The tyranny of western liberalism

Unless you have been living on a different planet for the past few decades, the violence and extremism of Western liberals must by now be a source of curiosity and horror.
Simply put: since the beginning of the 20th century, Western liberals championing ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ together with ‘secularism’ in government, have been involved in innumerable acts of genocide against defenceless civilians all across the world.
The ‘technology’ used in this Western liberal horror show has usually included the development, mass production and use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) specifically made to mass murder civilians.
In the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘peace’, such weapons are subsequently ‘banned’ under laws developed in the main by Western liberals in forums such as the United Nations, which was also set up in the main by Western liberals.
This then becomes ‘international law’ under which most countries are forbidden to develop and/or use such ‘inhuman’ technology after Western liberals are done with using them (Napalm or the atom bomb, to name a couple) against the rest of the world, and before others develop similar technology.
At the same time, Western liberals move on to make and use new WMDs that have not as yet been banned, but would be in the future as soon as others show signs of catching up.
If we look up the meaning of ‘liberal’ in a dictionary, we find it defined as ‘tolerant of different views and standards of behaviour in others’ or ‘favouring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual’.
Look up ‘liberalism’ and you get ‘a belief in tolerance and gradual reform in moral, religious, or political matters’. You also get ‘a political ideology with its beginnings in western Europe that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion, and the right to own property’.
How is it then that Western liberals are so astoundingly intolerant of the views and perspectives of other people in this world?
And why are they constantly thieving or otherwise forcibly acquiring the private property of people in other countries?
What makes them so narrow minded as to have no respect for the national sovereignty, livelihoods, property and culture of other countries to the extent that ‘bombing’ is the preferred option, often following on from ‘sanctions’ that amount to collective punishment of whole nations (a war crime) without any evident will or desire for dialogue and diplomacy?
Western liberals will spend enormous energy on dismissing, belittling and attacking other political beliefs and systems. In fact, they thrive on the act of identifying some ‘evil threat’ that must be ‘eradicated’.
Not all that long ago, that evil was ‘communism’. When that ‘evil’ finally gave way in 1989, the one and only real brake on the Western liberals’ domination of the world appeared to have disappeared. A liberal-minded person may have expected that to be the start of a long phase of growing peace and stability in the world.
But Western liberals would allow no such thing. Instead, they had found ‘terrorism’ as a useful propaganda tool for terrorising their own people, and delivered real, concrete terror to other countries’ civilian populations.
With the collapse of the Soviets, they also managed to stitch the ‘evil’ brand to ‘Islamic terrorists’.
This helped Western liberals’ long march toward world domination (who needs ‘Zion’ when you can try to take the whole planet instead?!) a great deal, winning them much needed domestic ‘democratic’ support for continuing their maniacal quest.
And it dovetailed beautifully with the fall of the Soviets, especially as it was these same ‘Islamic terrorists’ who had been the final nail in the coffin of the Soviets in Afghanistan.   It did not appear to matter that Western liberals were directly responsible for arming, training and funding these same ‘Islamic terrorists’ in Afghanistan in the first place.
It seemed to matter even less that these ‘Islamic terrorists’ were grown by the CIA in Afghanistan – much like Opium – before the Soviets invaded the country.
In fact, the CIA funded and trained Islamic Mujahedin were the bait that Western liberals were hoping to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan, and the plan (to hand the Soviets their own ‘Vietnam’) worked. But no one is interested in such truths, at least not among the ‘liberals’ of the West.
Today we can see the latest reincarnation of these same games in Syria and Iraq with the advent of Daesh (ISIL).   Daesh is a direct product of brutal American imperialism in the Middle East.
Western liberals encourage and support such ‘terrorists’ and then attack them as soon as they do what they have always said they would do from the very beginning. In a sense, tomorrow’s news on Daesh is already yesterday’s news before it has even happened.
The question here is not so much the atrocities committed by Western liberals of all creeds and shades throughout the past century (for that is now common knowledge).   Rather, the issue being raised here is how it is that such intolerant, heartless, warmongering and genocidal terrorists have come to refer to themselves as ‘liberals’.
Can anyone explain?

So who shot down flight MH17?

I’m not an aviation or explosives expert or anything like that, but simple common sense points to some major flaws in the West’s claims about flight MH17.

And, why exactly is there no noise from the West about this disaster any more? Why the silence and sudden lack of interest in the truth and justice for the victims?

Take a look at this picture:

I got the picture from this German source, and what I’m stating here is largely from that same source.  

The picture shows damage to the Plane’s cockpit. The other pictures that exist from the wreckage do not show such damage to other parts of the plane. The plane was attacked at its front end. And the holes look like there was a heavy barrage of something like a big machine gun. Or a spray of extremely heavy shrapnel or whatever they call it!

 Now, a very important fact to note in the picture is that there are 2 types of holes clearly visible. One type has signs of an outward explosion, as if the bullets were exiting the surface of the cockpit. These holes or tears on the surface appear to bend outwards.

And the other type of holes show smaller, round holes as if bullets were fired at the cockpit from the outside.

The logical conclusion is that the cockpit was attacked from 2 different sides! Whatever the weapon that was used, the bullets or missiles entered the plane’s cockpit from opposite sides of the aircraft. 

This means that this damage to the cockpit could not possibly have been made by an anti-aircraft missile fired at the plane, be it of the air-to-air or surface-to-air type.

Now, there is another separate source that states:

“Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes — the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with “flechettes”, and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.”

And it goes on to describe the evidence of the first external ‘monitors’ on the scene of the crash:

“Parry also cited a July 29 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) investigators to arrive at the scene of the disaster, near Donetsk [stated]… “There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pockmarked with what almost looks like machinegun fire; very, very strong machinegun fire,” Bociurkiw said in the interview.”

So the question arises is: What kind of a pro-Russian rebel machine gun can target a passenger airliner flying at an altitude of 33,000 feet? None of course! This damage was more likely done by fighter jets attacking the passenger airliner:

The article goes on to state:

“It had to have been a hail of bullets from both sides that brought the plane down. This is Haisenko’s main discovery. You can’t have projectiles going in both directions — into the left-hand-side fuselage panel from both its left and right sides — unless they are coming at the panel from different directions.

“Nobody before Haisenko had noticed that the projectiles had ripped through that panel from both its left side and its right side. This is what rules out any ground-fired missile,”

In this context, I can guess why the West has basically shut up about it all!

But the question remains: Who in their right mind would do such a thing? Why shoot down a Malaysian Airline plane in the middle of a war like this?

And the only plausible answer I have heard so far – and I am open to all theories – is the one that the first article cited above concludes with. It happens to be an explanation that the Russians have proposed since this tragedy happened. Apparently, Putin was flying in a similar plane nearby at the time flight MH17 was shot down, and the Ukrainians were trying to kill him:

“If you listen to the voices from Washington now who speak of a “potentially tragic error / accident”, all that remains is the question of what might have been the nature of this “mistake” perpetrated here. I am not given to hover long in the realm of speculation, but would like to invite others to consider the following : The MH 017 looked similar in it’s tricolor design to that that of the Russian President’s plane. The plane with Presdient Putin on board was at the same time ”near” Malaysia MH 017. In aviation circles “close” would be considered to be anywhere between 150 to 200 miles. Also, in this context we might consider the deposition of Ms. Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot Presdient Putin with a Kalashnikov.

But that this remains pure speculation. The shelling of the cockpit of air Malaysia MH 017, however, is definitely not.”

There you have it. The best explanation we have so far for this war crime is that the Ukrainians thought they were shooting down Putin’s plane when they downed Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukrainian air space.

And on the question of what type of weapon could have been used in the attack, there are some more clues cited in the above article:

“Russia recently published radar recordings, that confirm at least one Ukrainian SU 25 in close proximity to MH 017. This corresponds with the statement of the now missing Spanish controller ‘Carlos’ that has seen two Ukrainian fighter aircraft in the immediate vicinity of MH 017. If we now consider the armament of a typical SU 25 we learn this: It is equipped with a double-barreled 30-mm gun, type GSh-302 / AO-17A, equipped with: a 250 round magazine of anti-tank incendiary shells and splinter-explosive shells (dum-dum), arranged in alternating order.”

Here are some more photos.

This fragment looks like it was hit by machine gun fire rather than a missile attack for sure:

Note how little missile or bombing damage is evident to the other plane parts on display:

 Seems to me that this is yet another Western instigated atrocity, committed by an illegitimate government that is now busy shelling its own citizens on a daily basis.

How many Zionists does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: around 178,146 

1,200 (entire Mossad HQ core staff) to launch a global propaganda campaign blaming the Palestinians and especially Hamas for a light bulb burning out in the first place

176,500 (active IDF members) to ensure that no Palestinian would have a working light bulb in ‘retaliation’ for the Israeli light bulb burning out

1 shameless miser (Israeli Prime Minister) to run cap in hand to beg for money for a new light bulb from the US president

435 to lobby every single member of the US house of representatives to pass the budget needed for a light bulb to be given as ‘aid’ to Israel

10 Israeli settlers to hold a gun to the head of a Palestinian child who would be forced to screw in the light bulb, as Apartheid would not allow a Zionist pig to actually do any real work, especially work that may shed any useful light in this world.

Total: 178,146 

The evil freedom loving terrorist

What is the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?   

This answer is usually described as ‘a matter of perspective’. It is claimed that one side’s heroes are ‘naturally’ seen as the other’s villains.

As an example (and a safe one at that from an era that is long gone), Chingis (Genghis) Khan remains a hero to Mongols and large numbers of Central Asian people of Turkic or Mongol origins. Elsewhere, he is generally viewed with horror.

But this ‘explanation’ is surely not good enough. It cannot be the case that we do not know what is right or wrong.

We should be able to determine without any doubt who the ‘freedom fighters’ are as against ‘evil terrorists’ who exact death and destruction. Shouldn’t we?

Perhaps not!

Perhaps, the freedom fighters are the evil terrorists.

And likewise, the evil terrorists are also freedom fighters.

Regardless of whom we support, both warring sides usually see themselves as freedom fighters.

This is the case even with clearcut cases of aggression, as we saw in the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Yet the Americans tend to justify their regular aggressions around the world as somehow in the cause of ‘fighting for freedom’, and they describe their hapless victims and their rudimentary weaponry as ‘evil terrorists’ with ‘weapons of mass destruction’.

And both ‘freedom fighters’ and ‘evil terrorists’ regularly employ violent means with ease. Mercilessly. Brutally. Often against unarmed civilians by design.

And with plenty of Hate.

There is so much beauty in the world. Yet human beings seem to always find a way to fight rather than negotiate.

We all hate. Even though we are ashamed of admitting it, it is undeniable that love is not the only driver in human relations.

But we justify our hate through some ideological self-deception that paints a picture of a ‘just’ cause such as ‘freedom’ in our minds.

A wonderful act of propaganda turns mass murder into an act of love for ‘freedom’ or ‘country’ or ‘god’ or some such balderdash.

So a short answer to the question put is: There really is not much of a difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist!

A freedom fighter is a terrorist because he fights with hate and a brutal determination to kill, and without hesitation usually.

There is no real ‘lesser of two evils’. Rather, there are two hateful, murderous evils trying to portray themselves as angels to themselves and others.

From a neutral perspective, villains and heroes behave in the same manner in war, and it is only in the judgement made by others that they become separated as ‘opposites’ in a ‘moral’ sense.

And therein lies the central weakness of ‘morality’ as a driver for war. No cause justifies war.

Instead, I would suggest we should focus on restraining the link between our naturally existing hate and our propensity to violence.

We have managed to remove ourselves from the food chain. So it is time to relax and put a lid on our ‘hate’ and ‘fight’ instincts, and thereby become more civilised.

Better to fight it out on a football field than a battle field.

Niloufar Parsi

On the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sofia in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a member of “Mlada Bosna” (Young Bosnia), which is said to have led to World War I.

In politics, hypocrisy is a human art form

“Hypocrisy is the state of falsely claiming to possess virtuous characteristics that one lacks. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.”  

“Hypocrisy: the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings.”  

If you are among those who made the ‘mistake’ to (formally or informally) study politics, you must at some point have pondered the question of human hypocrisy. How can we be so confused and why are there so many lies involved in this business? The business of ‘power’, that is.  

Without a doubt, the highest level of hypocrisy is seen among politicians, but it is not limited to this group.  

We are all hypocrites, and not just in the realm of politics either. And I would guess that this is in large part due to poor intelligence more than anything else. Certainly there is no ‘evil intent’, at least not usually.  

I came across a profound quote recently. It may have been George Orwell’s. Something to the effect that nationalism makes people blind to their own country’s violations against others.

The issue must be related to perspectives. We are never truly objective.  

Depending on where you are born, where you have lived, whom you have met, what reading materials you entrusted to brainwash you, which media programmes you subject your mind to, and the kind of company you seek, you develop a certain perspective that is at the same time largely driven or informed by your desire to survive in life.  

These life experiences come together in the end in the form of some value system that we are supposed to adhere to. This value system gives us a framework that helps us make decisions and form opinions on various matters.  

But here is the crunch: Our value systems are simply not objective. They are by definition subjective. And more often than not, our value systems are shaped by our environment as much if not more than our own will.  

It is no accident that working class people are more likely to support socialist policies while the rich espouse personal freedom and rolling back ‘big government’ as ‘values’.  

It is also not surprising that people living in cold places are more likely to be socialist than those in hot climates. Geography demands it, as cold places require human cooperation for survival more than in warm climates.  

Similarly, an Iranian living in America is not necessarily going to be looking for the Friday prayer venue every week. They are more likely to head to their favourite bar or restaurant, and thank ‘Allah’ that they do not have to assume the prostrate position in a big room full of worshipers.  

The big question is: if this same Iranian were living in Iran, might he/she be heading to the Friday prayer?  

You also get the opposite sometimes where a factory owner (e.g. Friedrich Engels) can turn into a socialist revolutionary while Joe the Plumber (or the Tea Party) can be a working class hero for the rich.  

But these are amusing precisely because they are unusual. There is no way of predicting individual behavior with any certainty, but there is a way of predicting the behavior of the average individual within different groups.  

And this should tell us all that we are not objective and our value systems are not as moral as we would like to believe. This is not to dismiss morality or idealism, but rather to highlight their limitations, especially in relation to the real world around us.  

After all, we are highly insecure beings who invented God without ever meeting him (or even expect to other than after death!) so as to give us some security and comfort in a cold and incomprehensible universe. We really can be imaginative with our beliefs (virgin births, revelations, god’s messengers etc) and this is a form of self-deception, so why not forgive a little hypocrisy?  

But hypocrisy in politics is on a whole different level. They say you know when a politician is lying by the fact that his/her lips are moving. This is not far from the truth.

Every single sentence uttered by a politician is likely to have an impact on people’s expectations and reactions. Politicians seek to manipulate rather than inform. They see it as their job to do so.  

It is indeed a rare occasion when a statement made by a politician is meant to convey the truth of a situation. Quite the contrary: in order to manipulate society, every single public statement is designed to achieve a hidden purpose, and one that cannot be shared openly because it negates the value system that the politician and his/her voters claim to uphold.  

So you end up with wars waged in the name of ‘peace’ or even ‘security’: illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 followed by a million deaths and torture and war crimes galore.  

You get collective punishment of whole societies (a war crime) described as ‘smart sanctions’ for the purpose of ‘avoiding’ conflict: 3 decades of Western sanctions on Iran.

You get elected governments being overthrown all over the world often with support from the ‘democratic’ West (Egypt, Ukraine, Thailand, Venezuela etc).  

You get a whole generation of politicians who believe being an idealist is the same as being a trigger happy warmonger with war after war on a permanent basis (Americans attacking Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, with the intention to move on to Lebanon and Iran).  

You get the richest nation on earth having 50 million people on food stamps and without healthcare (so of course their leaders would block Iranians’ access to medicines).  

You get a period of rapid economic growth and prosperity for the great majority of the world’s population described as a ‘global financial crisis’ just because several rich Western countries went through a recession at the same time.  

You get the vilest types of Al Qaeda terrorists in bed with Western ‘idealists’ and Apartheid-loving Zionists to overthrow the only secular regime in the Levant and in the name of freedom too (Syria).  

And you get Iranian ‘human rights activists’ suckling from the bosom of the greatest war criminals on earth (i.e. the corporate fascist regime in USA) and pointing a finger of condemnation at the Iranian ‘regime’.