The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
The Age of Disintegration
Neoliberalism, Interventionism, the Resource Curse, and a Fragmenting World
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_203053270

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

We live in an age of disintegration. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Greater Middle East and Africa. Across the vast swath of territory between Pakistan and Nigeria, there are at least seven ongoing wars — in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and South Sudan. These conflicts are extraordinarily destructive. They are tearing apart the countries in which they are taking place in ways that make it doubtful they will ever recover. Cities like Aleppo in Syria, Ramadi in Iraq, Taiz in Yemen, and Benghazi in Libya have been partly or entirely reduced to ruins. There are also at least three other serious insurgencies: in southeast Turkey, where Kurdish guerrillas are fighting the Turkish army, in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula where a little-reported but ferocious guerrilla conflict is underway, and in northeast Nigeria and neighboring countries where Boko Haram continues to launch murderous attacks.

All of these have a number of things in common: they are endless and seem never to produce definitive winners or losers. (Afghanistan has effectively been at war since 1979, Somalia since 1991.) They involve the destruction or dismemberment of unified nations, their de facto partition amid mass population movements and upheavals — well publicized in the case of Syria and Iraq, less so in places like South Sudan where more than 2.4 million people have been displaced in recent years.

Add in one more similarity, no less crucial for being obvious: in most of these countries, where Islam is the dominant religion, extreme Salafi-Jihadi movements, including the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda, and the Taliban are essentially the only available vehicles for protest and rebellion. By now, they have completely replaced the socialist and nationalist movements that predominated in the twentieth century; these years have, that is, seen a remarkable reversion to religious, ethnic, and tribal identity, to movements that seek to establish their own exclusive territory by the persecution and expulsion of minorities.

In the process and under the pressure of outside military intervention, a vast region of the planet seems to be cracking open. Yet there is very little understanding of these processes in Washington. This was recently well illustrated by the protest of 51 State Department diplomats against President Obama’s Syrian policy and their suggestion that air strikes be launched targeting Syrian regime forces in the belief that President Bashar al-Assad would then abide by a ceasefire. The diplomats’ approach remains typically simpleminded in this most complex of conflicts, assuming as it does that the Syrian government’s barrel-bombing of civilians and other grim acts are the “root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader region.”

It is as if the minds of these diplomats were still in the Cold War era, as if they were still fighting the Soviet Union and its allies. Against all the evidence of the last five years, there is an assumption that a barely extant moderate Syrian opposition would benefit from the fall of Assad, and a lack of understanding that the armed opposition in Syria is entirely dominated by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda clones.

Though the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is now widely admitted to have been a mistake (even by those who supported it at the time), no real lessons have been learned about why direct or indirect military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East over the last quarter century have all only exacerbated violence and accelerated state failure.

A Mass Extinction of Independent States

The Islamic State, just celebrating its second anniversary, is the grotesque outcome of this era of chaos and conflict. That such a monstrous cult exists at all is a symptom of the deep dislocation societies throughout that region, ruled by corrupt and discredited elites, have suffered. Its rise — and that of various Taliban and al-Qaeda-style clones — is a measure of the weakness of its opponents.

The Iraqi army and security forces, for example, had 350,000 soldiers and 660,000 police on the books in June 2014 when a few thousand Islamic State fighters captured Mosul, the country’s second largest city, which they still hold. Today the Iraqi army, security services, and about 20,000 Shia paramilitaries backed by the massive firepower of the United States and allied air forces have fought their way into the city of Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, against the resistance of IS fighters who may have numbered as few as 900. In Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban, supposedly decisively defeated in 2001, came about less because of the popularity of that movement than the contempt with which Afghans came to regard their corrupt government in Kabul.

Everywhere nation states are enfeebled or collapsing, as authoritarian leaders battle for survival in the face of mounting external and internal pressures. This is hardly the way the region was expected to develop. Countries that had escaped from colonial rule in the second half of the twentieth century were supposed to become more, not less, unified as time passed.

Between 1950 and 1975, nationalist leaders came to power in much of the previously colonized world. They promised to achieve national self-determination by creating powerful independent states through the concentration of whatever political, military, and economic resources were at hand. Instead, over the decades, many of these regimes transmuted into police states controlled by small numbers of staggeringly wealthy families and a coterie of businessmen dependent on their connections to such leaders as Hosni Mubarak in Egypt or Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

ORDER IT NOW

In recent years, such countries were also opened up to the economic whirlwind of neoliberalism, which destroyed any crude social contract that existed between rulers and ruled. Take Syria. There, rural towns and villages that had once supported the Baathist regime of the al-Assad family because it provided jobs and kept the prices of necessities low were, after 2000, abandoned to market forces skewed in favor of those in power. These places would become the backbone of the post-2011 uprising. At the same time, institutions like the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) that had done so much to enhance the wealth and power of regional oil producers in the 1970s have lost their capacity for united action.

The question for our moment: Why is a “mass extinction” of independent states taking place in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond? Western politicians and media often refer to such countries as “failed states.” The implication embedded in that term is that the process is a self-destructive one. But several of the states now labeled “failed” like Libya only became so after Western-backed opposition movements seized power with the support and military intervention of Washington and NATO, and proved too weak to impose their own central governments and so a monopoly of violence within the national territory.

In many ways, this process began with the intervention of a U.S.-led coalition in Iraq in 2003 leading to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the shutting down of his Baathist Party, and the disbanding of his military. Whatever their faults, Saddam and Libya’s autocratic ruler Muammar Gaddafi were clearly demonized and blamed for all ethnic, sectarian, and regional differences in the countries they ruled, forces that were, in fact, set loose in grim ways upon their deaths.

A question remains, however: Why did the opposition to autocracy and to Western intervention take on an Islamic form and why were the Islamic movements that came to dominate the armed resistance in Iraq and Syria in particular so violent, regressive, and sectarian? Put another way, how could such groups find so many people willing to die for their causes, while their opponents found so few? When IS battle groups were sweeping through northern Iraq in the summer of 2014, soldiers who had thrown aside their uniforms and weapons and deserted that country’s northern cities would justify their flight by saying derisively: “Die for [then-Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki? Never!”

A common explanation for the rise of Islamic resistance movements is that the socialist, secularist, and nationalist opposition had been crushed by the old regimes’ security forces, while the Islamists were not. In countries like Libya and Syria, however, Islamists were savagely persecuted, too, and they still came to dominate the opposition. And yet, while these religious movements were strong enough to oppose governments, they generally have not proven strong enough to replace them.

Too Weak to Win, But Too Strong to Lose

Though there are clearly many reasons for the present disintegration of states and they differ somewhat from place to place, one thing is beyond question: the phenomenon itself is becoming the norm across vast reaches of the planet.

If you’re looking for the causes of state failure in our time, the place to start is undoubtedly with the end of the Cold War a quarter-century ago. Once it was over, neither the U.S. nor the new Russia that emerged from the Soviet Union’s implosion had a significant interest in continuing to prop up “failed states,” as each had for so long, fearing that the rival superpower and its local proxies would otherwise take over. Previously, national leaders in places like the Greater Middle East had been able to maintain a degree of independence for their countries by balancing between Moscow and Washington. With the break-up of the Soviet Union, this was no longer feasible.

In addition, the triumph of neoliberal free-market economics in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse added a critical element to the mix. It would prove far more destabilizing than it looked at the time.

Again, consider Syria. The expansion of the free market in a country where there was neither democratic accountability nor the rule of law meant one thing above all: plutocrats linked to the nation’s ruling family took anything that seemed potentially profitable. In the process, they grew staggeringly wealthy, while the denizens of Syria’s impoverished villages, country towns, and city slums, who had once looked to the state for jobs and cheap food, suffered. It should have surprised no one that those places became the strongholds of the Syrian uprising after 2011. In the capital, Damascus, as the reign of neoliberalism spread, even the lesser members of the mukhabarat, or secret police, found themselves living on only $200 to $300 a month, while the state became a machine for thievery.

This sort of thievery and the auctioning off of the nation’s patrimony spread across the region in these years. The new Egyptian ruler, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, merciless toward any sign of domestic dissent, was typical. In a country that once had been a standard bearer for nationalist regimes the world over, he didn’t hesitate this April to try to hand over two islands in the Red Sea to Saudi Arabia on whose funding and aid his regime is dependent. (To the surprise of everyone, an Egyptian court recently overruled Sisi’s decision.)

That gesture, deeply unpopular among increasingly impoverished Egyptians, was symbolic of a larger change in the balance of power in the Middle East: once the most powerful states in the region — Egypt, Syria, and Iraq — had been secular nationalists and a genuine counterbalance to Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf monarchies. As those secular autocracies weakened, however, the power and influence of the Sunni fundamentalist monarchies only increased. If 2011 saw rebellion and revolution spread across the Greater Middle East as the Arab Spring briefly blossomed, it also saw counterrevolution spread, funded by those oil-rich absolute Gulf monarchies, which were never going to tolerate democratic secular regime change in Syria or Libya.

Add in one more process at work making such states ever more fragile: the production and sale of natural resources — oil, gas, and minerals — and the kleptomania that goes with it. Such countries often suffer from what has become known as “the resources curse”: states increasingly dependent for revenues on the sale of their natural resources — enough to theoretically provide the whole population with a reasonably decent standard of living — turn instead into grotesquely corrupt dictatorships. In them, the yachts of local billionaires with crucial connections to the regime of the moment bob in harbors surrounded by slums running with raw sewage. In such nations, politics tends to focus on elites battling and maneuvering to steal state revenues and transfer them as rapidly as possible out of the country.

This has been the pattern of economic and political life in much of sub-Saharan Africa from Angola to Nigeria. In the Middle East and North Africa, however, a somewhat different system exists, one usually misunderstood by the outside world. There is similarly great inequality in Iraq or Saudi Arabia with similarly kleptocratic elites. They have, however, ruled over patronage states in which a significant part of the population is offered jobs in the public sector in return for political passivity or support for the kleptocrats.

In Iraq with a population of 33 million people, for instance, no less than seven million of them are on the government payroll, thanks to salaries or pensions that cost the government $4 billion a month. This crude way of distributing oil revenues to the people has often been denounced by Western commentators and economists as corruption. They, in turn, generally recommend cutting the number of these jobs, but this would mean that all, rather than just part, of the state’s resource revenues would be stolen by the elite. This, in fact, is increasingly the case in such lands as oil prices bottom out and even the Saudi royals begin to cut back on state support for the populace.

Neoliberalism was once believed to be the path to secular democracy and free-market economies. In practice, it has been anything but. Instead, in conjunction with the resource curse, as well as repeated military interventions by Washington and its allies, free-market economics has profoundly destabilized the Greater Middle East. Encouraged by Washington and Brussels, twenty-first-century neoliberalism has made unequal societies ever more unequal and helped transform already corrupt regimes into looting machines. This is also, of course, a formula for the success of the Islamic State or any other radical alternative to the status quo. Such movements are bound to find support in impoverished or neglected regions like eastern Syria or eastern Libya.

Note, however, that this process of destabilization is by no means confined to the Greater Middle East and North Africa. We are indeed in the age of destabilization, a phenomenon that is on the rise globally and at present spreading into the Balkans and Eastern Europe (with the European Union ever less able to influence events there). People no longer speak of European integration, but of how to prevent the complete break-up of the European Union in the wake of the British vote to leave.

The reasons why a narrow majority of Britons voted for Brexit have parallels with the Middle East: the free-market economic policies pursued by governments since Margaret Thatcher was prime minister have widened the gap between rich and poor and between wealthy cities and much of the rest of the country. Britain might be doing well, but millions of Britons did not share in the prosperity. The referendum about continued membership in the European Union, the option almost universally advocated by the British establishment, became the catalyst for protest against the status quo. The anger of the “Leave” voters has much in common with that of Donald Trump supporters in the United States.

The U.S. remains a superpower, but is no longer as powerful as it once was. It, too, is feeling the strains of this global moment, in which it and its local allies are powerful enough to imagine they can get rid of regimes they do not like, but either they do not quite succeed, as in Syria, or succeed but cannot replace what they have destroyed, as in Libya. An Iraqi politician once said that the problem in his country was that parties and movements were “too weak to win, but too strong to lose.” This is increasingly the pattern for the whole region and is spreading elsewhere. It carries with it the possibility of an endless cycle of indecisive wars and an era of instability that has already begun.

Patrick Cockburn is a Middle East correspondent for the Independent of London and the author of five books on the Middle East, the latest of which isChaos and Caliphate: Jihadis and the West in the Struggle for the Middle East(OR Books).

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Brexit, EU, Middle East, Neoliberalism 
Hide 47 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. The question for our moment: Why is a “mass extinction” of independent states taking place in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond?

    All you have to do is face reality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

    This is increasingly the pattern for the whole region and is spreading elsewhere. It carries with it the possibility of an endless cycle of indecisive wars and an era of instability that has already begun.

    The wars are indecisive because we do not have the stomach to deal out required amount of carnage (not that I would if I had the power). The situation will calm down when several billion people have died. We shrink from this nightmare, but Nature does not.

    When international cooperation breaks down and the debt bubble bursts, then nations will become more focused on their own agendas. Wars will increase. Eventually the bugs will be loosed. Mankind’s only real hope is that an all-out nuclear exchange does not occur.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @boogerbently
  2. They have, however, ruled over patronage states in which a significant part of the population is offered jobs in the public sector in return for political passivity or support for the kleptocrats.

    As opposed to the US where 47% of the people depend on the government for their livelihood.

  3. Outwest says:

    I don’t recall its formal name but there’s a math expression of a “law” that says that an entity’s security is a function of the number of other entities with the ability to do it harm. A harsh dictator is able to severely limit such threats. However, when such a dictator is taken down a large number of equal but limited threats become real threats. Khadafy wasn’t the most likeable guy but he die keep a rather large group of petty terrorists under control. And we could more or less tame him.

    I wonder if the U.S. warmongers are happy with the now ongoing and growing violence or if they might have gained an appreciation for the now lost tyrants.

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
  4. Rehmat says:

    Another propaganda crap from the “Middle East expert” Patrick Cockburn.

    “Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and South Sudan”.

    Can he name who invaded or who benefitted from the destruction of these Muslim majority nations – other than Israel?

    Let us talk about Somalia for a change ……

    On March 7, 2016, using drones and jets to drop bombs and missile on Somali citizens Barack Obama killed at least 150 of them. As usual, Obama administration and the Jewish-controlled media claimed that the Somalis killed were members of al-Shabaab – a US and Israel terrorist proxy to destabilize Muslim-majority nations considered to be anti-Israel – just like ISIS/ISIL in Iraq and Syria. As usual, Washington has provided no valid proof to support its lie.

    The Pentagon and the Jewish media like NYT, WP, WSJ, CNN, Fox News, etc. have called 150 dead as “terrorists” and “militants” – because they’re Muslims. Can you imagine had they been Jewish killed by Hamas or Hizbullah, they would be called by similar designation even though the Zionist entity was established by European Jew terrorists and militants in 1948, and it still remains a terrorist state.

    “This particular mass killing is unlikely to get much attention in the U.S. due to (1) the election-season obsession with horse-race analysis and pressing matters such as the size of Donald Trump’s hands; (2) widespread Democratic indifference to the killing of foreigners where there’s no partisan advantage to be had against the GOP from pretending to care; (3) the invisibility of places like Somalia and the implicit devaluing of lives there; and (4) the complete normalization of the model whereby the U.S. president kills whomever he wants, wherever he wants, without regard for any semblance of law, process, accountability, or evidence,” Jewish journalist Glenn Greenwald wrote on March 8, 2016.

    Interestingly, like the US-created Al-Qaeda – al-Shabaab too has established its proxy terrorism in several African countries in addition to Somalia, such as, Nigeria, Kenya, Libya, etc.

    In November 2015, 32 people were killed and at least 80 injured when a bomb blast ripped through crowded park in Yola, capital of Adamawa state in Nigeria. No group took credit for the blast, and Nigerian government of Shari’ah General didn’t accuse Al-Qaeda or ISIS or any other phony “Islamic terrorist” groups so far.

    American investigative journalist Wayne MADSEN says that US, Israel, Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabaab are a big happy family.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/11/somalia-us-kills-150-civilians-in-one-day/

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    , @woodNfish
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Diversity sure is a strength.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  6. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    “Western politicians and media often refer to such countries as ‘failed states’. The implication embedded in that term is that the process is a self-destructive one.”

    Libya and Syria are Destroyed States.

  7. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Blaming neo-liberalism for the disintegration seems unconvincing.

    After all, neo-liberalism led to massive protests in Latin America, especially Argentina, but it didn’t lead to civil war.

    And in the case of Brazil and Venezuela, the recent meltdowns are owed to neo-socialism.
    The state got over-confident and spent money it didn’t have.

    So, neo-liberal or neo-socialist, nations with low national character, weak rule of law, low common values, and etc are bound to face trouble. Neo-socialism runs out of money. Neo-liberalism favors globalist players over national folks.
    The fall of communism proved that you don’t need neo-liberalism to see entire collapse of societies. (But nothing is deadly than neo-negroism. Even communist Poland was a livable place. And even during the hard neo-liberal times in Poland, things still looked human. But look at Detroit and black areas of Baltimore and Milwaukee and St. Louis. It is pretty hellish. Look at the black parts of Brazil. Look at much of black Africa. Neo-negroism is the worst threat to humanity. Do NOT import blacks into your nation. A nation can weather communism and neo-liberalism but not neo-negroism. Even a nation as rich and powerful as the US couldn’t prevent Negroes messing up Detroit. Homos are a pain in the ass but Negroes will kick your ass… and use wombs of non-negro women to produce dreadful mulatto babies who are hardly better than negroes.)

    Also, despite uprisings in Libya and Syria, they would have been put down quickly(like Israel’s ruthless smashing of Gazans) if not for Western intervention. Gaddafi would have restored power in no time if not for NATO intervention.
    Same with Syria. Good or bad, it’s just a fact.

    [MORE]

    Also, neo-liberalism led to huge divisions between rich and poor in Israel as well. And there’s plenty of corruption to be found in Israel if we want to find it.
    So, why didn’t Israel go up in flames? Because the solid majority are Jews and face the common ‘enemy’ of Arabs/Muslims all around. Israel has a sizable Arab minority but Jews solidly outnumber them and Jews got the big guns.

    Now, Jews are outnumbered in West Bank, and many Palestinians over there live in tough conditions. So, they would be ideal candidates to ignite a war and bring about mayhem. Why didn’t it happen? Palestinians are ruled by collaborators to US-Israsel. Fatah is a farce. Jews got all the big guns. Jews set up massive walls. Jews enforce strict border controls between Israel and West Bank and between West Bank and other Arab states. Also, US helps Israel. US doesn’t work with Saudis and Turks to funnel tons of bombs and guns to angry Palestinian insurgents in West Bank and Israel. If US did that, West Bank too would be a hellhole like Libya and Syria.

    Prior to Western intervention, the regimes in Libya and Syria had solid control over their nations. Good or bad, they were nearly as effective as the Israelis in keeping order. Even the massive refugee problem following the Iraq Invasion didn’t shake the power of the Syrian regime.

    It was direct intervention of NATO that brought down Gaddafi’s regime in Libya. US and EU must be blamed. And if US, Israel, Saudis, and Turks hadn’t messed with Syrian borders and sent in tons of arms and Jihadi fighters, there would be order and stability in Syria.

    Due to international sanctions(pushed by the US), economic problems became just as dire in Iran as in many parts of Middle East. And yet, how come Iran remains stable? Because it’s a big enough nation and not so easy for other nations to mess with. Syria unfortunately is situated between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Sunni areas of Iraq. US and its allies could harass Syria from all directions.
    In contrast, Iran is a much bigger nation, has a much bigger population. Also, it is a Islamic state, and as such has spiritual ties to the masses whereas a secular regime never quite connected with the masses in the Muslim world. Secularism was mostly an urban thing in Turkey, Syria, and Egypt. Also, Persians are the biggest share of Iranian population, and they rule.

    Also, Iran isn’t surrounded by easy US proxies. After US invasion, Iraq’s Shia regime grew closer to Iran. Iraq had been useful against Iran when it was ruled by Sunni Hussein who attacked in early 80s and ignited a war that killed over a million people. The Sunni threat is gone. Iran is next to Pakistan, a US ally, but Pakistan has never been a willing toady like Saudis, the dogs of US in the Middle East. Pakistan’s main concern is India, and it will work with US and China against India. Afghanistan couldn’t be used against Iran because US can barely maintain control there. US knows that once it moves out, the Kabul regime falls.

    So, economic problems doesn’t answer the disintegration. Iran has faced very hard times, but it has remained together.

    To be sure, many of the Middle Eastern and African nations should never have been created the way they were in the first place. European nations were criminally negligent in ignoring the connection between ethnicity and territory. Imagine if a foreign power created a new European state by joining together 1/4 of Poland, 1/4 Germany, 1/4 Czechoslovkia, and 1/4 Hungary. That would be a recipe for disaster… like Yugoslavia in the long run. While multi-ethnic nations CAN remain together in relative peace, they are far more likely to break apart when crisis conditions develop. They are also far more likely to be manipulated by outside forces. When a homogeneous nation is faced with external threat, most people unite as one. But when a diverse nation is faced with outside threat, there may be disgruntled groups within the nation that see the outside threat as a liberating force. Recall that Ukrainians initially greeted the German invaders as liberators from Soviet tyranny.

    Yugoslavia broke apart in war, but Czech Republic and Slovakia broke apart in peace. In both cases, they were nations made up of different ethnic groups.
    In contrast, West Germany and East Germany came together in peace. Why? Same people.

    The most tragic case of this in the Middle East were the Kurds who weren’t given a nation of their own but divided among various nations. But Kurds are not the only people who ended up this way. If some nations were created by forcing together people of different ethnic groups, some nations were torn apart by great powers despite same ethnicity. Germans and Russians cut Poland in 1939 with each side taking half. So, Poland got divided and swallowed. After WWII, Germany was thus divided. And Korea was divided into two despite same race and identity.
    This is a dirty game played by the great powers.

    Anyway, a diverse nation created by external imperialism can only be held together by strong central authority. It required communism to hold Soviet Union and Yugoslavia together. The Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire began to weaken and fall apart with the rise of modernity and demand for new freedoms and national independence.

    Things are especially problematic when the ruling regime happen to belong to a minority group. Hussein was anxious in Iraq cuz Sunnis were only 20% of the population. Assad is nervous in Syria because he belongs to the minority Alawite sect that is a decisive minority to the majority Sunnis. So, the Assad regime depended on the support of Christians.
    Secularism was useful to both Assad and Hussein because Islamism would mean rise of Shia power in Iraq and rise of Sunni power in Syria.

    Anyway, all those nations were wobbly because of the historical basis that created them. They are all the products of Western Imperialist intervention that drew the national boundaries.
    Even so, as long as they had strongman regimes, they were going to remain united and stable indefinitely. After all, even after yrs of sanctions that led to so much duress(some accounts say 300,000 to 500,000 Iraqi civilians died as the result of the sanctions), Hussein was still in power in Iraq. As long as Hussein had control of the Iraqi military and as long as US didn’t allow Islamic militants to enter into the No-Fly zones, Iraq stood to remain as united nation.
    It could be US didn’t use Shia militants as proxies since it planned on taking Iraq for itself. In the case of Afghanistan(a nation US had no real interest in), US just used the so-called ‘Northern Alliance’ as proxies for taking over the nations. US troops and air power played a decisive but auxiliary role in the remaking of that country. US saw Iraq as the much bigger prize. Iraq had the oil and the modern infrastructure that Jews saw as a threat to Israel.

    US wanted Iraq for itself.
    So, while US no-fly zone policy protected Shias and esp Kurds in Iraq, it didn’t encourage domestic insurrectionary violence against Hussein. Hussein was finally toppled by US invasion. Jewish-controlled US had Iraq in the palm of its hand(just like Jews almost had Russia in the 90s).
    But then, a four way war ignited. There was Sunni vs Shia. There was Sunni vs US. There was Shia vs US. There was Sunni vs Kurds. US decided it couldn’t hold onto Iraq. It just got caught in the crossfire.

    As US public tired of war, US could no longer cook up plans to invade other nations. So, US decided to use proxies to bring down regimes. Iran was surely the favorite target, but it was too big, too strong, too united(ruled by Persian majority), too protected by Russia and China. Also, US didn’t have solid bases from which to invade Iran. Also, US would have problems finding allies in Iran to work with the US.

    So, US decided to take down Libya and Syria, an ally of Iran. Since US public was opposed to outright invasion, No Fly Zone in this case meant US arming whomever were opposed to the regime. And the most willing fighters were Islamists and anarchic thugs/gangs who just took up the Islamic cause for lack of anything else as they don’t believe in anything.
    Besides, what is Western values today when it’s all about Miley Cyrus, rap music, and homomania? To the extent that ISIS loonies act like rapper thugs, one could say there is a Western component to their worldview. Indeed, many young people seem drawn to ISIS not so much for the theology or ideology but the Road Warrior Rapper Thug thrill aspect. It’s like Gangsta Paradise for Moo punks.
    But you can find similar youth cultures in Mexico and in black neighborhoods in the US.

    Also, are US soldiers necessarily better than ISIS thugs? While there are patriotic Americans who join the forces to serve the country honorably, how many really care about God and Country and Honor?
    How many really joined because they think it’s ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ to ride around in choppers, drop bombs, and shoot people like in videogames? When US cooked up lies about WMD and began the wholesale bombing of Baghdad, how many young American soldiers watched it on TV and cheered and yelled ‘awesome’? It was called Shock and Awe after all. Warmaking was made fun and cool. Badass. Isn’t that anti-human nihilism?

    Also, I heard that US military showed the battle scene in APOCALYPSE NOW to the soldiers before the invasion. Now, that scene was meant to be an ironic commentary on US role in Vietnam, but US military uses it as War Propaganda to make US soldiers want to go and kill, kill, and kill. And the song Rock the Casbah was used in the attack.
    War turned into Rock n Roll Concert. More perversely, a leftist song by an anti-American band appropriated by US military to further Zio-imperialism.
    It was about the thrill of violence, the nihilism of badass US military power that can smash any nation. American Culture now consists of black thugs singing about mayhem and violence. US exports that garbage around the world but then accuses other nations of culture of violence and ‘hate’. And Homo-imperialists have been complicit in working with Jewish Supremacists to destroy entire parts of the world from Libya to Ukraine. Homos will do anything, and I mean anything, to plant another Homo Victory Flag in yet another part of the world. We are living in the era of Homo Jima.

    Despite all the problems around the world, things would be a lot calmer in the Middle East and Ukraine if Jewish Supremacists and Homo-imperialists weren’t so hellbent in gaining globalist domination.

  8. 5371 says:

    South Sudan at war? Impossible. Both George Clooney and Glenn Beck told me that the only problem in Sudan was the cruel Muslim government and its Janjaweed (not to be confused with ganja weed) scapegoating and genociding the innocent negro children of nature and disciples of Jesus. So with independence, South Sudan must have become a land of peace and love.

  9. TG says:

    Ah, so much intelligence, so far from reality.

    The bottom line: Malthus was right. When people are bred like rodents (and it is usually government policies that are to blame, not the people themselves – recall how the government of Syria banned contraceptives) then they will live and die like rodents. No other policy can change that.

    But that’s ‘racist’ (translation: the rich like cheap labor). So we can’t talk about that. Oh, no, someone who could barely support two kids having instead six, oh that’s wonderful. 100 desperate starving people competing for every job: oh that’s great, that will make the labor market ‘globally competitive’ and low wages will create prosperity for all (say what?). So faced with a forced population explosion creating all this misery and poverty, all we can do is wring our hands and impotently proclaim ‘oh why are things going badly?’ Because otherwise we are racist.

  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Then, why don’t YOU allow the USA be divided into, at least, 30 pieces?, you only go after Muslims.

    Then why don’t YOU allow Catalan be separated from Spain?
    Then why don’t YOU allow British be divided and allow Scotland and Ireland be independent?
    Then why don’t YOU allow Quebec be an independent country?

    You only go after Muslims and their resources to divide their countries into mini entities to control them better to steal their wealth by killing them and their babies.
    .
    Bomb the invaders land at large scale to establish piece.
    Destroy their dumb and arrogant ‘civilians’ to establish piece in the world.
    Down with Assad’s enemies
    Down with embedded ‘reporters’ who are lying to sell the imperalist/zionist agenda, and that is division of Iraq and Syria to erect a puppet entity e ‘kurdistan’ “Second Israel”, for “greater Israel”. You will take this wish into your GRAVES.

    Down with the “second Israel” and ‘greater Israel’. Israel has no right to exist. The Ashkenazis are Khazaris who were living around the black sea. They must go back to where they came from.
    The world is fed up with the west crimes against humanity, their wars, and their embedded ‘journalists’ who keep their population dumb by lying.

    ISIS = US = Israel. No doubt about it.

    These wars and killing are designed by the US/Israel, to divide the regional states through destabilization and chaos to bring the region under full control to erect ‘kurdistan’, which is part of the ‘greater Israel’. The kurds are in bed with Israel and US to divide the regional countries. ISIS is US/Israel constructed army.

    You just ask yourself who is benefiting from all these wars, killings and chaos?

    The answer is: Israel and US, headquarter of “world government” designed by the zionist bankers and their servants who have enriched themselves inlcuding Killary Rotten Killinton.

    Bomb the invaders and war criminals to death to establish piece in the world NOW.

    The world cannot tolerate these criminals and will NOT.

  11. @Rehmat

    You mean “as opposed to Rehmat’s normal krap.”

    Madsen is a known idiot. Pick your sources a bit more carefully.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  12. @Outwest

    In the case of both Syria and Libya, the revolts began without us. In both cases, the west decided to get involved in both, supporting the rebels. The west acted stupidly and simply created chaos instead of liberating anyone.

  13. @Anonymous

    “Then why don’t YOU allow Catalan be separated from Spain?” I understand a referendum is coming up on the matter.

    “Then why don’t YOU allow British be divided and allow Scotland and Ireland be independent?”

    There is already an Irish Republic. I assume you are talking about Northern Ireland. If a modus vivendi can be established, the two may reintegrate. That remains to be seen, however. Scotland, OTOH, voted to remain in the Union. With Brexit, that may change, and I suspect many Englishmen will be glad for the Scottish Socialists to be gone. England will be a far more conservative country.

    “Then why don’t YOU allow Quebec be an independent country?” They held a referendum in the 90s and voted it down.

    In other words, the people themselves are deciding, not some Jew monster that lives between the ears of a bunch of anti-semites.

  14. woodNfish says:

    Cockburn has shit for brains and is a total loon. Read his Engelhardt post for proof. I wouldn’t buy this brain-dead morons book if I was freezing to death and needed it to start a fire.

  15. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    If California is the future of America, I wonder what may happen.

  16. @Quartermaster

    “In other words, the people themselves are deciding, not some Jew monster that lives between the ears of a bunch of anti-semites.”

    People themselves deciding what? Whether they’re going to flip burgers, or stock shelves at Walfart? Or, in most cases, both…

    I’ve never seen such an idiotic response to a very good question.

    Those referernda outcomes certainly can come under the heading of suspect, if for no other reason than the brow-beating and fear-mongering of the MSM indoctrination machine always pushing the “stay” button.

    The constant “polling” predicting defeat for exiters surely discourages a lot of couch potatoes to even show up to begin with. We can see that cookie-cutter template at work in the Brexit runup, which somehow managed to squeak through against all odds…

    Of course, nothing is actually written in stone yet…how many others have voted to leave but somehow ended up staying right where they were?

    As for the Jew bogeyman conspiracists, sure you can’t swing a stick without hitting one these days (Hi Rehmat)…doesn’t mean that the perfidious US/Israel axis is not hell bent on making the world safe for the bankster plutoracy…

    Bring down the criminal west has a good point about our “dumb and arrogant” civilians, whose stupidity has to be some kind of historical milestone…the sheeple are giving the butchers the very knife with which to slit their throats…

    As for Patrick Cockburn…well I think WoodNFish said all that needs to be said…

  17. @Quartermaster

    “…I suspect many Englishmen will be glad for the Scottish Socialists to be gone.”

    A total insult to the Scots people from the mongrel English “nation.”

    Little wonder they want to leave…but were browbeaten into staying exactly by the fear-mongering I mentioned…well fool me once…

  18. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    I think one reason for so much muddled-thinking is we use misleading, generic, outdated, camouflaged, diversionary, and/or obfuscating terminology.

    It’s like the financial crisis. How did it happen in 2008? It was due to housing bubble, and how did that happen? Because the good housing loans(to good buyers) were bundled with bad housing loans(to risky home ‘buyers’). They were all mashed together and called some fancy name and given official stamp of approval and sold to suckers around the world who trusted the US of A as a relatively clean non-corrupt nation steeped in Waspy Rule of Law. (Not that Wasps were squeaky clean, but they ran better operations than Latins, Slavs, Arabs, Asians, Hindus, Africans, etc. So, the Anglos, along with Germanics and Scandies, developed a good reputation. Also, Anglos and Germanics not only did things cleaner but better than other groups. But then, the Jews came along. Unlike other groups, Jews could do things better than the Wasps and thereby gain power over the Wasps. But unlike Wasps, Jews had no sense of shame, propriety, limits, or honor. Jews have extreme personalities in everything: socialism, homo agenda, libertarianism, and etc. We got Chomsky on the left, Rand on the ‘right’, etc. Jewish feminists have been the nuttiest. So, Jewish crooks in Wall Street had no sense of limits. They were in Howard Stern mode. If we take Jews out of the equation, whites are faced with competition from people who are less competent and more crooked than whites. So, whites can win out over such people. But with Jews as part of the equation, whites are faced with competition from people who are more competent AND more crooked. And that explains so much of our woes. Just look at Jordan Belfort in WOLF OF WALL STREET. Clearly very smart but totally unscrupulous. But there’s even worse. If Jews were at least honest in their shameless crookedness, that’d be one thing. They’d be like Tony Montana. Bad but honest. But Jews invoke the Holocaust and Golfocaust to justify their worse abuses. And of course, anyone who notices bad Jewish behavior is an ‘anti-semite’ who must be shut down. So, much of Jewish crookery never goes addressed.)

    Anyway, the financial crisis became so out-of-control because of the loss of clarity. The distinction between good loans and bad loans was lost. Both were bundled together. So, the bad became the good, the good became the bad.
    Had there been a clear boundary between the good stuff and bad stuff, many decent folks would have invested in good loans while avoiding the bad ones.
    But if you mix good and bad and then bundle them together and brand it with some fancy-sounding financial name, people get fooled and shit hits the fan eventually.
    The bundled loans should really have been called “good stuff mixed with shitty stuff by Wall Street sharks looking to make a killing in short-term profits.”
    Then, people would have seen it for what it was.

    [MORE]

    Anyway, muddled terms are everywhere, and I think we should get rid of them.
    Some are totally outdated. Some are misleading. Some are confusing. Some are willfully deceptive.

    Take the ‘left’ and ‘right’. The ‘left’ can now mean anyone from a billionaire Zionist to highschool dropout thug in da hood. It can mean anyone from affluent bobo urban yuppy to Mexican illegal picking lettuce in California. It can mean fervert Zionist Democrat or angry Palestinian-American pissed off at Jews.

    There used to the classic left united around economic ideas of workers interest.
    There was also the intellectual left that espoused universalism based on rationalism.
    The former as a mass prole movement, and the latter was an elitist cause.

    The meaning of the left became problematic in the age of anti-imperialist struggle. Anti-imperialist forces in the Third World were motivated as much by tribalism and nationalism as by something like socialism or communism. Indeed, it was often the case that the so-called Third World leftists were waging nationalist struggles with rightist overtones whereas the Third World ‘rightist’ regimes were dependent on the West for protection and support. So, the leftist became nationalist whereas the rightist became pro-’imperialist’(of western powers). Look at Vietnam. The commie Vietnamese were fighting as patriots whereas the rightwing regime in the South was selling out its women as whores to the US ‘imperialists’.

    In the intellectual-elitist realm, the academic left that used to stand for rationalism and universalism lost its confidence in the post-war era. To some degree, the new left was influenced by pre-war rightwing thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger who questioned the rationalist and universalist tradition of the West. Many new leftist intellectuals in the post war era(especially in France) began to argue that Rationalism and Universalism are just Western tools of imperialist justification for control and domination. There was a kernel of truth to this at least to the extent that the West often invoked ‘civilization’ and ‘enlightenment’ when invading and dominating other peoples. We still see this in how Bush II and Obama invoked ‘human rights’ in the destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and etc. But never throw out the baby with the bathwater. Western achievements in Reason and Science were indeed great achievements and gifts to all of mankind. But radicals don’t think with balanced minds. They prefer extremes.

    Anyway, since Reason + Enlightenment = White Power, new trends in ‘leftist’ thinking tended to favor identity politics among non-whites and to value(via affirmative action mentality) the ‘contributions’ and ‘achievements’ of non-whites. So, black achievements in everything were inflated and exaggerated. We were supposed to believe that America was Eden before white people came and ruined everything.
    Every non-white utterance(especially black) was greeted with reverence and awe. The latest example is the stuff about ‘black bodies’ by Tahenisi Coates. If something comes out of black mouths, it is assumed as holy. (Even ‘conservatives’ have this tendency as they assume that if something comes out of black mouths, especially holy Thomas Sowell, it is more profound than had it come out of white mouth.)

    But in fact, so much of non-white ideas and rhetoric is stupid as hell, and on the subconscious level, whites felt frustrated about their loss of moral and intellectual authority. I think the rhapsodic hysteria about the homo agenda is that it is implicitly white or at least white-dominated. Through white homo mouths, white ideas and attitudes have been ‘holy’ and ‘authoritative’ once again. This is rather odd since homo privilege is even more extreme than ‘white privilege’. After all, homos are only 2% of the population. If leftism is about the PEOPLE, what is it doing favoring the deviant 2% over all else, even elevating them to figures of worship? Also, the ‘rainbow’ flag implies the unity of all mankind, of all colors. But homos are just a small percentage of mankind. Why should the 2% claim all the colors?

    This is why we need to do away with a term like the ‘left’. It just bundles together too many forces and confuses matters.
    When someone or some group on the so-called ‘left’ makes trouble or raises a ruckus, we need to be more specific in identifying who is he is and what he is and what he is pushing.
    For example, many Jewish ‘leftists’ are really Zionists pushing Jewish power.
    Many black ‘leftists’ are really black powerists. They should be called as such.
    Many brown ‘leftists’ are just La Raza Mexican nationalists(which in the SW sort of makes sense since SW was taken from Mexico by Gringos. But it makes no sense outside the SW.)
    And white urbanites are really just yuppies looking to self-interest in socio-economic matters. They just want to push out blacks via section 8 and gentrify urban areas to make things better for themselves. They are not ‘left’ even if they claim to be.

    Indeed, how many people are really on the ‘left’ today?
    I would say most people on the ‘left’ are really more motivated by rightist(tribal, national, or identitarian tendencies).

    Instead of ‘right vs left’, what we really have is white right vs non-white rightists led by Jewish rightists and homos. Blacks and browns of the so-called ‘left’ bitch about ‘social justice’, but they just want more stuff for their own people. Browns are for illegal immigration because more Latinos means more brown power. They are about identity and tribe. Their ‘leftism’ is a ruse.

    Most brown ‘leftists’ are really for brown interests and power.
    Most blacks ‘leftists’ are really for black interests and power.
    Even their economic leftism or socialism is tribal. They wanna take from Jews, whites, & yellows and give more to themselves. They are not about sharing their goodies with others. They just wanna take the goodies of others for themselves. They are take-socialists, not give-socialists. Take-socialism is self- or tribal-interested, thus not really leftist. Nazis confiscated Jewish property and gave to themselves. That kind of take-socialism was hardly universal-leftist.

    The only people who seem to be genuinely leftist(in the ideological or attitudinal sense) are some white gentiles, some Jews, and some Asians. Though most Jews use leftism to serve Jewish interest(as Kevin MacDonald has charged), there are some leftist Jews who are hostile even to the notion of Jewish identity and interests, and such Jews are now even joining the BDS movement.

    White gentile leftists feel they must live for all of humanity because they believe that any notion of ‘white identity’ is ‘racist’ and evil. So, their universalism is real.
    They really seem to believe in all this stuff about ‘white privilege’, ‘white guilt’, and etc.
    They seem to believe that whites must atone. Whites have too much wealth that they don’t deserve. And so on. They believe in sacrificing white interests for humanity, esp blacks.

    As for yellow leftists, their preference for universal(or non-asian or even anti-asian) interests against Asian interests is the product of culture and genetics. Asian cultures are about obedience and submission to the Power. Since Asians worship the power of America that is now all about PC, homomania, Negromania, and etc, it is only natural that Asian-Americans(and even Asians in Asia) live for non-Asian causes than for Asian ones. The rule of Asianness is it will always serve the Great Power. Asians lack the kind of self-centered collective ego of Jews, blacks, and homos. Jews have powerful sense of Jewishness. Blacks have powerful sense of blackness. Homos have powerful sense of homoness. Asian culture has been about rejection of individual ego and obedience to authority. So, much of Asian politics in the US has no autonomy. Instead, it latches onto homos, negroes, Jews, etc. Another reason why Asian-American ‘leftism’ is more other-centric than self-centric could be its ‘white bread’ or ‘yellow cake’ factor. Even though the rhetoric of the Asian-American left is anti-white(even virulently so), it isn’t necessarily pro-yellow. Yellow Lefties scream ‘black lives matter’, not ‘yellow lives matter’.

    Some whites identify with non-whites because non-white cultures seem more colorful, authentic, ‘real’, and vibrant. In contrast, whiteness is said to be ‘white bread’ or ‘generic’. This is even truer of Asians cuz Asian-ness is seen as so lame, tame, model-minority, normal, conformist, and etc. So, even as yellow lefties bitch about ‘white privilege’, their model of leftism is essentially that of whites. In absence of strong colorful sense of Asianness, Asian leftists identify with and serve the causes of other groups.

    But we mustn’t bundle all Asians together. While yellows are a generic colorless breed, the dotkin Hindus are a different breed. They do have color, garrulousness, personality, and etc that is distinctly their own. Hindots don’t have to appropriate other culture and peoples to feel special or compelling as a people. Consider the Indian accent. It has become pop culture staple in the US. It is sort-of-mocked but also seen as funny and colorful. No one thinks that way of Chinese-American accent that just sounds stilted & dull than funnish & flavorful like the dotkin accent. Also, even though India was no liberal paradise, it didn’t produce a slavish culture like that of East Asia. The yellow way is to get on knees and grovel before master. The Hindot way is to complain, whine, heckle, haggle, talk shit. It’s like that movie GURU. When thin-skinned yellows get pissed, they refuse to talk to people who offended them. It’s like in all those Japanese movies with much silence. In contrast, when thin-skinned dotkins piss each other off, they keep talking and yammering all night long. Watch GURU. It kills me. It is incredible how people do terrible things to one another but still remain on talking terms to insult each other some more.

    Anyway, other than crazy Jews, sucker whites, and colorless yellows, everyone else on the ‘left’ are not leftist at all. They are all tribalists. So, they should be called ‘black tribalists’, ‘brown tribalists’, and etc. It makes no sense to bundle them altogether and call them the ‘left’.

    Such labels as the ‘left’ only obfuscate matters. It doesn’t clarify.
    It also makes us mistake friends for foe, foe for friend.

    The same goes for the ‘right’. The current crackup of the so-called ‘American Conservatism’ is a good thing because it is beginning to clarify the true nature of American politics. Many are learning that Neocons are really just Zionist-supremacists and Jewish tribalists who will support ANYONE who kisses the Jewish butt.
    We are learning that so-labeled ‘cuckservatives’ are gelded castrati errand boys of the Zionist ‘Neocons’.
    Even the term ‘neocon’ is misleading since it suggests neoconservatism is really about ideas when it is about identities. It is about Zionists gaining power over the GOP to turn white people into cucks and use them as suckers. So, we need to do away with the term ‘neocon’ and just use ‘Zio-globalist supremacists’. I mean all this anti-Russian stuff isn’t about ‘new cold war’ or ‘human rights’ or ‘homo rights’. It is about Jews being angry-as-hell that Russia won’t whore out to Jewish globalists. ‘Neocons’ have more in common with George Soros.

    These Jewish supremacists have no conscience. They are just into self-interest. To be sure, I think they are sincere in their righteousness. Jews seem to genuinely think that they are right, therefore they should have most power. So, Jewish interest = universal good in their minds. They’ve been blinded by their own ethno-ego or ethgo.
    Consider the Date Rape Russia in the 90s. A date rape is when a guy gets a girl drunk and then has his way with her. In the 90s, Jews used Yeltsin the drunkard to get their way in Russia. So, while the wino Yeltsin was plastered and half-conscious, Jews pulled down his pants and date-raped him in the ass to loot much of Russia. But Jews feel no remorse over what they did. They figure they had a right to do it cuz Russians are a bunch of Slavic morons who catch fish with penises.

    Jews feel toward Russians how Anglos once felt toward Mexicans. Anglo-Americans felt that the SW territory was wasted in the hands of inert Mexers and should be under Anglo control since Anglos do things better. Well, Anglos had a half-decent case cuz most Mexers were indeed good-for-nothing, not even for catching fish with penises. Also, as SW came to be filled with Anglo rulers and Anglo masses, there was cultural unity among top, middle, and bottom. But the problem with Jews in Russia is most Russians are not Jewish, and therefore, Jewish oligarchs feel zero sympathy for the masses. To be sure, Russian oligarchs are pretty scummy too, but they are more likely to feel at least some connection to the Russian masses(if they are prodded to do so by a national leader). In a nation like Israel where the great majority is Jewish, Jewish elites will be more mindful for the people as fellow Jews. But in nations where Jews just see goy masses, they are more likely to act like Soros or Browder or Belfort.

    Anyway, more honest use of terminology will clarify things.
    We need to stop the bundling of meanings to confuse all of us.
    They create false connections and false loyalties.
    If the neocons had been labeled rightly as Globo-Jewish Supremacists from the beginning, most white Americans would never have fallen for them. But they were called ‘neoconservative’ and bundled with rest of Conservatism.

    The notion of the ‘left’ has bundled everyone from criminal black thugs to Wall Street that funds multi-million dollar homo parades and Goldman Sachs that gives millions to Hillary for speeches.

    Even within a single ideological movement, we need to identify the ethnic content and agenda. After all, feminism controlled by Jews will be different from one controlled by blacks. A socialism controlled by browns will be different from one controlled by college-educated Massachusetts whites. All ideologies have ethnic-content.
    After all, why did so many communist nations end up fighting or bickering with one another? Oftentimes, the ideological babble was just cover for tribal or national differences. So, there was the hilarious spectacle of Mao’s China and Khrushchev’s USSR accusing each other of being ‘bourgeois’.

    In politics, when something is black, it needs to be called black. If something is Jewish, it needs to be called out as Jewish. This goes for culture commentary as well. The term ‘white privilege’ is misleading since it bundles Jewish privilege with ‘white privilege’. If most Jews considered themselves as whites and worked for broad white interests, it would be less problematic. But many Jews act against white power and, furthermore, perpetuate the notion of ‘white privilege’ as smoke and mirrors to hide Jewish privilege. Such Terminological Bundling confuses and fools so many people.

    We need to be specific. When you walk through a forest, you know to know what a tiger is. You don’t bundle a tiger with trees and dirt and rivers and rocks as just part of nature. Tigers may be part of nature, but they have their own agency apart from nature. So, when a tiger charges you, you must identity the tiger and aim your gun at it. You don’t think in terms of ‘nature’ that bundles tigers with rest of nature. It’d be stupid to fire your gun at ‘nature’ — rocks, frogs, ants, dirt, trees, etc — instead of at the tiger.
    After all, most of nature is not coming to eat you as lunch. Leaves, rocks, rivers, dirt, snails, frogs, and etc are not going to kill you. The TIGER is coming at you. It’s like the tiger scene in APOCALYPSE NOW. Tigers and mangoes are not the same thing even if they are both part of ‘nature’. You eat mangoes, but tigers eat you.

    Focusing on the ‘left’ makes us lose sight of the most notable/powerful predators and parasites that are coming to devour white America. Identify and expose.

    Of course, this is made difficult by the PC-mind-programming about ‘antisemitism’, ‘racism’, and ‘homophobia’. Those three terms prevent white folks from identifying the three most dangerous forces against white power. Jews are the leading forces of anti-white globalism(though, to be sure, globalism also destroys all nation-states). Blacks are the main criminal and sexual threats to whites. And homos are the main allies of Jews in demoralizing white America with moral/cultural decadence.

    But the ‘antisemitism’ programming says anyone who sees Jewish power is a Nazi.
    The ‘racism’ programming says anyone who sees black threat is a ‘racist’ like KKK.
    The ‘homophobia’ programming says anyone who is critical of homos is suffering from a phobia or some mental sickness.

    And those terms are effective because they falsely bundle meanings.

    ‘Racism’ bundles the ism-about-race(belief about race) with supremacism and mindless hate’. So, if one believes in race and racial differences, and if one scientifically identifies why blacks pose a threat to whites, his views are not factually racial but ‘white supremacist’ and KKK. ‘Racism’ bundles together belief in race with racial supremacism. That’s the trick.

    ‘Antisemitism’ bundles any criticism of Jewish power & abuse with Nazism and Holocaust. ADL and Jewish-run media tell us that any criticism of Jews is bad cuz it will eventually lead to Hitlerism. Ridiculous, but many have been fooled. Because ‘antisemitism’ bundles any criticism of Jews with Nazism, everyone is afraid to say anything that is critical of Jews no matter how badly Jews act.

    ‘Homophobia’ bundles the sane, factual, and rational observation that homo fecal penetration and tranny dick-chopping are deviant and gross WITH mental illness or phobia. So, if you think it is ugly and putrid for a man’s penis to go up a poopy-chute of another man, you must be clinically in need of help. If you think a man shouldn’t cut off his dick and balls to become a woman, you must be ill with some kind of hate-itis. You belong in a funny farm.

    Such programming suppresses even angry white folks from specifically identifying the main enemies of white identity and interests. As the result, so many white people just rag on and on about the generic ‘left’ while hoping and pretending that good decent Jews, blacks, and even homos are on the side of white folks.
    Or, whites lash out at groups who aren’t so protected by PC: Muslims, Chinese, Iranians, and incredibly even Russians even though Russians are fellow white folks. Consider how Europe is being invaded by black Africans as well as by Arabs and Muslims, but white people only bitch about Muslims cuz they are afraid of being called ‘racist’ if they mention the black factor in all this. Also, they don’t mention that the Muslim tide was set off by Jewish-triggered wars in the Middle East and, furthermore, Jews are the leading force in urging more invaders to trample into Europe. Oh how they fear being called ‘antisemitic’.

    Or white people will just bitch about the generic all-purpose Left. Sure, there is a European white gentile Left that has been brainwashed by PC to worship Diversity and hate Homogeneity, but then, whose ideas came to dominate the West? The ideas of Jewish globalist-supremacists posing as Jewish leftists.

    When Western nations had been homogeneous, one could talk about the Left and Right. After all, when all of Sweden was Swedish, people were divided by ideas.
    But as the West becomes diverse, the main divisions are about identity than ideology. And even in cases where ideology is relevant, it is inflected with ethnic interests. In other words, even genuine British white leftists will think differently than African leftists, Indian leftists, and etc in the UK.

    With rising diversity, all are turning to the Right. Non-whites may form a coalition behind the ‘leftist’ flag, but they are ally motivated by identity and tribal interests.
    All is turning Right.
    It is not Right Vs Left.

    It is White Right vs Various non-white Rights led by Jewish tribalists who’ve made homomania the ‘new leftism’ with the help of Wall Street and the Bank of London.

  19. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Increase diversity, increase disintegration.

    Increase imperialism, increase division.

  20. ” the free-market economic policies pursued by governments since Margaret Thatcher was prime minister have widened the gap between rich and poor ”

    Just how deluded do you have to be to believe that the Neo-Fascism of the Blair/ Brown/Cameron
    years is “free market”?

    • Replies: @another fred
    , @pink_point
  21. @Bill Jones

    The world we live in is so distorted that words have changed in their meaning.

  22. Rehmat says:
    @Quartermaster

    Nyeth, I meant the Jewish lobby’s normal krap…..

    Canadian-born Lord Conrad Black’s (married to British Jewish journalist Barbara Amiel) newspaper Lethbridge Herald has accused professor Anthony James Hall (University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada) of hate crime for not believing in several ‘official terror stories’. For example, Dr. Hall claims that the Ottawa Parliament shooting in 2014 was a scheme to keep Israeli puppet Stephen Harper in power; the Sandy Hook massacre was staged to promote gun control; and Jewish Zionists are waging a secret war to demonize Muslims around the world through control of western media.

    Incidentally, the Lethbridge Herald missed to mention that Dr. Hall also challenges the ‘official 9/11 story’.

    “The shape of things to come was foreshadowed on the morning of 9/11 with the BBC’s extension to Ehud Barak, a former Prime Minister of Israel, of full license to finger on world television the targets for post-9/11 revenge. Without any formal investigation at all, the former Israeli General and intelligence officer named as probable culprits Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Iraq, Iran and Libya. Barak provided this list only minutes after an aircraft was pictured not even slowing down as it cut into the South Tower like a hot knife slicing through butter,” says Dr. Hall (here).

    Dr. Hall is author of several books and editor-in-chief of American Herald Tribune. He visited Iran in 2014. Watch his views on Iran below……

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/07/01/canada-denying-official-terror-story-is-hate-crime/

  23. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Recognizing the mess is easy. Blaming someone (US? Israel? Capitalists?) is even easier. The real solution is much more difficult. I suggest we look for the “invisible hand” of Providence. The book of Daniel predicted a military-political conflict would happen in the Middle East. Egypt, Libya and Sudan would be brought into submission (Daniel 11:41-43) by the Papal-led Western, Christian nations. I have worked for big “dumb” corporations like Ford Motor Co. They are filled with socalled “smart” people as the corp makes stupid decisions, like recalls, etc. The Governments, like the US, do the same things (like overthrowing Gadaffi). No one is really in charge or really to blame. It is bigger that any person, group or government. God has brought about these events. Eventually the False Religious systems will enforce their will on the masses, and the Great Deliverance will come. Watch and see! Wake up and smell the coffee. It is happening before our very eyes.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
  24. Rehmat says:
    @another fred

    To understand why the Middle East and Africa are in current turmoil is to study some objective source than Israeli propaganda organ Wikipedia, which will never tell you that all those countries are victims of Zionist Wars against Muslims.

    Lucky for the US and Israel, these countries don’t have Hizbullah-style fighters to defend them from various terrorist groups created by the US and Israel. Hizbullah is the only Islamic militia which has defeated US-Israel aggression in 2000 and 2006.

    Last month, Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Gershon, former Israel Occupation Force (IOF) Home Front Commander during the Summer 2006 attack on Lebanon, in an interview with Army Radio warned the new Israeli defense minister and head of extremist Russian Jewish settlers’ Yisrael Beiteinu party, Avigdor Lieberman, that Israeli Jews must be mentally prepared for being hit by 1,200 Hizbullah rockets per day during next war with Hizbullah.

    “In 2006 war Hizbullah fired 160 rockets per day at the northern region, we expect to receive 1,200 rockets per day in a new war with Hizbullah – it will be a completely different scenario from anything we have known,” he said.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/06/15/israel-fears-1200-hizbullah-rockets-per-day/

    • Replies: @another fred
  25. Rehmat says:
    @Anonymous

    Aha! A good proposal, which you should pass on to Netanyahu’s rabbi Dov Lior.

    Last year, the chief rabbi of the West Bank Jewish settlements, Dov Lior, told his Zionist sheep that shooting at Paris Jewish theatre was a payback for what the European did to our people 70 years ago.

    “The wicked ones in blood-soaked Europe deserve it for what they did to our people 70 years ago,” Dov Lior claimed….

    Ex-Mossad head, Shabtai Shavit compared Paris shooting with undefended German city of Dresden. He urged the US and its allies to flatten Syrian cities as they did to Dresden in February 1945.

    “Until now, Arab killed Arabs, and Muslim killed Muslims, particularly in Iraq and Syria. But now they have started killing infidels (non-Muslims) abroad. The western powers should wipe Islamic State out just as they wiped out the German city of Dresden,” said the German hating Zionist Jew.

    I must admit Shavit is right that Muslims are killing fellow Muslims to serve West’s anti-Muslim agenda, but I wonder what Shavit think of Israel’s killing of its 100,000 Jewish citizens.

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/11/18/rabbi-pastor-and-nasrallah-on-paris-shooting/

  26. @another fred

    ” no real lessons have been learned about why direct or indirect military interventions by the U.S. and its allies in the Middle East over the last quarter century have all only exacerbated violence and accelerated state failure.”

    THAT is “what we do/Who we are”. We (US govt) don’t admit mistakes, we double down on them. Equality, racism, education……all failed policies. They weren’t misguided, they were underfinanced !

    “Countries that had escaped from colonial rule in the second half of the twentieth century were supposed to become more, not less, unified as time passed.”

    Like Africa since the end of apartheid, and most of the world since they ended being “colonies”,
    they are in worse shape now than 50-100 years ago.

    “They promised to achieve national self-determination by creating powerful independent states through the concentration of whatever political, military, and economic resources were at hand. Instead, over the decades, many of these regimes transmuted into police states controlled by small numbers of staggeringly wealthy families and a coterie of businessmen dependent on their connections.”

    ” The expansion of the free market in a country where there was neither democratic accountability nor the rule of law meant one thing above all: plutocrats linked to the nation’s ruling family took anything that seemed potentially profitable. In the process, they grew staggeringly wealthy, while the denizens of Syria’s impoverished villages, country towns, and city slums, who had once looked to the state for jobs and cheap food, suffered.”

    “Add in one more process at work making such states ever more fragile: the production and sale of natural resources — oil, gas, and minerals — and the kleptomania that goes with it.”

    Are we talking about the USA, here ???

    • Replies: @another fred
  27. @Rehmat

    to study some objective source than Israeli propaganda organ Wikipedia

    I don’t “study” Wikipedia, I used it as a summary of research of a subject that has been investigated by several different scientists (starting with John B. Calhoun) over a period of years (references at end of Wikipedia article for a start).

    The subject of crowding and animal behavior has a lot to say about what is going on. What one group or another does or says has little to do with the real issue. They are like small eddies in a vast flowing stream, just artifacts “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @pink_point
  28. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Israel is corrupt but sticks together.

    No interference in Israeli affairs from the West.

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-ranks-among-western-world-s-most-corrupt-countries-1.321251

  29. @boogerbently

    I do not understand your point.

    The point I am trying to make is that natural forces are working to tear apart the world.

    Yes, the US has blundered, and yes, a lot of the blundering has been about trying to shoehorn the world into the myths that we have about our country and its success. Call them myths, fairy tales, lies, or whatever our version of the nature of the world falls well short of reality.

    My contention is that the troubles in the world are beyond our control. Mr. Cockburn is correct that disintegration is the order of the day. My contention is that there was nothing we could do to change the ultimate course of the world and little we (in the USA) could have done to better our situation (we have done several things to make it worse).

    “Exacerbate” may be a fair word as we certainly have not done much good, but we cannot re-run the experiment to see how things would have turned out had we not meddled. I contend that if we re-ran the experiment we would only see slight differences in conditions and no difference in the final result for the chaotic world that is bearing down on us.

    Maybe you could clarify your point.

    • Replies: @Rehmat
    , @Wally
  30. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    What a sterile and anemic culture scene.

    http://artforum.com/news/id=61774

  31. @Priss Factor

    Brilliant line, may I steal that?

  32. @Priss Factor

    If USA insists upon intervening in that part of the world, how about teaming up with Russia to blockade and isolate Turkey while MASSIVELY arming and aiding Kurdish rebels?

    Establish a no-fly, no-go zone inside Turkey so that Kurdish-majority areas can exterminate or expel Turks. Give them a taste of what they did to the Armenians a century ago.

    Kick Turkey out of NATO and start treating them as the inherently-untrustworthy savage enemy they are.

  33. Rehmat says:
    @another fred

    So tell me Netanyahu, how you found out the “research” without “study” of the Wikipedia?

    Does you Wikipedia tell you why Israeli Jews treat Black people like animals?

    Last year, Donald T. Sterling (Donald Tokowitz), the Jewish billionaire owner of NBA Los Angeles Clippers is being ‘disowned’ by the Organized Jewry and both Republicans and Democrats for accusing Israel of applying Holocaust to defend his hatred toward Black people.

    The ‘Dead Spin’ released version of conversation between Donald Sterling and his fifty-year younger Afro-American ex-girlfriend V. Stiviano claims Sterling saying: “It’s the world! You go to Israel, the Blacks are just treated like dogs.” When Stiniano asked Sterling: “Are the Black Jews less than White Jews?” – Sterling responded: “A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.”

    Sterling is not wrong. The Israeli Jews have proved in recent years – they do hate Blacks, both Jews and non-Jews. ….

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/04/29/sterling-israel-treats-blacks-like-dogs/

  34. Rehmat says:
    @another fred

    Of course Americans and ‘moral’ people like you could have stopped this integration of the Middle East if they had listened to Helen Thomas, once the ‘Queen’ of the White House press.

    Her sincere advice was,”You cannot say anything about Israel in this country (the US). But I’ve lived with this cause for many years. Everybody knows my feelings that the Palestinians have been shortchanged in every way. Sure, the Israelis have a right to exist – but where they were born, not to come and take someone else’s home. I’ve had it up to here with the violations against the Palestinians. Why shouldn’t I say it?”

    https://rehmat1.com/2011/03/20/playboy-israel-and-helen-thomas/

  35. @another fred

    Great quotation, but has nothing to do with what Shakespeare had in mind, I presume.

    Wikipedia is a propaganda tool and can have no good use at all (even for simple reference, I would avoid it when possible).

    If the West didn’t involve itself in the Middle East and Africa, there would certainly be endless wars and ethnic massacres.

    But in the end, specially charismatic figures like Mohammed would gain the upper hand, some vast empires would be created, and there would be a fair amount of order.
    Like it was in Libya under Ghaddafi, or in Iraq under Saddam, or in Syria under Assad.

    Have you noticed that the West, as we use to say using a nickname of the USA, do their best to remove the best governors, and elitic chaos in the most stable countries?

    Sometimes you wonder if they are simply close-minded (http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/july/01/stop-giving-chickens-away-bill-gates/)

    Other times you notice that the countries under attack/critisicm/scrutiny for “human rights” are all the ones not friends of Israel, and only those. Elsewhere in the Middle East, it’s the triumph of human rights, democracy, freedom, and all those things the people at NYT and their likes care a lot of, or is it not?

    Other times you read things like at http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160317/1036485001/gaddafi-gold-story.html

    And I think we shouldn’t pretend that, probably, conflicts would be less intense and extensive without weapons (and military training) supplied by the USA.

    And then, there is Georgia, the Ukraine… seeking to plant the seeds of war even in the East of Europe.

    Like Fred Reed wrote: I still love the USA, I just can’t find where they are.
    ———————————–

    • Replies: @another fred
  36. @Bill Jones

    Why you didn’t explain why Blair, Brown, Cameron have ensured Neo-Fascism?

    I don’t necessarily disagree, but prior to agreeing or not, I should know your reasons to say so.

  37. “It is as if the minds of these diplomats were still in the Cold War era, as if they were still fighting the Soviet Union and its allies. Against all the evidence of the last five years, there is an assumption that a barely extant moderate Syrian opposition would benefit from the fall of Assad, and a lack of understanding that the armed opposition in Syria is entirely dominated by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda clones.”

    If they keep doing like they have done, it means that they have achieved their real purposes, maybe, and that those purposes have nothing to do with the official ones?

    You can’t believe that they really think democracy, West-style, desirable or possible in other parts of the world. Especially since they don’t think democracy a good thing in the USA, and the West in general.

  38. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/30/fox-news-poll-fewer-americans-feeling-proud.html

    Progs and non-whites more proud to be American than White Cons.

    An upside down world.

    It used to be white cons were the most patriotic, and progs and people of color were least patriotic.

    It goes to show whites no longer feel this is their country.

    US is run by Obama and homos. Obama is the product of a white woman who rejected white men and used gave her womb to a black African.

    Race traitor.

  39. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @another fred

    [Using multiple handles isn't permitted here; you were warned.]

  40. @pink_point

    But in the end, specially charismatic figures like Mohammed would gain the upper hand, some vast empires would be created, and there would be a fair amount of order.

    Obviously.

    But there has been no human order or empire that has endured forever. During times of order people are at relative peace to live their lives and procreate, so population grows. When the following period of disorder arrives the greater population density provides more dry tinder for the fires.

    And I think we shouldn’t pretend that, probably, conflicts would be less intense and extensive without weapons (and military training) supplied by the USA.

    I do not pretend that, my point is that whatever ill our blundering has created is swamped by the natural forces at work. It is my opinion that whatever weapons we have provided are trivial compared to the weapons to come.

    IMO we are not dealing with a battle between right and wrong: good and evil.

    What is coming is a natural disaster to be survived, not a war to be won.

    Praise be to Nero’s Neptune
    The Titanic sails at dawn
    everybody’s shouting
    “Which side are you on?”

  41. joe webb says:

    any analysis without the jew word, the race word, the ethnic word, the IQ word is worthless….as this peace proves.

    At the day to day level in these backwaters, the average IQ of Arabs, Turkics, etc is 90 and below, usually around 85, the same number as for American blacks.

    It takes higher IQ to understand Principle as opposed to cronyism, etc. Also, it take a certain kind of personality…conscientiousness, etc. All of these darkies have no principles, it is just gangs, religion of the primitive type (religion can have Principles, but they are usually just admonitions or judgments like fatwa.)

    It takes a White man and usually does not include white women, to stay rational and calm when encountering arguments, etc. with which he disagrees. Try talking to a liberal white woman about race, etc.

    Nobody but Whites invented or largely observe free speech, and our current crop of cry-baby college types are big into social justice war, but not free speech…so our precious heritage is eroded by pee-cee, yet again.

    Joe Webb

  42. The Arab ethos has been lost and it will never be retained unless the individual nations get together to control their environment and secure equity for all it citizen. Within the context of the atate of Israel, the Israelis were able to turn deserts into vineyards, change the environment to support most of the people while still securing the rights of most of the citizens believing in just laws.
    Hating your enemy never solves problems but it consumes your psyche and diminishes mental capacity.

  43. woodNfish says:
    @Rehmat

    Another propaganda crap…

    I’m sure you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that, camel humper.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr