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?

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.

Meet the warmongers

Who are the warmongers of the world we live in today?

With so many accusations and counter-accusations on who is the cause of this or that war in the world, and with the fog of war propaganda coming from all sides, I thought it would be useful to take a hard look at the facts on military expenditure as key indicators.

It is easy to refute claims about who fired the first shot and who was being aggressive or ‘asking for it’, or even who was ‘bad’ or ‘immoral’ or ‘blasphemous’ etc.

But it is not so easy to deny who is buying, selling, producing and using weapons for warfare the most.

A good source of data is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The charts below are taken from their ‘Recent trends’ section. They provide a clear flavour of the current military spenders hall of fame in the world.

The first is by the highest spenders in 2012 by country:


Another SIPRI Chart for 2012 shows military expenditure by region:


The table below was created to provide a longer-term trend analysis over the 25-year period for which SIPRI’s data is available to compare 5 main regions, namely: Africa, Americas, Asia and Oceania, Europe and the Middle East.

The regions are also sub-divided into their subregions. For example Africa is divided into North and Sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia into Central, East and South Asia together with Oceania.

The table also provides comparative time series data for the first decade of the 21st century, as well as a five-year period following the 2008 financial crisis. This allows us to assess whether and how trends have shifted over the past quarter century.

Source: SIPRI World-military-expenditure-by-region-in-2012


As the figures demonstrate, North America clearly leads and accounts for 43% of the world’s military expenditures over the past quarter century.

USA alone accounts for 40% of all global military expenditure, averaging at close to $600 billion spent every year on warfare.

America’s dedication to war and conflict spending is 12 times higher than what it spends on ‘aid’, which totalled less than $50 billion in year 2011.

In fact, the US aid figure includes $18 billion of military aid, which leaves a total of $32 billion in economic aid.

So the actual ratio of military expenditure versus economic aid is close to 20 to 1 ($618 bn. versus $32 bn.).

It is therefore fair to say that the US spends 20 times more on terrorising the world than it does on aid and peacemaking.

A worrying feature of the global military expenditure figures is the fact that average annual spending on war machines and weapons of mass destruction has increased since 1988 and the fall of the Berlin wall.

The global average for the period stands at US$1.4 trillion a year between 1988 and 2012. The average for the period 2000-2009 was slightly higher as the table shows. This is not surprising as 9/11 occurred in this period.

What is rather surprising is a significant rise in the West’s military expenditures over the period 2008-2012, which is the period of the Western financial/economic crisis.

Average US military expenditure rose from $560 billion a year before the ‘crisis’ to $699 billion a year – a rise of 25% in military expenditure at a time when the economy was apparently in some trouble.

This is a clear indicator of the centrality of the war industry to the US economy.

Here one can note a divergence between Europe and the US.

North America and Europe together account for 74% of global military expenditures for a quarter of a century (1988-2012). Europe’s share was 31%, but this share has declined to 25% of the total since the 2008 financial crisis.

However, it should be noted that the total amount Europe spends on warfare every year has in fact risen by $26 billion or 7% on average since year 2008 as compared to the average for 2000-2009. It is just their share of global spending that is relatively lower today.

There is a noticeable though slight shift within Europe with a rising share of expenditure by Eastern as compared to Western Europe. Regardless, Western Europe’s expenditure on warfare ($308 billion a year) is close to 3 times higher than that of Central and Eastern Europe combined ($115 billion a year).

The European slack has been taken up by East Asia (16% of total since year 2008 as compared to 13% for the period since 1988).

This is not so surprising in that East Asia’s economic rise would be expected to show such trends for the period.

The above comparisons do not delve into population densities and average expenditures per head of population. A per capita count of military expenditure might be a better indicator of a culture of violence.

According to Wikipedia,  the top 10 military spenders in the world in 2012 were the following:

1. USA ($683 billion = $2,200 per capita)

2. China ($166 billion = $123 per capita)

3. Russia ($91 billion = $436 per capita)

4. United Kingdom ($61 billion = $984 per capita)

5. Japan ($59 billion = $465 per capita)

6. France ($59 billion = $908 per capita)

7. Saudi Arabia ($57 billion = $2,014 percapita)

8. India ($46 billion = $26 per capita)

9. Germany ($43 billion = $524 per capita)

10. Italy ($34 billion = $557 per capita)

Among the top 10 military spenders above, only Saudi Arabia with a per capita military expenditure of $2,014 comes anywhere near USA.

Changing the above table in per capita order of ranking, we get:

1. USA ($2,200)

2. Saudi Arabia ($2,014)

3. United Kingdom ($984)

4. France ($908)

5. Italy ($557)

6. Germany ($524)

7. Japan ($465)

8. Russia ($436)

9. China ($123)

10. India ($26)

China and India are the lowest per capita spenders with the Europeans – including Russia – making up the bulk of the world’s warmongers following the lead of USA, Saudi Arabia and Japan. (yes, Japan!)

Another method for rating the most warmongering nations/governments (personally, I think governments and governance systems are mirror images of societies) would be to look at their level of military expenditure compared to the overall size of their economy, measured as a ratio of total military spending to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The ratio of military expenditure to the overall size of the economy measures the resource commitment of an economy to the military sector. This gives a fairly accurate measure of the priority given to wars and war machines in a nation’s economy. This is where all the talk (hot air) can be checked by hard financial data.

In general, the more a nation’s GDP is skewed by military spending, the more warmongering a nation can be said to be. It is not a definitive measure by itself, but it certainly is a key indicator.

The global average in terms of military expenditure as a share of GDP was 2.5% in 2012. In other words, on average, countries dedicated the equivalent of 2.5% of their economy to military spending in year 2012.

Interestingly, Iran’s military expenditure as a share of GDP stood at 1.8% in 2012, which is significantly (28%) below the global average.

Iran spent $9 billion on its military in 2012, which amounted to about $129 per head of population, compared to USA’s $2,200 and Saudi Arabia’s $2,014.

To put it more starkly: on average, an Amercian citizen ‘spends’ $2,200 on wars in a year, a Saudi spends $2,014, while an average Iranian would spend $129 a year on the same.

What is more, the Iranian would be spending a much smaller percentage of his/her budget on warmongering, as compared to Americans and Saudis.

But American and Saudi warmongers are not even the worst cases in the world today. Iran’s military expenditure of $9 billion with a population of 70 million in 2012 is minuscule compared to Israel’s $15 billion (excluding $3 billion a year in US military aid), which amounts to $2,500 per head of Israeli Jewish population.

Compared to USA and the Saudis, Israel is even a bigger warmonger.

All three make Iran look holy.

In terms of GDP shares, USA spent close to 5% of its GDP on warmongering in 2012. Saudi Arabia spent 9% of its GDP on the same, while Israel spent 6.2% of its GDP on making or preparing for war.

The equivalent for Syria was 4%. The global average stood at 2.5%. Iran’s score was 1.8%.

The threat posed by the world’s main warmongering nations cannot be overestimated.

They are in constant pursuit of more wars and weapons of mass destruction, and their economies are structured to depend on war for growth and ‘prosperity’.

The value of international treaties designed to eliminate the threat posed by these warmongers’ weapons of mass destruction is yet to be realised.

Contrary to how their propagandist media portrays the situation, it is in fact countries like USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Europeans who pose the greatest threat to global peace and stability for they drive and thrive on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their use and reproduction.

These warmongers’ weapons of mass destruction must be brought under control.

Independent and non-aggressive countries with peaceful records have an important role to play in safeguarding our collective future, and in bringing these rouge warmongering nations under some form of rule of law in the international arena.

There is quite some way to go yet, but the recent developments bode well for the peace camp in the world.

Let us hope we can join hands to try and stop these warmongers from destroying our precious planet and its good people.