Advertisement

L'Ordre

L'Ordre

Should America kill everyone for “democracy” in Syria?

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Nous ne pouvons arracher une seule page de notre vie, mais nous pouvons jeter le livre au feu.

We cannot tear a single page from our life, but we can throw the whole book into the fire.

Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin


The US has decided that all forces who interfere in its plans to train rebel groups inside Syria should be bombed and killed. Not just ISIS is being considered a target for US air strikes, but also smaller groups like al-Nusra, and even the Syrian Army itself are going to eventually be targeted by the maniacs who are convinced “democracy” can only come from the barrel of an American gun.

Advertisement

One of many maps of the ever-shifting battlefield of the Syrian Civil War. Image via Twitter user @deSyracuse 

The vast majority of Syrian rebel groups are not on America’s side at this point. Almost all of them agree with the Syrian government, that the United States has no future in Syria and that its attempt to take control of Syria by training small groups of rebels must fail. The US, seeing itself as the master of Syria, is unable to accept this. Their rage at their defeats and failures over the course of years has become so intense now that they have all but decided to kill anyone who doesn’t want the US to control Syria, with the hope that whoever is left will then have to allow the US to control Syria. The problem is, the air strikes against ISIS are actually embarrassing the Syrian rebels and making them turn against the US, rather than convincing them that the US is their key to victory.

Advertisement

At the moment, the strategy of the Pentagon’s leading fantasists is failing horribly. The US’s attempt to prop up the chosen few rebel groups supporting “democracy” in Syria only paints a target on those rebel groups’ backs and makes the other rebel groups want to eliminate them even more than they want to eliminate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. Even the few rebel groups that the US is bombing Syria to protect don’t actually want the Americans to bomb Syria, and have publicly begged the US Air Force to stop bombing Syria.

Advertisement

The few rebels that the US managed to train, and whom the US is now prepared to kill everyone in Syria to save, consisted of barely 50 men. Apparently, these proponents of “democracy” are so special and noble that everyone else must die so that they can bring democracy to Syria. It seems that the US State Department now believes the only way of representing the people of a Syria in a fair and democratic manner would be to kill 99.9% of them.

Perhaps we will look back on this one day and realize that what the US was doing in Syria is similar to what the Soviet Union did in its dying days. Rather than accepting that its forces are not welcome around the world, the US is clinging to its far-fetched ideology and a corresponding self-centered view of itself as the state vanguard of revolution and democracy in the world as the basis for its global strategy. Instead of the inevitable communist revolution believed in by the Soviet Union, the United States is today obsessed with the myth of “democratization” to the point of justifying all brute force to achieve it.

Advertisement

Despite America stumbling from failure to failure, defeat to defeat, around the world as it tries to fulfill this insane and hopeless fantasy of “democratization”, it still believes that it might eventually manage to convert a country to “democracy” by force of arms some day – if it can only kill a million more people. The insanity goes on, despite the fact that each and every attempt to force a country to become a democracy was a failure, and the ongoing effort to do so again in Syria has failure written all over it in the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders who fell prey to American intrigues and aggression.

The US even failed to learn its lessons from recent botched and extremely expensive attempts to train pro-“democracy” rebels, and its only solution so far has been to waste even more money attempting to do exactly the same thing again.

Advertisement

The Soviet Union failed in Afghanistan because it allied itself with the weakest faction, on the grounds that this faction was communist. The US does the same today, allying with any faction in Syria that appears sufficiently “democratic” to the narrow vision of American ideologues, no matter how small and pathetic, and bombing anyone who gets in its way. At this point, they are willing to kill millions to save a mere fifty people who are on their “side” in that country.

The true agenda of liberation does not consist of war crimes advanced by the United States government in countries like Syria, but the opposite: American aggression will eventually lead to their nation’s defeat, American power will be crippled, and the US government will be humiliated and discredited. Many people hope the illness of this blood-splattered regime in the United States will be fatal, and the world will become a cleaner place with less war.

Advertisement


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Advertisement

Is immigration good or bad?

posted by Harry J. Bentham

The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.

Le gouvernement de la révolution est le despotisme de la liberté contre la tyrannie.

Robespierre


Conversations in the media about Donald Trump’s anti-immigration canards, the migrant crisis in Greece and Macedonia, and protest actions in Britain and Germany, have brought immigration and its opponents to increased attention.

Advertisement

To begin, it must be accepted that immigrants belong to our shared human heritage and they are thus no different than anyone else, so they should not be demonized. One can argue quite effectively that citizenship should not be exclusive or should not exist at all as a concept in today’s porous political geography. However, state policies on immigration and the effects of immigration on people’s lives can be legitimately brought to attention and criticized.

Is immigration bad… for immigrants?

The trafficking of immigrants for exploitative employers who seek nothing less than to restore slavery in Europe and North America is a fact. Various arguments can be made from the state perspective that immigration can have a damaging effect on quality of life. Mostly, for immigrants themselves.

Advertisement

Many immigrants move to Europe and North America searching for better wages and better quality of life. Each of them would prefer thus to have traveled here alone, and not be part of a great stampede of mankind away from the world’s impoverished peripheries to its unjustly wealthier centers. Those who remained likely have an even greater contempt for those who left, than each immigrant has for the next immigrant.

From a world-systems perspective, this is not only against the interests of the poor states losing skilled workers to wealthier states, but against the interests of individual migrants themselves. Some of the strongest criticisms of immigration in its present form ought to come from immigrants, and indeed they do. Immigrants who have made a life for themselves in Europe and North America have more reason to fear an influx of new immigrants than anyone else. Indeed, the extralegal patrols that were set up on the United States border with Mexico are largely manned by immigrants themselves, as are the government border stations on that border. Immigrants hold a strong fear of other immigrants, seeing them as a threat to their way of life who threaten to drive down the wages that were the reason they migrated in the first place.

Advertisement

Immigrants who came to the west searching for work and better quality of life are desperately afraid that they will have to compete with a new influx of people who are willing to put up with slightly less pay and slightly less quality of life than they were. That is a fear that exists. It may be unfounded, and indeed the real solution to it is not to bar immigrants from entering the state in question, but for the state to more heavily regulate employers in order to crack down on exploitation, and for trade unions to consistently campaign for higher wages.

Emigration as a draining and impoverishing force in poor countries?

The more potent criticism of immigration is not regarding the interests of the host country, which profits enormously from the influx of skilled workers, and hence is not a criticism of immigration but of emigration – the loss of workers from poorer states. The flight of doctors and scientists from poor countries to rich countries leaves their own countries suffering a severe lack of quality medical care and innovation, and reduces them to asking for aid from other countries or the humiliation of relying on foreign volunteers from international NGOs (to no avail).

Advertisement

One can either believe that poor states are poor because they are incompetently governed by juntas and totalitarian regimes, or we can study history, which reveals that such regimes only emerged in the first place to guard against colonialism. The solution to poverty in the world’s economic peripheries is not to neglect, abandon, sanction and condemn nations but to help them.

If poorer states only appealed for their most skilled workers to remain in those countries, and to help uplift these countries rather than leave them in the care of the United Nations and various NGOs, every such country would prosper and their people would feel no incentive to migrate to Europe and North America. While any policy that mixes the races and brings together disparate cultures results usually in a positive exchange, it is a tragedy that poor countries witness this exodus of people in the first place. One can only hope that ubiquitous industrialization and other technological progress will eventually improve life across the whole world and not only in Europe in North America.

Advertisement


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Advertisement

Countdown to NATO defeat and withdrawal in Afghanistan?

posted by Harry J. Bentham

… il n’est rien creu si fermement que ce qu’on sçait le moins, …

Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.

Michel de Montaigne


When Afghanistan was first invaded by US forces in 2001 and beyond, most voices in the west sided with this aggression. Using the national trauma caused by the 9/11 attacks to justify the invasion, the then Bush Jr. administration wanted to satisfy the popular cry for revenge.

Advertisement

It is a sad fact today that the victims of the now NATO-led War in Afghanistan were neither al-Qaeda terrorists nor the Taliban, who are still strong, but the ordinary people of Afghanistan. Hindsight is a brilliant thing. Only with hindsight can we become aware of the folly of invading a country and terrorizing and intruding on several others such as Pakistan, merely to find and kill one man. And it took around ten years to accomplish only that, at a cost of only tens of thousands of civilians in the process. In hindsight, what NATO did in Afghanistan looks crueler and more absurd than even Israel’s vindictive attacks on Gaza. It was based on similar logic.

The military mastermind Mohammed Omar, leader of the Taliban, was one of the main targets of the “world’s only superpower” for more than ten years. Eventually, he died. Of natural causes. There are some who even claim that Osama bin Laden also died of natural causes years before 2011, and that the raid on bin Laden’s compound (which there is essentially no evidence even happened) was a work of badly constructed fiction from the Pentagon and CNN. It is already a fact that all the conspicuously poor-quality videos of bin Laden (the multi-millionaire’s camera supposedly deteriorated to the resolution of a potato from 2001 onward) were fabricated by the Pentagon. It is not outrageous to conclude that America’s greatest victory in the “War on Terror” never happened.

Advertisement

The United States and its NATO allies have no strategy in Afghanistan. As Sun Tzu said, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. No matter how marvelously the SAS and the US’s own SEAL teams performed in combat missions in Afghanistan (and they deserve a lot of credit as military men), the War in Afghanistan wasn’t aligned with any tenable political goals. Even the goal of defending the incumbent regime in Afghanistan is likely to be something that NATO will regret, once its forces leave and Kabul falls under the influence of savvy regional powers like Iran and Pakistan.

Advertisement

Iraq offers a fascinating preview of what is almost certain to happen with NATO withdraws from Afghanistan. In Iraq, the US was bogged down fighting an insurgency. Only by eventually allying with its enemies the Kurds and the Shiites, did the US manage to “win” in Afghanistan. Or, as American statesmen do all too often, they decided that the only way to “win” the conflict was to lose and make it look like a victory by lying to the media.

NATO is doing the same thing in Afghanistan today. While using slogans like “Return to Hope”, NATO is lying to the world and to the media to portray its defeat as a victory. When NATO has departed Afghanistan, the only message from the Afghan government will be, “good riddance”. Any administration that wants to preserve itself against the Taliban onslaught will only do so by washing its hands of any connection to the US-led military occupation that terrorized and destroyed so many lives. This was the case in Iraq, where Nouri al-Maliki, once seen as an American puppet ruler, ultimately made public his alliance with the Iranians and gave the Americans a good kick as they departed the country in shame.

Advertisement

Media go from supporting a regime to condemning it, and disgracing all the US troops who died for it

The US media and politicians may have justified the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers to prop up the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, but sacrifice actually means very little to such national parasites. They are just as likely to begin justifying the sacrifice of even more soldiers in order to undermine the regimes they just spent decades propping up, if their ill-conceived political schemes require them to do so.

Idiotic strategy with no tenable political goal produces this madness. On the media front, CNN is a prime example of it. For years, CNN portrayed the US mission in Iraq as a success and justified the military actions taken in the country. In little more than a few years after the US soldiers left, CNN began criticizing the administration of Nouri al-Maliki and even eventually produced propaganda for ISIS, by posing with maps of a divided Iraq and portraying Iraq as a country that should be ethnically divided to include a so-called “Sunni” landlocked region. I doubt that it would be governed by any moderate forces or have any desire to coexist with adjacent Kurdish and Shiite enclaves, some of which would be completely encircled.

Advertisement

The types of anchors on US television shows, such as Christiane Amanpour, are as idiotic and irresponsible as the rulers they adore. Almost everything they predict turns out to be wrong, such as the division of Iraq or the so-called imminent fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, who has somehow still not been ousted by an apparent “Arab Spring” revolution against him, despite it going on for years upon years with no end in sight.

What we have at the Pentagon and in NATO, as with all their propaganda networks, is a Goliath that has no order and no purpose, stomping around the world on a crusade and against god-knows-what. These generals and propaganda ministers are blown around by public opinion about the danger posed by terrorists one minute, paranoid delusions about Vladimir Putin the next, and they will just as easily ignore the polls as soon as they disagree with them.

Advertisement

The US and NATO can offer no possible incentive to the Taliban that will convince them to negotiate an end to violence. The US and NATO waged a war of violence and they lost a war of violence. No negotiations will save them now or soften the impact of the castration of their misguided armed forces in Afghanistan.

Wars cannot be waged in the interest of democracy or civil rights as NATO propaganda claims, because democratic processes cannot determine whether a war is a just war. Furthermore, once a war has started, it has its own ways of ignoring or outright stomping on democracy in order to resolve itself. All politics, democratic or not, go out the window once tension turns into war. The world does not need to be lectured by generals about “democracy”.

Advertisement


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Advertisement

Putin the peacemaker?

posted by Harry J. Bentham

Mon siège est fait.

My siege is finished.

René-Aubert Vertot


The vilification of Vladimir Putin in the media makes us blind to the good he does.

Unlike the US, which supports failed rebel groups in Syria who are killing one another, the Russian government wants a peaceful resolution of the Syrian Conflict. The hysterically anti-Russian media avoids mentioning this and instead focuses all mention of Russia on anti-Russian sanctions and Russia’s stake in the Ukrainian Civil War. A war that, unlike the US who support only weak and failed actors when interfering in conflicts around the world, Russia has the advantage in.

Advertisement

Due to the failure to remove Bashar al-Assad’s government from power in Syria, the US has switched its objective to trying to divide Syria up into governed and ungoverned spaces that will simply deny Assad power over at least some of his country. Whether thousands of people are beheaded by extremists in those territories does not bother the US government, which is still driven by its grudge against Assad and its desire to feel a sense of redemption for wasted billions of dollars on “rebel” groups by at least reducing Assad’s power a little.

The Russians want no division of Syria and have even more reasons to thwart whatever the Americans want, especially now that the US is in an unofficially declared “new Cold War” with Russia with the anti-Russia sanctions. The Russian government’s desire for a political resolution of the Syrian crisis, rather than America’s non-solution of dividing the country among terrorist groups and separatist enclaves at war with themselves and surrounding countries, is driven by Russia’s genuine interest in preventing the spread of terrorism to Eurasia. We are blinded to the good work done by the Russian government to end the crisis in Syria, without it even being covered in our media, because the goose-stepping alliance of television channels and governments wants only to portray Putin as a villain.

Advertisement

Russia helped to dismantle Assad’s chemical weapons, and was a key partner in the nuclear deal with Iran. Deeds that embarrassed the vindictive US government, which wanted to instead bomb Assad (based on scant evidence as it was with Libya and Iraq before), and was one of the core reasons for Obama’s fallout with Putin.

YouTube Preview Image

From an analysis authored by Mike Whitney:

Advertisement

Russian President Vladimir Putin takes the threat of terrorism very seriously, which is why he has been working around-the-clock to engage leaders from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Kurds and Syrian opposition groups in negotiations to put an end to the fighting and reestablish security in Syria.  It’s worth noting that there’s been an effective blackout of these crucial negotiations in the western media, mainly because they make Putin look like a peacemaker who is respected among other world leaders and who is making every effort to stop the spread of terrorism. Obviously, that doesn’t jibe with the media’s portrayal of Putin as the new Hitler, so they’ve simply omitted the meetings from their coverage.

Advertisement

People who think Russia is a threat to international security should remember that the sole common denominator in all conflict zones that threaten international security is the involvement of the US government and its crusade for “regime change” against all backward regimes except its own. The world need not be reminded that America is led by a corrupt mafia-state that kills its own people and spies on even more, including its own so-called allies. It is the US government, in its asinine belief that it is “exceptional” and deserves ultimately to rule the world, that labors to justify war and condemn all other powers but its own. The US would have you believe that other regimes deserve to be overthrown, when in fact the only regime crying out to be overthrown today is the American police state.

Advertisement

The US should stop imitating the war criminal and sore loser McCain, cheering for war and blaming its victims for its atrocities, before the chickenshits come home to roost in the White House.


By Harry J. Bentham

HJB Signature and stamp

Previous Posts

Should America kill everyone for "democracy" in Syria?
Nous ne pouvons arracher une seule page de notre vie, mais nous pouvons jeter le livre au feu. We cannot tear a single page from our life, but we can throw the whole book into the fire. Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin The US has decided ...

posted 11:00:23pm Aug. 29, 2015 | read full post »

Is immigration good or bad?
The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny. Le gouvernement de la révolution est le despotisme de la liberté contre la tyrannie. Robespierre Conversations in the media about Donald Trump's ...

posted 11:00:26pm Aug. 23, 2015 | read full post »

Countdown to NATO defeat and withdrawal in Afghanistan?
... il n'est rien creu si fermement que ce qu'on sçait le moins, ... Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know. Michel de Montaigne When Afghanistan was first invaded by US forces in 2001 and beyond, most voices in ...

posted 10:00:05am Aug. 23, 2015 | read full post »

Putin the peacemaker?
Mon siège est fait. My siege is finished. René-Aubert Vertot The vilification of Vladimir Putin in the media makes us blind to the good he does. Unlike the US, which supports failed rebel groups in Syria who are killing one ...

posted 11:00:06pm Aug. 16, 2015 | read full post »

Do moderate Islamic politics have a future in Europe?
J'ai un but, une tâche, disons le mot, une passion. Le métier d'écrire en est une violente et presque indestructible. I have an object, a task, let me say the word, a passion. The profession of writing is a violent and almost indestructible ...

posted 11:00:37pm Aug. 15, 2015 | read full post »

Advertisement


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.