Men are less sensitive than women. Indeed, it is a common criticism that men are not sensitive enough, as if this were some sort of personal choice - but it's not. It's just that nature made men this way.
Not all men are insensitive, just as not all women are sensitive. Whatever the rule, there are always exceptions. There is, then, a minority group of sensitive men.
Here's where the irony begins. Women have long complained about men, and feminism has clothed these complaints with political rhetoric (equality, justice, etc), as if these moans emanated from a higher ideological plane.
The targets of these complaints are those insensitive men whose insensitivity rubs women up the wrong way. But, of course, these men are insensitive, so the complaints about their insensitivity don't actually register with them. They don't feel the pinpricks to their conscience, because this is the whole point to insensitivity. It's an armour that shrugs off the stones and arrows of life. It's a thick skin.
Sensitive men, on the other hand, hear those complaints and take them to heart. Because they have thinner skin. And they either feel guilty and become feminists themselves, nurturing the force that attacks them, or they take umbrage and counterattack the feminists.
This turns into a comedy. The thin skinned men lash out at feminists. The feminists see this as proof of rampant male misogyny and demonstrate their outrage. The thin skinned men they are attacking are in fact the very men that feminists would allegedly like men to be - sensitive. But it's that very sensitivity that now makes them feminism's greatest enemy.
Thick skinned men, on the other hand, shrug and move on, unable to see what the fuss is about. They don't understand why women need to be so thin skinned about things, and they don't see thin skinned men as real men - because they appear to be as petulant and thin skinned as women. So they leave the stage, while feminists and thin skinned men - natural allies - fight to the death.
Thin skinned men who hear feminist attacks on men assume that they themselves are the targets. Again, that is a feature of sensitivity.
Thin skinned women (the majority of women) hear the counterattacks on feminists and, because they are sensitive, assume they themselves are the targets. They may not have a single clue about the ideological aspects of feminism. They may not label themselves as feminists. But when they see one woman attacked they assume all women are under attack. Thus do women band together in outrage when one of their number is slighted.
Men do not band together in the same way, simply because the majority of them do not really feel threatened, and don't feel the need to make common cause with those who do.
This is why men don't appear to be able to defend themselves against feminism. Those that do are quickly outnumbered and, because they are sensitive, emotionally wounded. Thicker skinned men don't see that there's anything to defend against.
The ideology of feminism is a lie. Quite simply, there is no coherent ideology. All it is is a mass of sensitivities disguised as reason.
The ideology of feminism has been described in generational phases. There is first wave feminism, second wave, third wave, fourth wave, etc. This just shows that there is no ideology. Each generation of women, from mother to daughter, reinterprets feminism to suit themselves with little regard to what went before.
Liberalism is based on the writings of notable philosophers like Kant and Mills. Marxism goes back to the writings of Marx. Feminism has no touchstone, other than what women feel at any given time. Feminism is made up as it goes along. Women cherry-pick the bits of feminism they want and spit out the rest. Women feel that this is their right.
Women feel that everything is their right. Their greater innate sensitivity defines their need. They will vociferously feed and defend that need just as they would feed and defend their offspring. This is not a personal choice. Nature made women this way.
Sensitivity is not distributed equally among the sexes. It never will be. It is neither a gift nor a burden. It is no more a virtue than a womb or testosterone. It's just a biological fact.
The gender war is a comedy of errors and misunderstandings. It will never end.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Bigotry
We often see bigotry when it's naked and on view, but the truth is, most bigotry is hidden. People will sometimes admit to a bias, but they will never admit to a bigotry, even though the two are related.
Bigotry is often paraded behind a mask. The mask lends respectability, and is therefore a lie.
In the middle ages, that mask was Christianity. Christianity itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. People wearing the mask of Christianity thus exercised their bigotry of Jewish bankers, poor people with their pagan revelling and foreign people with darker skin.
In the twentieth century, that mask was Science. Science itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. The targets thus were Jewish bankers and their inheritable cunning, poor people and their overt willingness to breed (sterilisation recommended) and dark skinned people with their scientifically proven inferior skull dimensions.
After World War II, all the above was debunked, yet somehow continued.
For instance, contemporary anti-capitalist protesters target bankers (the 1%, many Jewish and grasping), the poor (the dumb masses who are just consumerist slaves) and white skinned people (because white skinned people are naturally superior and should just lay off the dark skinned people, who are too stupid to help themselves). The mask in this case is Social Justice, and it can be used to hide any number of vengeful thoughts.
Social Justice is a virtuous cause, but then so was Christianity and Science.
Whenever you witness a self-righteous attack, whether from the Left, the Right, the Religious or the Secular, you can be sure that there is a form of bigotry behind it.
Some people think that the world is over-populated because the poor are eating too much and breeding too much (Environmentalists, Birth Control Advocates).
Some people think Muslims are violent terrorists and will always kill non-Muslims - because they hate them - and other Muslims - because they don't know any better (Islamaphobes, Evangelists, Secularists).
Some people think that urban cosmopolitans are superior, that rural religious people are inbred, over-bred and mentally deficient, and that the presence of scientifically created technologies like Twitter and Facebook will ensure that cosmopolitan values remain dominant, especially if adopted by brown skinned foreigners protesting their obviously inept and incompetent brown skinned governments (Smug People Generally).
Some people think that women are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that men are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that naked bigotry is ugly and that the donning of the right mask (and the right mask, as opposed to the wrong mask, is dictated by the fashions of the day) can make that which is ugly, virtuous and beautiful instead.
But the truth is, it remains bigotry. And all masks are just fashion accessories.
See behind the mask if you can.
Bigotry is often paraded behind a mask. The mask lends respectability, and is therefore a lie.
In the middle ages, that mask was Christianity. Christianity itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. People wearing the mask of Christianity thus exercised their bigotry of Jewish bankers, poor people with their pagan revelling and foreign people with darker skin.
In the twentieth century, that mask was Science. Science itself was not the lie, just the way it was sometimes used. The targets thus were Jewish bankers and their inheritable cunning, poor people and their overt willingness to breed (sterilisation recommended) and dark skinned people with their scientifically proven inferior skull dimensions.
After World War II, all the above was debunked, yet somehow continued.
For instance, contemporary anti-capitalist protesters target bankers (the 1%, many Jewish and grasping), the poor (the dumb masses who are just consumerist slaves) and white skinned people (because white skinned people are naturally superior and should just lay off the dark skinned people, who are too stupid to help themselves). The mask in this case is Social Justice, and it can be used to hide any number of vengeful thoughts.
Social Justice is a virtuous cause, but then so was Christianity and Science.
Whenever you witness a self-righteous attack, whether from the Left, the Right, the Religious or the Secular, you can be sure that there is a form of bigotry behind it.
Some people think that the world is over-populated because the poor are eating too much and breeding too much (Environmentalists, Birth Control Advocates).
Some people think Muslims are violent terrorists and will always kill non-Muslims - because they hate them - and other Muslims - because they don't know any better (Islamaphobes, Evangelists, Secularists).
Some people think that urban cosmopolitans are superior, that rural religious people are inbred, over-bred and mentally deficient, and that the presence of scientifically created technologies like Twitter and Facebook will ensure that cosmopolitan values remain dominant, especially if adopted by brown skinned foreigners protesting their obviously inept and incompetent brown skinned governments (Smug People Generally).
Some people think that women are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that men are stupid and don't know how to run the world.
Some people think that naked bigotry is ugly and that the donning of the right mask (and the right mask, as opposed to the wrong mask, is dictated by the fashions of the day) can make that which is ugly, virtuous and beautiful instead.
But the truth is, it remains bigotry. And all masks are just fashion accessories.
See behind the mask if you can.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Individualism vs Community Responsibility
"The truth is, for most of human history, women have been devising ways
to pull men away from individualism and into family and community. This
is an absolute priority for women when children come along – men are
needed to protect and provide. The reality is men can get along pretty
well on their own, and that is as true now as it ever was."
Laura Perrins
Perhaps it is no surprise that prominent men during the Enlightenment advocated personal liberty and turned it into an attractive philosophy. It is natural, though perhaps ironic, that women came to demand liberty too, further freeing men from the constraints and responsibility of family-centred culture. Women demanded the freedom to have sex whenever they wanted without the social tutting, and demanded the right to raise children alone without the social shame. This too has suited men who get to have it both ways and who no longer feel the social pressure to 'settle down' and 'do the right thing'. The State has taken over the position of providing for women now, but that is so impersonal and disatisfying that women are perhaps beginning to feel the loss.
Women get to do well out of classical liberalism and feminism - provided they live like men.
Laura Perrins
Perhaps it is no surprise that prominent men during the Enlightenment advocated personal liberty and turned it into an attractive philosophy. It is natural, though perhaps ironic, that women came to demand liberty too, further freeing men from the constraints and responsibility of family-centred culture. Women demanded the freedom to have sex whenever they wanted without the social tutting, and demanded the right to raise children alone without the social shame. This too has suited men who get to have it both ways and who no longer feel the social pressure to 'settle down' and 'do the right thing'. The State has taken over the position of providing for women now, but that is so impersonal and disatisfying that women are perhaps beginning to feel the loss.
Women get to do well out of classical liberalism and feminism - provided they live like men.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Markets follow - they do not lead.
"First, we believed in the theology of development, only to see development founder on corruption and the incapacity of weak state structures to develop honest government and equitable programmes for growth.
"Then we told ourselves globalisation itself - capitalism's sheer voracious dynamism - would bring prosperity and order in its wake. But markets alone cannot create order: markets require order if they are to function efficiently, and the only reliable provider of order - law, procedure, safety and security - is the state.
"A globalised economy cannot function without this structure of authority and coercive power, and where it breaks down markets break down, and crime, chaos and terror take root in the rotten, unpoliced interstices.
"Prophets of the benefits of global market integration have been foolish enough to envisage a future world that does away with the need for the state. But large corporations will not patrol the street corners. They will not provide the schools, roads and hospitals that distinguish society from the jungle. Only states can provide these goods."
Michael Ignatieff
Empire Lite (2003)
"Then we told ourselves globalisation itself - capitalism's sheer voracious dynamism - would bring prosperity and order in its wake. But markets alone cannot create order: markets require order if they are to function efficiently, and the only reliable provider of order - law, procedure, safety and security - is the state.
"A globalised economy cannot function without this structure of authority and coercive power, and where it breaks down markets break down, and crime, chaos and terror take root in the rotten, unpoliced interstices.
"Prophets of the benefits of global market integration have been foolish enough to envisage a future world that does away with the need for the state. But large corporations will not patrol the street corners. They will not provide the schools, roads and hospitals that distinguish society from the jungle. Only states can provide these goods."
Michael Ignatieff
Empire Lite (2003)
Holy Roman EU
The European Union has been steadily expanding eastwards since the Berlin Wall came down. It has recently incorporated Bulgaria and Romania, and has been lapping up against Ukraine's borders for some time. It was the EU's attempt to suck the Ukraine into its orbit that has caused the civil strife now taking place there.
What is with the EU's need to expand? Is it the need to acquire Eastern Europe's resources?
Uh, what resources?
Perhaps it is the economic potential of these partners.
Yeah, right. Bulgaria and Romania are basket cases, as is the Ukraine, and they only thing they've provided so far is cheap labour immigrants and extra votes for far-right parties in France, Holland, etc.
Viewed on the map, it looks like empire building. But it's an empire without an army - remove the US from NATO and what is left is not impressive. Or even united. But Europe's military has played no part in the EU's expansion. The only other empire that expanded like this was the Holy Roman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was created by the Catholic church in Rome, virtually picking up from where the collapsed Roman empire left off, hence the name. It was essentially a cabal of popes and cardinals in Rome calling on European leaders to act on its behalf, rather like the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. And like the EU, it had no army of its own. Yet it controlled much of eastern Europe and later, via the Habsburgs, much of the world (as it was known then).
Quite why the EU wishes to emulate the Holy Roman Empire (whose remnants only disappeared with Austria's defeat in WW1) is not really clear, any more than why the popes felt the need to copy the Roman emperors. But the parallels between the EU and the empire of the popes are striking. Including, curiously enough, religion.
On paper, the EU is about trade, right? Which is to say, its all about business and the bottom line: profit. That makes sense. So why is the EU hoovering up all these poor eastern European states (and retaining poor southern European states) which will cost the EU a lot but contribute little? And why did the EU keep turning down Turkey for EU membership, even when it was being labelled as a rising player in the world markets?
Because eastern Europe is Christian and Turkey is Muslim.
That answer may not make sense in these modern, secular times, but it is essentially what we have. The EU rebuffed Turkey several times, yet has sent its envoys to court the Ukraine and encourage the toppling of its elected anti-EU government, even though Ukraine has a declining population, few resources and economy that makes Greece look solvent, with a debt to match. Without Russian assistance, the country will be bankrupt in months.
But still the EU considers it worth provoking Russia for.
The popes and the Habsburgs over-reached, draining their resources on expansion, wars and maintenance of territory. It fell into decline in the face of its rivals in England and Holland, was torn apart by protestant challenges and eventually faded from history.
One wonders what will become of the EU and its cardinals in Brussels. It already faces growing demands for autonomy within its provinces, its prosperity depends almost entirely on the German economy and it is unable to project itself militarily to protect its interests unless it aligns itself with the US. It depends on Russia for its energy and on African and Asian immigration to prop up its aging population.
The popes used to pray. EU bureaucrats might also want to pray, but they need to be careful of what they pray for.
What is with the EU's need to expand? Is it the need to acquire Eastern Europe's resources?
Uh, what resources?
Perhaps it is the economic potential of these partners.
Yeah, right. Bulgaria and Romania are basket cases, as is the Ukraine, and they only thing they've provided so far is cheap labour immigrants and extra votes for far-right parties in France, Holland, etc.
Viewed on the map, it looks like empire building. But it's an empire without an army - remove the US from NATO and what is left is not impressive. Or even united. But Europe's military has played no part in the EU's expansion. The only other empire that expanded like this was the Holy Roman Empire.
The Holy Roman Empire was created by the Catholic church in Rome, virtually picking up from where the collapsed Roman empire left off, hence the name. It was essentially a cabal of popes and cardinals in Rome calling on European leaders to act on its behalf, rather like the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. And like the EU, it had no army of its own. Yet it controlled much of eastern Europe and later, via the Habsburgs, much of the world (as it was known then).
Quite why the EU wishes to emulate the Holy Roman Empire (whose remnants only disappeared with Austria's defeat in WW1) is not really clear, any more than why the popes felt the need to copy the Roman emperors. But the parallels between the EU and the empire of the popes are striking. Including, curiously enough, religion.
On paper, the EU is about trade, right? Which is to say, its all about business and the bottom line: profit. That makes sense. So why is the EU hoovering up all these poor eastern European states (and retaining poor southern European states) which will cost the EU a lot but contribute little? And why did the EU keep turning down Turkey for EU membership, even when it was being labelled as a rising player in the world markets?
Because eastern Europe is Christian and Turkey is Muslim.
That answer may not make sense in these modern, secular times, but it is essentially what we have. The EU rebuffed Turkey several times, yet has sent its envoys to court the Ukraine and encourage the toppling of its elected anti-EU government, even though Ukraine has a declining population, few resources and economy that makes Greece look solvent, with a debt to match. Without Russian assistance, the country will be bankrupt in months.
But still the EU considers it worth provoking Russia for.
The popes and the Habsburgs over-reached, draining their resources on expansion, wars and maintenance of territory. It fell into decline in the face of its rivals in England and Holland, was torn apart by protestant challenges and eventually faded from history.
One wonders what will become of the EU and its cardinals in Brussels. It already faces growing demands for autonomy within its provinces, its prosperity depends almost entirely on the German economy and it is unable to project itself militarily to protect its interests unless it aligns itself with the US. It depends on Russia for its energy and on African and Asian immigration to prop up its aging population.
The popes used to pray. EU bureaucrats might also want to pray, but they need to be careful of what they pray for.
Rubber Band Feminism
The home was always the woman's domain - her nest, her secret garden, her spiritual base. Feminism set out to change that. It called upon women to step out into the world and contest men for its dominance. It asked them to see beyond the kitchen sink and to expand their horizons.
That was then. What does feminism call for now? For men to come back and help them with the housework.
Stretch a rubber band and it always returns.
That was then. What does feminism call for now? For men to come back and help them with the housework.
Stretch a rubber band and it always returns.
The Paradox
21st Century Feminism:
"I want equal treatment, I want deference and I want special protection. What do you mean that's contradictory? Why can't I have it all?"
"I want equal treatment, I want deference and I want special protection. What do you mean that's contradictory? Why can't I have it all?"
Moral Codes
"Moral codes are always obstructive, relative, and man-made. Yet they have been of enormous profit to civilization. They are civilization. Without them, we are invaded by the chaotic barbarism of sex, nature's tyranny, turning day into night and love into obsession and lust."
Camille Paglia
Sexual Personae
Camille Paglia
Sexual Personae
Saturday, May 3, 2014
High, Middle and Low Classes
“The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle
is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have
an aim – for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are
too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of
anything outside their daily lives – is to abolish all distinctions and
create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout
history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over
and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power,
but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either
their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or
both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on
their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and
justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust
the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves
become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the
other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again.
Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful
in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that
throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even
today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically
better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no
softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human
equality a millimetre nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no
historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of
their masters.”
George Orwell.
George Orwell.
Monday, March 3, 2014
Best Actor
And the Oscar for Best Actor 2014 goes to... US Secretary of State John Kerry, who said, "You just don't invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests."
You couldn't make it up, really.
You couldn't make it up, really.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Libya, Syria... and now Ukraine
Western hypocrisy has gone into overdrive. And the media are in lockstep with their governments. We've had a 'humanitarian' intervention into Libya that toppled a government (still illegal under international law, by the way, without a specific UN resolution) and left a country in chaos, then we had a cheering of Egyptian 'activists' while the Western paid military toppled another government (elected, this time) and massacred civilians without a single sanction being imposed by the US or Europe (and with US politicians talking about the military 'restoring democracy'). We had Syria being stirred into civil war by outside hands, but again described as a 'people's uprising', with the West immediately recognising the opposition as the legitimate government (shortly before they fragmented). And now we have the Ukraine, with EU and US dignitaries repeatedly visiting the demonstrators in Kiev and offering encouragement and support (can you imagine Russia and China coming to New York or London to encourage the Occupy protesters? No, me neither), referring to them as the 'people of Ukraine' (never mind the East Ukrainians), with the Western media gushing over their demands (to topple an elected president) while failing utterly to mention the far right groups within the protester camps, and with everyone in the West referring to the parliament that formed afterwards under the occupation of the protesters as 'the interim government'. When the Ukrainian president was in power, the media here quoted the protesters. Now that the president has been ousted and the Eastern Ukrainians are starting to protest, the media here now quote 'the interim government'.
The bias is so obvious, I don't know how any news reader can keep a straight face on the TV anymore.
But the other thing to mention here is the sheer incompetence of Western meddling (I can't dignify it by calling it diplomacy). Libya is reeling (as is Iraq, that other 'successful intervention'), Egypt is a military state and Syria is so bad that even the liberal and neo-con interventionists hesitated to demand more intervention.
The West has been encouraging the separation of Ukraine from Russia (like they did with Georgia, and look how that turned out), and now they are surprised that Russia has mobilised to support ethnic Russians in Ukraine and the strategically vital zone of the Crimea.
Western commentators are currently bleating about Russia crossing red lines, threatening stability in the Ukraine, and threatening the Ukraine itself.
The US backed Georgia not so long ago and hinted that they might lend it NATO support. Russia struck across its border, and US promises never materialised. Now the EU is promising Ukraine entry into its market and the US (via the IMF) is promising loans. Meanwhile the Russian army has mobilised on the border and 'armed men' have seized control of airports in the Crimea. What do you think will come of the West's promises now? Hmmm?
Western hubris, arrogance and sheer stupidity have pushed Russia into a corner and forced it to act. Russia was never going to abandon either its ethnic population in Ukraine nor it's vital Black Sea base in the Crimea. The Ukrainian economy was in meltdown, and the EU was never going to give it the money it needed to avoid crashing, and neither will the US. What an earth were these people hoping to gain from this? The US have warned Russia against military action, but there are no NATO forces nearby that can make that threat credible. They can't threaten Russia with sanctions, because it's too big, supplies Europe with most of its gas and oil, and is a UN security council member.
Both halves of Ukraine are going to come to blows, and Russia will not let its side fall. If the tension is not resolved in the next couple of days, then the only way to prevent civil war on a Syrian scale will be to partition the country, with Russia getting Crimea and the industrial east, and Europe (and NATO) getting the EU-friendly west. And this partition would have to be done pretty quickly.
And what is the West going to do with its side of the Ukraine (apart from complain about Ukraine immigrants flooding into the EU as cheap labour)? Does it even really want it?
They said the world changed after 9/11. It did. The leaders of the US and the EU, both on the left and the right, got a whole lot more stupid, infinitely more arrogant and a whole lot more hypocritical. And they also forgot all the most basic rules of diplomacy.
Diplomacy is about the art of the possible, not the fulfilment of ideological fantasies.
You know, if you stripped away all the ideology, all the rhetoric, and just concentrated on the actions, you'd think the West was already at war with Russia - or rather, that the Cold War never ended. Because they're not treating it as another sovereign nation in a global forum - they're treating it as an enemy that must be outwitted, outmanoeuvred and defeated. They think that Russia must step down and surrender its interests or be considered an irrational enemy, regardless of its case. And all this while both NATO and the EU blatantly expands towards Russia's borders.
And after Russia, China is next.
What are our leaders (and the idiot media commentators who cheer them on and deliberately misreport on their behalf) thinking?
Weren't two world wars enough?
The bias is so obvious, I don't know how any news reader can keep a straight face on the TV anymore.
But the other thing to mention here is the sheer incompetence of Western meddling (I can't dignify it by calling it diplomacy). Libya is reeling (as is Iraq, that other 'successful intervention'), Egypt is a military state and Syria is so bad that even the liberal and neo-con interventionists hesitated to demand more intervention.
The West has been encouraging the separation of Ukraine from Russia (like they did with Georgia, and look how that turned out), and now they are surprised that Russia has mobilised to support ethnic Russians in Ukraine and the strategically vital zone of the Crimea.
Western commentators are currently bleating about Russia crossing red lines, threatening stability in the Ukraine, and threatening the Ukraine itself.
The US backed Georgia not so long ago and hinted that they might lend it NATO support. Russia struck across its border, and US promises never materialised. Now the EU is promising Ukraine entry into its market and the US (via the IMF) is promising loans. Meanwhile the Russian army has mobilised on the border and 'armed men' have seized control of airports in the Crimea. What do you think will come of the West's promises now? Hmmm?
Western hubris, arrogance and sheer stupidity have pushed Russia into a corner and forced it to act. Russia was never going to abandon either its ethnic population in Ukraine nor it's vital Black Sea base in the Crimea. The Ukrainian economy was in meltdown, and the EU was never going to give it the money it needed to avoid crashing, and neither will the US. What an earth were these people hoping to gain from this? The US have warned Russia against military action, but there are no NATO forces nearby that can make that threat credible. They can't threaten Russia with sanctions, because it's too big, supplies Europe with most of its gas and oil, and is a UN security council member.
Both halves of Ukraine are going to come to blows, and Russia will not let its side fall. If the tension is not resolved in the next couple of days, then the only way to prevent civil war on a Syrian scale will be to partition the country, with Russia getting Crimea and the industrial east, and Europe (and NATO) getting the EU-friendly west. And this partition would have to be done pretty quickly.
And what is the West going to do with its side of the Ukraine (apart from complain about Ukraine immigrants flooding into the EU as cheap labour)? Does it even really want it?
They said the world changed after 9/11. It did. The leaders of the US and the EU, both on the left and the right, got a whole lot more stupid, infinitely more arrogant and a whole lot more hypocritical. And they also forgot all the most basic rules of diplomacy.
Diplomacy is about the art of the possible, not the fulfilment of ideological fantasies.
You know, if you stripped away all the ideology, all the rhetoric, and just concentrated on the actions, you'd think the West was already at war with Russia - or rather, that the Cold War never ended. Because they're not treating it as another sovereign nation in a global forum - they're treating it as an enemy that must be outwitted, outmanoeuvred and defeated. They think that Russia must step down and surrender its interests or be considered an irrational enemy, regardless of its case. And all this while both NATO and the EU blatantly expands towards Russia's borders.
And after Russia, China is next.
What are our leaders (and the idiot media commentators who cheer them on and deliberately misreport on their behalf) thinking?
Weren't two world wars enough?
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Getting hot in the Middle East
Some interesting news recently: France has agreed to supply the Lebanese army with weapons, and Saudi Arabia has agreed to pay for it.
On the surface, this looks like just another arms deal in a world of arms deals. One commenter went so far as to suggest that this was an anti-semitic plot against Israel, but frankly, that's unlikely.
Make no mistake; this deal will have been done with Israel's tacit agreement.
The target of this deal is not Israel, but Hezbollah.
Hezbollah, supplied and supported by Syria and Iran, is a major force in Lebanon. An unofficial but very heavily armed and organised political and military force, it's proven too strong for Israel to unseat without getting stuck in an occupation quagmire, and the Lebanese army is too weak (deliberately kept weak by Hezbollah's involvement in the political process) to assert its authority over the entire country.
But the wind has been blowing against Hezbollah lately, with Iran feeling the squeeze of sanctions and strike threats, and Syria, its most immediate ally, now reeling in a Western-initiated, Saudi financed civil war. The fact that Hezbollah felt the need to intervene on the battlefield on Assad's behalf is a measure of how worried they are, and of how high the stakes are.
And, at this moment of turmoil and weakness, Saudi Arabia just happens, for no apparent reason, to open its generous cheque book to the Lebanese Army.
The implications are obvious - Saudi Arabia is looking to provoke a civil war, this time in Lebanon itself, with the aim of crushing or weakening Hezbollah.
Turning up the heat
In the war for geopolitical influence in the greater Middle East, and in the conflict between Sunni and Shia, Saudi Arabia is winning. And it is doing so without the deployment of a single Saudi soldier.
Well, if you don't count the ones they sent to Bahrain to stamp on the embers of the so-called 'Arab Spring' there.
But with the retreat of, first, the USSR, then the US, from the region, Saudi Arabia is emerging as a colossus.
It was involved, along with Qatar, in the removal of Gaddafi and his meddlesome, pro-African revolution, anti-oil dollar ways. He's gone now, and Libya is in turmoil, but no matter. It is no longer a threat to Saudi Arabia, and it can stay in turmoil for all the Saudis care - it's one less oil producer to compete with.
The Saudis were also involved, this time snubbing Qatar, in bringing down President Morsi in Egypt and returning the country to military rule. The grinding down of the Muslim Brotherhood (Saudi Arabia's most hated enemy) that is currently going on will be much to Saudi Arabia's liking.
Saudi Arabia, of course, has been instrumental in keeping the Syrian civil war going, doing all it can to knock out Iran's last ally in the Middle East. And it has been making sure that the Saudi backed militias prevail over the ones backed by the US, EU and Qatar. The Syrian Opposition is a mess of competing loyalties, and while it appears to be losing against Assad's forces on the ground, it nonetheless continues to keep the country in an unstable state. If Assad is busy handling problems on his doorstep, then he will have less time to meddle with Saudi Arabia's plans in the rest of the Middle East.
And so we come to the next domino: Lebanon. You see, the real war in the entire Middle East is between (Shia) Iran and (Sunni) Saudi Arabia. And Iran is having its tentacles in the Gaza Strip, Syria and Lebanon slowly snipped off. Turmoil in Lebanon will look terrible in the Western media, but for the Saudis it will be a welcome message to Iran: Look at what is happening to all your friends.
Try the Falafel
So how do other countries feel about this? Well, Israel is happy, as it has been quietly allied with Saudi Arabia ever since the Saudis requested (and paid for) their help a couple of decades ago to solve a problem in the Yemen. With the British no longer willing to fight in Aden or the Arabian Peninsula, the Saudis needed other soldiers to fight their wars. Pakistani mercenaries are useful, and America's willingness to stamp on Saddam Hussein proved very useful, but nothing is as useful as Israel's vociferous anti-Iran stance and its willingness to ignore international law to enforce its interests. So Saudi Arabia can use Israel's help, and it can provide a useful service in return.
It can make sure Egypt honours its peace deal with Israel and maintains its side of the Gaza blockade (which Morsi's government had gone soft on). It can keep Syria, Israel's old enemy, destabilised and no threat to anybody anymore.
And it can kick the legs out from under Hezbollah and leave them too busy fighting for their own survival to bother Israel any more.
So Israel is happy.
Non?
Then there is France. Now what France is up to in all this is something of a mystery to me. Just lately France has gone interventionist mad, with robust insertions into Libya, Mali and the Central African Republic. When you consider that they were once mocked as being Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys for not getting involved in the Invasion of Iraq, you can see that this is quite a change for the truculant Gallic nation that prefers to say 'Non'. And having just lost their triple-A rating on the world finance markets, you'd think the French would be more cautious about getting into expensive interventions.
Then again, that may be why it is happy to boost its defence industry with Saudi money. And who wouldn't? And France remains a staunch ally of Israel anyway, in spite of the EU's weak finger wagging over the Palestinian issue.
You're either with us and against us?
And how does the US feel about this? Well, that's a difficult one too, as the US has long since ceased to pursue a rational foreign policy, mixing as it does its geopolitical interests with its humanitarian interests - feeling sorry for downtrodden people while supporting Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Since its disastrous venture into Iraq, where it was forced to leave empty handed, the US has declared its intention to pivot towards the Far East (and antagonise China instead). It committed aircraft to Libya but declined to do so in Syria, even as the CIA trained anti-Assad militias in Jordon and unleashed them across the border in a major offensive (which failed). And while backing Israel and the Sunnis in the west, and maintaining its hostility against Shia Iran in the east, it offers drones and missiles to the Iranian backed Iraqi government in the centre.
What is the US trying to achieve? Quite honestly, I don't know. It could be a plan so cunning that mere mortals like myself cannot understand it. Or it could just be foreign policy incompetance on a grand scale.
Either way, it looks a million miles away from what Saudi Arabia is doing.
So keep an eye on Lebanon. If those arms get delivered, and if the conflict next door is unresolved, it could blow up.
On the surface, this looks like just another arms deal in a world of arms deals. One commenter went so far as to suggest that this was an anti-semitic plot against Israel, but frankly, that's unlikely.
Make no mistake; this deal will have been done with Israel's tacit agreement.
The target of this deal is not Israel, but Hezbollah.
Hezbollah, supplied and supported by Syria and Iran, is a major force in Lebanon. An unofficial but very heavily armed and organised political and military force, it's proven too strong for Israel to unseat without getting stuck in an occupation quagmire, and the Lebanese army is too weak (deliberately kept weak by Hezbollah's involvement in the political process) to assert its authority over the entire country.
But the wind has been blowing against Hezbollah lately, with Iran feeling the squeeze of sanctions and strike threats, and Syria, its most immediate ally, now reeling in a Western-initiated, Saudi financed civil war. The fact that Hezbollah felt the need to intervene on the battlefield on Assad's behalf is a measure of how worried they are, and of how high the stakes are.
And, at this moment of turmoil and weakness, Saudi Arabia just happens, for no apparent reason, to open its generous cheque book to the Lebanese Army.
The implications are obvious - Saudi Arabia is looking to provoke a civil war, this time in Lebanon itself, with the aim of crushing or weakening Hezbollah.
Turning up the heat
In the war for geopolitical influence in the greater Middle East, and in the conflict between Sunni and Shia, Saudi Arabia is winning. And it is doing so without the deployment of a single Saudi soldier.
Well, if you don't count the ones they sent to Bahrain to stamp on the embers of the so-called 'Arab Spring' there.
But with the retreat of, first, the USSR, then the US, from the region, Saudi Arabia is emerging as a colossus.
It was involved, along with Qatar, in the removal of Gaddafi and his meddlesome, pro-African revolution, anti-oil dollar ways. He's gone now, and Libya is in turmoil, but no matter. It is no longer a threat to Saudi Arabia, and it can stay in turmoil for all the Saudis care - it's one less oil producer to compete with.
The Saudis were also involved, this time snubbing Qatar, in bringing down President Morsi in Egypt and returning the country to military rule. The grinding down of the Muslim Brotherhood (Saudi Arabia's most hated enemy) that is currently going on will be much to Saudi Arabia's liking.
Saudi Arabia, of course, has been instrumental in keeping the Syrian civil war going, doing all it can to knock out Iran's last ally in the Middle East. And it has been making sure that the Saudi backed militias prevail over the ones backed by the US, EU and Qatar. The Syrian Opposition is a mess of competing loyalties, and while it appears to be losing against Assad's forces on the ground, it nonetheless continues to keep the country in an unstable state. If Assad is busy handling problems on his doorstep, then he will have less time to meddle with Saudi Arabia's plans in the rest of the Middle East.
And so we come to the next domino: Lebanon. You see, the real war in the entire Middle East is between (Shia) Iran and (Sunni) Saudi Arabia. And Iran is having its tentacles in the Gaza Strip, Syria and Lebanon slowly snipped off. Turmoil in Lebanon will look terrible in the Western media, but for the Saudis it will be a welcome message to Iran: Look at what is happening to all your friends.
Try the Falafel
So how do other countries feel about this? Well, Israel is happy, as it has been quietly allied with Saudi Arabia ever since the Saudis requested (and paid for) their help a couple of decades ago to solve a problem in the Yemen. With the British no longer willing to fight in Aden or the Arabian Peninsula, the Saudis needed other soldiers to fight their wars. Pakistani mercenaries are useful, and America's willingness to stamp on Saddam Hussein proved very useful, but nothing is as useful as Israel's vociferous anti-Iran stance and its willingness to ignore international law to enforce its interests. So Saudi Arabia can use Israel's help, and it can provide a useful service in return.
It can make sure Egypt honours its peace deal with Israel and maintains its side of the Gaza blockade (which Morsi's government had gone soft on). It can keep Syria, Israel's old enemy, destabilised and no threat to anybody anymore.
And it can kick the legs out from under Hezbollah and leave them too busy fighting for their own survival to bother Israel any more.
So Israel is happy.
Non?
Then there is France. Now what France is up to in all this is something of a mystery to me. Just lately France has gone interventionist mad, with robust insertions into Libya, Mali and the Central African Republic. When you consider that they were once mocked as being Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys for not getting involved in the Invasion of Iraq, you can see that this is quite a change for the truculant Gallic nation that prefers to say 'Non'. And having just lost their triple-A rating on the world finance markets, you'd think the French would be more cautious about getting into expensive interventions.
Then again, that may be why it is happy to boost its defence industry with Saudi money. And who wouldn't? And France remains a staunch ally of Israel anyway, in spite of the EU's weak finger wagging over the Palestinian issue.
You're either with us and against us?
And how does the US feel about this? Well, that's a difficult one too, as the US has long since ceased to pursue a rational foreign policy, mixing as it does its geopolitical interests with its humanitarian interests - feeling sorry for downtrodden people while supporting Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Since its disastrous venture into Iraq, where it was forced to leave empty handed, the US has declared its intention to pivot towards the Far East (and antagonise China instead). It committed aircraft to Libya but declined to do so in Syria, even as the CIA trained anti-Assad militias in Jordon and unleashed them across the border in a major offensive (which failed). And while backing Israel and the Sunnis in the west, and maintaining its hostility against Shia Iran in the east, it offers drones and missiles to the Iranian backed Iraqi government in the centre.
What is the US trying to achieve? Quite honestly, I don't know. It could be a plan so cunning that mere mortals like myself cannot understand it. Or it could just be foreign policy incompetance on a grand scale.
Either way, it looks a million miles away from what Saudi Arabia is doing.
So keep an eye on Lebanon. If those arms get delivered, and if the conflict next door is unresolved, it could blow up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)