy Savile was a perfect example. But Cyril Smith and Jeremy Thorpe also fit the part. I can’t think of any exception that proves the rule.

Donald Trump is many things, but he is not odd or sinister. However, had he wanted to appease the establishment and the media, he would have behaved quite differently. Instead he chose to be himself and have fun while at it, which rendered him tailor-made for attack, abandonment and ridicule from the establishment and the mainstream media.

I have noticed a trend whereby people conflate personality with character.

In the grand scheme, it is irrelevant whether or not one likes the personality of the leader of a country. What’s more, a statesman’s personality is not a reliable indicator of his or her statesmanship: their character is, and by character I mean the personal morals and values by which one conducts one’s life.

To judge leaders by what they say alone, is foolish. To judge them by how they dress and wear their hair is downright idiotic. One can be boisterous, facetious – even occasionally thoughtless and still a thorough and honest leader.

Hillary Clinton may appear rational and dependable, but as most of us know by now thanks to Wikileaks and other trustworthy and unbiased sources, she’s reckless, paranoid and murderous. Her main objective is to spread suffering throughout the world; to desensitise and obliterate what is left of humanity in order to satisfy her destruction-driven id and overactive superego simultaneously. Her psyche is distorted; her identity contradictory at best and nonexistent at worst.

Despite all the information available on Wikileaks about Hillary’s long-standing crimes and corruption, a lesser-known, big-mouthed actor by the name of Bryan Cranston is still banging on about Trump’s personality which, I repeat, is inconsequential:

“He just, he’s a remarkable, that’s why he’s so Shakespearean, because he’s so, he’s so, he’s just unlike anyone we’ve ever seen in that realm”.
Perhaps he’s unlike anyone YOU have ever seen, Bryan mate.

This guy is not making sense. He is saying nothing intelligible. Trump at times says everything and nothing – but often ironically. This guy is saying nothing at all, but irony clearly wasn’t part of his degree course.

There really is nothing remarkable about Trump from an analytical point of view. He’s not complicated in any sense. He hasn’t committed any crimes. Businesses, as any businessman and economist would confirm, suffer vicissitudes. But the UN Charter and US constitution are clear, and Hillary has violated both. Anyone who would care to do some research would come to the same conclusion.

Donald Trump is a simple, forthright male with good ideas. He is a traditional anti-interventionist conservative, unlike George W. Bush whose foreign policy was neo liberal/neo con.

Trump is anti-free trade and, unlike Angela Merkel who has violated the Dublin Convention, is against open borders, if it means keeping ISIS, the Mexican drug cartels and other miscreants out and his countrymen safe.

Even his flaws are predictable and human, as well as predictably male. I can’t see how a simple man with good ideas can be worse than a dishonest woman with nuclear ideas. The man is bright, incorruptible and likeable. He is what he is for all to see.

It is Hillary Clinton who wants war with Russia and to ring China with missiles – two things that could well lead to Nuclear War.  Donald Trump wants collaboration with Russia, and firm trade deals with China.

It is Hillary Clinton not Donald Trump who wants to continue funding and arming ISIS and AL-Qaeda and to kill the secular president of Syria; she again is the one who wants to drone Julian Assange and rig international elections (as documented in leaked emails and audio tapes). It is she whose record on various minority civil rights has been dubious, conflicted and in constant transition.  Indeed she was opposed to gay marriage until the Supreme Court made its ruling, which Barack Obama enthusiastically supported.

This demonstrates that she is a friend of no-one but her own ambition.

It was Hillary Clinton who was heard on tape referring to the Palestinian people contemptuously as “these cultures” during an interview with The Jewish Press in 2006, when she was re-running for New York Senator. She also added, “We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win” apropos of the Palestine Election.

Finally, it was Hillary Clinton who openly praised a man called Robert Byrd, a big political Klansman and a famous racist.

An expressive individual of a practical and amiable nature, Donald Trump is constitutionally incapable of relating to someone with Hillary’s personality and character, and particularly her penchant for wars.

I have never heard Hillary Clinton express solidarity with the people of Libya or Syria, much less sorrow. How could she, when she allowed her own ambassador to be burned alive?

Trump has expressed a great deal of empathy for war victims as well as condemnation for the perpetrators, both those at home and in foreign lands.

Domestic affairs were never enough for Hillary Clinton however. Just remember that if she wins, the only domestic policy to worry about may well be how to dispose of the radioactive dead bodies

Tony Blair Wants To Lead a Liberal Revolution...By Himself

Originally published in theduran.com on 30 October 2016

 

Once again, Tony Blair shows the contempt he feels for the people of the United Kingdom and humanity as a whole by dismissing, and downright denying a result of raw democracy.


Blair gives a new meaning to the word ‘”opportunist”: someone who gets there before the opportunity.

First he alludes to a return to politics, at which point the entire nation is heard howling “OH SHUT UP, TONY”.

As if that weren’t dreary enough, he now has the nerve to tell Britain what to do about the current political crisis. It beggars belief.

To state the obvious ugly truth, Tony Blair does not care for democracy and never did.

Brexit is his piggyback ride into the political limelight. He would like to exploit the fact that in home affairs liberalism has been totally killed off as a political force which was self-evident prior to the Brexit vote and irrespective of how the vote would have gone.

Now with both the Remain and Brexit lot thoroughly discredited – the Remainers because they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and the Brexiteers because they did not expect to win and had no tangible plan were they to win – Blair is thinking, should things get worse during the course of discovering what Brexit will look like, he should like to be the leader of a new pro-EU Liberal movement.

It is not difficult to understand what drives this man to persist in this shameless manner.

Whilst Jeremy Corbyn has morally and democratically earned his right to persist, Blair has used and abused the last drop of the goodwill of the British public. So if it is not moral courage, which it clearly isn’t, it must be greed and arrogance that compel Blair to try to attempt a political resurrection.

Tony Blair knows he is hated but he is even more aware that he is articulate.

He is the last liberal standing and given that the Labour Party may split between a socialist and liberal faction, Blair is setting himself up to be the leader of the liberal faction and is banking on the fact that the devil one knows is more bankable than an obscure angel.

In the perverse universe that is Tony Blair’s mind, he thinks that he can combine the unthinkable with the three-fold goal of:

1) Making Britain love Europe

2) Making Europe love Britain

3) Making the World love Blair

Each goal would be more difficult to attain than the preceding.

It remains to be seen how things will transpire. One thing is for sure, however: the older one gets, the more one’s face mirrors one’s soul. Blair’s increasingly withered and vitriolic expression speaks for itself.

The Liberal Mask Over The Imperialist Face: How The West Fools Itself

Originally published in theduran.com on 28 October 2016

 

I started reading “What’s Left?: How the Left Lost its Way: How Liberals Lost Their Way” by British political commentator Nick Cohen, in which he argues that the Left has lost its identity, criticising Imperialistic policies while turning a blind eye to the evils of Islamic totalitarian regimes.
 
Nine years after its publication, Cohen still believes what he wrote. But he misses a basic fact: the West is not turning a blind eye to Islamic totalitarian regimes, it is arming and funding them. It is the secular states by and large that the West is trying to destroy through their use of Islamic proxies such as Al-Nusra, Al-Sham, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Free Syrian Army.

But according to Cohen, everyone is a fascist, from George Galloway to Noam Chomsky to even the London Review of Books.

The fact that Cohen clearly does not understand the difference between fascism, socialism and liberalism ought to automatically disqualify any serious individual from giving consideration to his views.

I am familiar with Mr. Cohen, a man who still believes the war in Iraq was a good thing. The one living person in the world who thinks the same is Tony Blair: the other was Ahmed Chalabi. The former evil, the other greedy and super dodgy, so Cohen, I have concluded must be deluded.

I simply cannot believe that anyone with a brain and a conscience could still believe the war in Iraq was in any shape or form justifiable.

Therefore, I feel a more pertinent argument would be why the West is unable to empathise with killings and tragedies occurring beyond America, Israel and Europe? The answer is lengthy and complicated, but let us state the obvious for now: because it cannot afford to.

While the late Tony Benn, a fervent anti-war advocate was considered “radical” and “eccentric”, war-enthusiast Nick Cohen, who Benn described as “a right winger pretending to be left”, is considered the forefront political commentator in Britain, an intelligent and rational voice.

How so? His is a cowardly and outwardly aggressive voice; he is sensitive only to himself and his kind – the kind who can stretch their sympathy to Paris and Nice whilst denying the Iraqi and Syrian realities. Cry Cohen preaches to a public who are all too happy to have their cozy views and feelings vindicated to justify their own uneventful lives, their lack of moral courage and understanding of the wider world.

Whilst leftists like Benn opposed all forms of war and imperialism, the West continues to fund Islamic terror to destroy secular regimes and slaughter civilians all the while lying to the public who are afraid of Islamic terror, but know and care little about Nasserism or Ba’athism.

A diplomatic friend told me about a dinner he once had with Mr. Benn some years back and I couldn’t help noticing that there was more than just a hint of condescension as he spoke of Benn’s “radical” views, notwithstanding he was “great fun and very amusing”. One might have been forgiven to assume Benn was some small time dotty MEP rather than a great mind, kind soul and a maverick. The Bilderberg set and the media may have sneered at Benn, but hardly anyone is laughing now.

While on the one hand we have a self-absorbed, deluded public, on the other we have the hysterical sympathisers led by, in the words of Charles Dickens “Telescopic Philanthropists”.

Dickens was scathing of this trend as it’s clearly demonstrable in his 1852 masterpiece “Bleak House” in which the character Mrs Jellyby’s defining feature is her obsession with helping an African tribe through a variety of means, including sending red flannels to African ladies to cover their modesty. She would do all this while being abominable to her own family.

But tax breaks are more attractive than emotional contemplation.

Such people cannot resolve the world’s problems.   On the contrary by attempting to do so, they exacerbate those already at home and create brand new ones.

It is useless to try and explain this to the kindly celebrities of today who compete with one another for the Mrs. Jellyby Crown, while the likes of Cohen continue to desensitise and feed an already desensitised and brainwashed public.

Liberal interventionism is not a cause, but a wider symptom of a Western malaise that seeks to re-order the world around ideas which have failed in their own place of creation. Cohen is not the specific issue.

The problem is that people listen to him. He allows his audience to feel they’ve been morally self-righteous whilst remaining part of an establishment which does little for them other than let them buy things on Amazon, enjoy Starbucks – whose business methods are unethical to say the least – and so on.

He allows them to live mundane lives where they can say “I believe in fair trade” meanwhile they don’t care about the actual deaths in Syria and Iraq. He’s essentially a safety net, a sort of “get out of moral jail free card” for such people who can feel they are being intellectual, radical, and conscientious when all they are really doing is toeing the establishment line.

Saying ‘We’re going to be the good liberals’ sounds better than “We’re going to be the new imperialists”. Ultimately it’s the same thing.

From Cold War To Cold Stare: How The West Lost The Plot On Womanhood

rex-features_t_katemoss-tracey-emin-tit2.jpg

Originally published in theduran.com on 26 October 2016

 

I recall, soon after watching “Bridget Jones’s Diary”, my school friend’s mother saying to us girls in a tearful, infant-like voice, “Aw, there’s a bit of Bridget in all of us”.
 

I daren’t contradict and say “Not in this one” because they were dutifully putting me up in their cosy mansion in a picturesque English market town.

If she said so, it must be right and as a guest, and especially a foreigner I had no right to disagree.

The English can be very kind to outsiders, almost too kind, so long as you agree with them and never challenge their perception of you. But the idea that I, a Balkan woman of multi-faith background, could possibly have anything in common with the most nondescript, insipid Western female fictional character of all time, filled me with a fiendish kind of fury. 

Forget Sex and the City: those girls at the very least took pride in their appearance. But Bridget Jones, the movie and character did not, though this isn’t really about appearance. It is about feeling.

What struck me most about the movie, was how good it made other women feel. It seems, watching a plain, developmentally arrested woman screw up on screen makes Western women feel cosy and comfortable.

With me, it was the opposite: I felt pathetic. I wondered if perhaps there was something wrong with me for not identifying with this klutz, and it took me a while to figure out the truth: that I don’t care for petty schadenfreude. I don’t care that she had a meltdown when her new boyfriend saw her large granny knickers just as he was about to motorboat her, or that she was the only single woman in a party full of couples.

And nor should any other grown up. It’s not witty, it’s not even embarrassing. It’s unimaginative and promotes a culture whereby it is acceptable to be a great big infant over petty every-day events.

But such is the ethos of the modern day West. At school, we had the ‘tarts’ and everyone else. The tarts were usually prettier and better dressed. They would attack the dance floor with their long thin legs and large breasts. They were also in the minority.  Perversely, however and unlike everywhere else in the civilised world, the emphasis was more on appearance than behaviour. One could be labeled a ‘tart’ even if one was technically a virgin and vice versa.

There are a few distinct differences between women of the West and pretty much every other woman in the world: women all over want to be seen and admired, while their Western counterparts want to be invisible. Looking grubby is chic. Moth holes in cashmere become Kate Moth and cool and putting oneself down and revealing one’s gruesome habits is a requirement.

All one has to do is go to Notting Hill and observe those too posh to wash, blaming their dog and dog walking trips for their dirty fingernails. And if they don’t look and smell like vagrants, they are caricatures of the female species. They are Invisible and unnatural either way. Western men, it seems are better women than women.

This paradox exists within most women around the world to varying degrees, but nowhere as conspicuously as it does in the English speaking West. For a culture that prides itself on equality and democracy, the Madonna-Whore conjunction is alive and well, the struggle to grasp the fact that one doesn’t have to deny one’s womanhood to be respected and accepted. Nor ought one treat one’s pussy as one’s most valuable asset. Any woman who does so, deserves to be screwed.

But Western ladies also deny their womanhood because they are surprisingly ill at ease with their own concepts of civilisation. They feel unconsciously, pre-consciously or indeed consciously that the Madonna and the Whore cannot co-exist within one entity; they believe that human biology, human urges, human needs, human silliness are somehow incompatible with the civilised world they seek to impose a mechanistic ideal upon.

Therefore, when one decides to rebel against such conformist mores, one generally does so in an unmeasured and hysterical away, as though unconsciously seeking the reproach society will inevitably thrust upon one and wearing it as a badge of courage.

In more balanced societies this schism does not exist. Thucydides said that one of the defining features of the Athenian man is that he can be culturally cultivated and simultaneously masculine. One can apply the exact same sentiment to a woman in a culture that has not yet lost the plot