http://thesaker.is/the-conservative-revolution-the-left-dilemma/
The Conservative Revolution: the “Left” Dilemma
27948 Views
January 31, 2017
by Iman Safi
Part II; The “Left” Dilemma:
(for part I, please see here)
To understand where the global “left”-“right” divides stands now, we
must take a quick look at some key developments and join them together
within the particular context sought; because the roots of this divide
go back to the times during which the Western mind was in the process of
choosing between such issues as succumbing to the Church versus
liberation, monarchies versus progressive and democratic governments and
science versus fiction.
A quick look at all the opportunities that people have had for
awakening in the past reveals, without much effort at all, that they
were virtually all quickly and swiftly hijacked by individuals and
organizations seeking gain and mileage. One can perhaps understand why
some people are driven by ego, others are lured by financial rewards,
fame, power etc, and whilst it is not easy to “forgive” them, they are
easier to forgive than those who meddle with people’s minds and replace
their drive for enlightenment and knowledge by unsurmountable walls of
ignorance, darkness, ill-defined destinations and even no destinations
at all to aspire to reach.
Western Churches had for centuries controlled the minds of their
flocks. As a matter of fact, the term “flock” is quite befitting,
because they did regard them as mindless sheep. For many generations,
they have told them what to believe in, how to think, what subjects to
discuss and what to stay away from. They have even told them what to
eat, when to eat, who and when to marry, and should one dare break those
rules and commandments, he/she can face the pain of death.
Whilst this monstrosity is considered to be by-and-large a thing of
the past in the Western/Christian World, it is still well and alive
within some of the other communities and religions, and the new wave of
terror under the guise of Islamic terrorism is only a manifestation of
this phenomenon that it still thriving.
The age of awakening in Western Europe did not come from the Church
that did not reform despite many claims to the contrary made by the
mainstream Churches as well as some breakaway factions alike. The
awakening was the result of the fact that the Western mind liberated
itself from the yokes of the Church and instead of listening to the
rhetoric of their priests telling them that they were born sinners and
that they will burn forever in hell unless they obey their orders and
directives, for a change, they were able to read the works of Spinoza,
Descartes, Kant, and listen to the music of Bach and Beethoven and see
the creativity of Da Vinci. The scientific revolution that ensued was a
result of this liberation, and the Western mind had the opportunity to
lead humanity and to prosper at all levels, and it did.
To the dismay of some Americans who believe that the American
Revolution was the first such popular action against oppressive regimes,
the mother of all revolutions was undoubtedly the French Revolution.
This is because the French Revolution was the outcome of enlightenment
and social awakening, spearheaded by Voltaire, Mollier, Rousseaux and
not just a haphazard revolt related to tea trade tax laws. The French
Revolution was in fact the inspiration that gave rise to Hegel and Marx,
and in its demand for bread to feed the poor, an economic component was
therefore added. Sadly, that awakening was not to last because when the
Communist Manifesto was published, the European awakening was
inadvertently ready to be hijacked and take a detour from its lofty
philosophical spiritual sense and be replaced by financial pragmatism.
Backed by setting up economics as a “science”, in reality, Marx’s
“historical materialism” was an indirect outcome of John Smith’s “The
Wealth of Nations”, and became an uninvited de facto love-child, turned
hijacker, of the awakening of the Western mind and the age of European
enlightenment. But the “financial/economic revolution” was bound to fail
because its approach and reach were not holistic, but at best
practical. Somehow, Marx and Hegel have perhaps forgotten that man does
not live by bread alone and that mankind seeks spirituality, even when
it does not conform with rationality.
Speaking of rationality, we are now hitting a very sensitive chord.
Institutionalized religions did not offer the Western mind any
rationality at all, but that was only the beginning. However, even
though the age of awakening based its doctrine on rationality and
bolstered it with advances in science and medicine, the Western mind was
only ready for a portion of it, and later on succumbed to financial
pragmatism as lifestyle took precedence over the pursuit of knowledge.
On the other hand, in Eastern Europe, the Communist takeover took the
Eastern European mind into a seemingly opposing political ideology;
Communism as opposed to Western Capitalism, but in spiritual,
ideological and philosophical terms, they were not proverbial opposite
sides of the same coin, but rather different corners of the same side of
the same coin. However, the failure of Communism was evident with the
demise of the USSR, but the demise of Capitalism continues to be met
with total denial. That collapse is already here and upon us, but its
acknowledgment is still in the making.
In between the demise of the influence of the Western Churches on
Western masses and the rise of and fall of Communism in Eastern Europe,
the political notion of “right” and “left” emerged initially in the UK
to later on move to the entire world.
The political “left” did not only offer its faithful followers the
promise of change, but also the promise of liberation; both in body and
in mind.
The right to have a job, fair wages, financial retirement security,
medical care, free education, sick pay, maternity pay, and similar rights
were high on the agenda of the Eastern Communist bloc, and that was
perceived as the global socialist “left”. On the other hand, in the
Western version of the “left”, and in addition to the above, freedom of
political expression and freedom of worship and other freedoms were
added to the preamble. Some, indeed, many Westerners, would argue that
even though the “regimes” of Eastern Europe gave themselves the
adjective of being “democratic”, they were very far from it, and use the
examples of lifetime leaders like former Yugoslavia’s Tito and
Romania’s Ceausescu as examples. In retrospect however, the Eastern
European counter argument is hardly ever heard in the West; and this is
not the time and place to present it.
Either way, whether or not the “left”, in its ideal absoluteness, did
reach power in either Eastern or Western Europe or not, it has not yet
given any overwhelming evidence that it has furnished the promised Holy
Grail of freedom and equality and all the minor promises that come with
them.
The socialist “left” ideas perhaps reached their zenith when Castro
and Guevara came to prominence. Guevara is still celebrated as a hero in
the most unlikely places. T-Shirts bearing his portrait are even sold
in NYC.
During the USSR era, any ideology that was remotely related to
socialism was tagged by Western “regimes” as being Communist. Even
speaking about and advocating social justice was a dangerous act in the
United States, and immediately labelled one as a member of the infamous,
illusive, perhaps fictitious “Un-American Activities Committee”. And
whilst many socialist movements, both within the USA or outside it, had
nothing to do with Communism per se, they were all made to be perceived
as being Communist. That was the establishment’s method to portray them
and present them.
It was within this atmosphere that the “left” thrived in Western
Europe, but even the then very popular French Communist Party has
distanced itself from the Communist version of the Kremlin. Nonetheless,
socialist parties in Europe have made big gains and even reached the
Élysée when Francois Mitterrand was elected as French President in 1981.
But even though the Western “left” tried to distant itself from the
USSR, in the eyes of many, the two remained highly associated with each
other. And when British unionist Arthur Scargill visited the USSR to
spite Maggie Thatcher, he made no apologies at all for visiting it, and
thus endorsing it, and for this, among other things, he was seen as a
so-called militant unionist. That aside, in the UK and Australia, the
Labour/Labor parties are highly associated with trade unions and seek
social justice, and this is why they have been identified as being on
the “left”. And whilst the American Democratic Party could not be given a
loud and clear “left” tag per se, the Labour/Labor parties across the
Atlantic and the Pacific, respectively, found in it the natural
political ally.
In theory, the demise of the USSR should have put the Western “left”
at ease. After all, it meant that any argument based on the alleged
association of the Western” left” with the USSR has lost its foundation.
But that demise should have also meant that the “left” had fallen under
a new challenge; the challenge of reinventing itself as a stand-alone
force for change for the better; in a manner that promoted justice and
equality, not only domestically, but also globally.
In reality however, that process of rebirth was nothing short of being disastrous.
Without di-polarity, and for the first time since the partition of
the Roman Empire, humanity found itself under a so-called New World
Order in which the United States of America was the unrivaled leader of
the world. Whilst no bans as such were imposed on “left” ideas and
“left” parties in the West, the process of rebirth needed new ideas and
new preambles. This required a new generation of leaders, but those
leaders were not to be found.
To say that the Western “left” merged into the establishment would be
an understatement. If anything, it underpinned the establishment’s
position by setting itself up as one of its corner stones. In more ways
than one, the “left” in the West did not only merge into the so-called
“Imperial Empire” it was meant stand up against, but also became its
face and organ. It was no longer a force for the kind of change that was
initially promised and expected, and thus has inadvertently lost its
stature and very definition of being “left”.
In the sequel article, we shall have a brief look at surrogate
principles that the Western “left” conjured up seeking survival, and
possibly in another sequel, project how those newly adopted ideas are
highly likely to lead to its removal from the throne that it has placed
itself on for at least two centuries.
Part III; What’s Left of the “Left” in the “Left”:
A very brief and quick look at the post USSR Western “left” reveals
that it did everything BUT stick to its original principles and ideals.
To elaborate, we must look at certain examples; beginning with the
highly controversial subject of refugees. The “left” in the West
continues to uphold the principle of aiding and welcoming refugees, and
this is good and ought to be applauded. However, the “left” does not
even seem to question how those refugees have become refugees in the
first place! Whilst it is a fact that most refugees are in essence
political refugees who have been displaced due to wars inflicted upon
their countries, mostly seeking regime change, the Western “left” seems
to turn a blind eye to this reality. Even worse, when the Western “left”
gets democratically elected and assumes power, it does not try to
reverse the course of events that create refugees.
It gets even worse. Take the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as examples.
Both wars were initiated by the “right” wing Republican American
President GWB. However, his partner in crime in Iraq was Britain’s
Labour leader Tony Blair; who was meant to be from the Western “left”.
And whilst the Australian Labor Party (ALP) can hold its head high
because it was an ALP Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) who bailed
Australia out of the infamous Vietnam War, other ALP administrations
have followed the USA into wars without too many questions asked about
their legitimacy and whether or not they conform with the foundations
and principles upon which the ALP is based.
Such views and politics have nothing to do with the original “left”
values of promoting freedom, supporting the oppressed and working
towards social justice; none what-so-ever, and quite the opposite, if
anything.
And even though APHEDA, an organization sponsored by Australian trade
unions, supports and sponsors humanitarian projects in Palestine, the
current ALP leader Bill Shorten has recently described Israeli PM
Netanyahu as a friend.
The contradictions within the Western “left” are not the result of a
deliberate attempt to create confusion, but rather the direct outcome of
loss of identity and soul, and an inability to reinvent itself in the
post-USSR New World Order era.
A proper reinvention process requires new ideas, but instead of
undergoing a serious process of soul-searching, the Western “left”
shopped around for existing populist issues to capitalize on.
For fairness, when the wider community develops and evolves in a
manner that it advocates such issues as marriage equality, political
parties will need to listen and respect the wish of the community that
it is meant to uphold and attempts to govern. It was therefore a
democratically and demographically driven shift when Western “left”
parties became advocates of gender equality at all levels, including
marriage equality, and for listening to their constituencies, they ought
to be applauded.
That said, moves of this nature lose any genuine intention behind
them if and when not done in conjunction with other new moves and
directions.
It would therefore not be too cynical to say that in this particular
instance, ie the issue of LBGT rights, that Western “left” parties have
simply jumped on an existing and popular band wagon.
Here, we must stop and remember that whilst the Obama Administration
has approved marriage equality within the United States of America, it
continued to endorse the Saudi Government that does not give women the
right to even drive a car. Furthermore, that same administration has
helped and abetted the Saudi regime in attacking and bombing Yemen and
creating a human disaster and starvation that no one in the West,
including the most “progressive” parties in the “left” are trying to put
an end to; let alone seem to know about.
This is not to forget the support fighters associated with Al-Qaeda
and ISIL in Syria and Libya have received from the USA and EU nations;
including the so-called socialist “left” French Government of President
Hollande. And when we make such exposures, we should not vindicate the
Western “left” in opposition in nations like the UK, Australia and in
the recent past in Canada.
There was not a word, not a whisper to stop the onslaught of those
wars, and if anything, the West as a whole, either directly by the
action of “left” governments or by the tacit support of “left”
opposition, has been actively engaged in financing and supporting the
most oppressive world regimes and helping finance, arm, and facilitate
the activities of fundamentalist terror organizations.
And speaking of Obama, just by virtue of being a President from the
Democratic Party, he was assumed to be from the “left” side of Western
politics; and which admittedly is not as hawkish as the Republican
Party. But one would wonder, in the true essence of the “left”
philosophy, what was/is it exactly in Obama and the American Democratic
Party that was/is remotely “left” in its ideals? After all, it was
Democratic Presidents who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, started the
Vietnam War and created Al-Qaeda. It was the Democratic Obama who led
the EU to the brink of war with Russia over Ukraine; and ironically did
so by supporting the ultra-right Ukrainian Neo-Nazis. How bizarre
indeed!
Where is anything that can be even remotely referred to as “left” in these actions and endorsements?
It would be therefore fair to say that with the attempts to reinvent
the “left” in the West, the original principles were cast away and
fantasy that is very alien to the “left” doctrine seems to have taken
precedence over genuine revolutions.
This is not a call to take arms and to go back to the days of
revolutions. Humanity has had plenty of that already. But to honour the
spirit of Guevara all the while helping the Saudis bomb Yemen and
Al-Qaeda to destroy Churches in Syria is grossly hypocritical to say the
least and forms a blatant exposure of the rot and moral bankruptcy
that seems to have overtaken Western “left” movements and governments.
Without giving a lesson in history, but when Angola was under attack,
Castro sent troops to help; not for any gain for Cuba at all. Whether
or not one endorses this action, but that was what a “revolutionary” leftist leader who is true to his word was supposed to do, and
certainly Castro epitomized this image. If we compare Castro’s action to
current leaders of the “left”, it becomes therefore fair to say that
issues such as global justice are no longer on the Western “left”
agenda. If we go further and say that the Western “left” has directly
and indirectly been involved in creating more global injustice, it then
becomes imperative to concede that the Western “left’ has become a part
of problem; not the solution.
So what is really left of the “left” in the “left”? One wonders.
In reality and practice, the “left” concept was reduced to only be
contingent upon supporting such issues as gender equality issues and
environmental awareness; but all with a huge taint of unrealistic
political correctness that bogs it down and blinds its vision from
focusing on other important issues.
Even when getting facts and having them laid out to members of the
Western “left” on a silver platter, they do not seem to understand that,
for example, one cannot only look at certain issues of social justice,
whilst totally ignoring one’s country involvement in needless wars that
are flooding the world with refugees.
What is also mind-boggling about the Western “left” is its love-hate
relationship with mainstream media (MSM). They opt to disbelieve their
tabloids and bulletins when they themselves are the victims, but the
moment someone else gets his neck under the chopping board of the MSM,
instead of putting two and two together and coming up with the
conclusion that the MSM make lies not only about them, but also about
others, instead of putting two and two together to end up with rational
conclusions, they conveniently opt to adopt the easy way out and believe
the lies about others whom they choose to dislike.
Where is the sense of fairness in this attitude? What happened to the aspiration for global justice?
Rather shamelessly, they are now crying tears of blood to see Obama
finish his term, in a clear indication that they are either unaware of
the carnage of his warmongering policy or that they know, but they don’t
care. However, when one brings out the facts to them and shows them
that Obama has created havoc in Libya, Syria, Yemen and many other
corners of the world, and when one presents evidence about the tens of
thousands of innocent people who perished as a result, they can no
longer argue that they did not know. This is a serious indictment
because it ultimately means that they have not only abandoned their
lofty ideals of global justice, but also that they blatantly do not give
much consideration at all to Libyan, Syrian and Yemeni lives. This
makes them racists to the extreme, and they can jump up and down
decrying the accusation, but their actions and inactions show their true
colours.
In principle, to take the fight against global injustice and racism
from the “left” would be tantamount to taking Jesus Christ out of
Christianity. But try saying this to today’s alleged “leftists”.
What is most bizarre perhaps is the fact that the notion of speaking
about reform with the western “left” is a taboo subject. This is quite
oxymoronic to say the least. After all, the “left” is meant to signify
reform, is it not? So, what is really and truly left of the “left” in
the “left”?
Apart from the name tag, what is left of the “left” in “the Western
left” and the “left” in general is a combination of remnants of old
ideas mashed together with some new-age fantasies that only merge in
minds that do not seem to be able to understand the concept of
compatibility. This brings back the issue of rationality, and in this
case, the lack of it. There is at best very little left about today’s
“left” that is well and truly “left” in its core. It’s a muddled-up
world of juvenile-minded dreamers and screamers, figments of a bygone
past, regressive mutants who seem to run more on superficial and
distorted vision rather than principles and rationality.
The truth of the matter is that the “left” is dead, and it cannot be
rebirthed; unless it admits its past and present failures and rebuilds
itself on its original political doctrine with a clear understanding
that its objective is to achieve justice and equal rights for all humans
all over the world.
At the end of the day, politics is politics, and at best, it provides
the right environment for human awakening. At best, it is the
prerequisite and not the ultimate objective, and for this reason, it
ought to be built on ethical foundations. For as long as this form of
political and ethical rationality is not the corner stone of political
activism that is meant to be part-and-parcel of human awakening, any
journey with any other objective(s) will fail, and history is full of
such examples, and all that humanity needs to do is to look back at its
past failed steps to learn.
Part IV; The Seemingly Emerging New Left
In the absence of mainstream political movements pushing for change
and reform, the human aspiration for change did not go away. Not even
the Western Churches, with their former draconian punishments, were able
to stifle humanity and prevent it from demanding awakening and better
living conditions.
Demanding change is a part of human nature, and people do this at
many levels and even when it comes to mundane things like rearranging
their furniture. And whilst the bigger changes they seek and pursue do
not always end up with positive outcomes, the desire for change does not
go away.
And as the traditional Western “left” and “right” formed the
establishment and ran it in accordance with electoral alternation, the
differences between them shrank and continued to shrink.
They might have continued to differ on rather minor issues such as
government funding of certain projects, where to drop taxes and where to
lift them, where to prioritize public spending, their relationships
with trade unions and other management issues, but on basic
philosophical and doctrinal matters such as global justice, they became
almost identical. Ironically, they are both in denial as to how
identical they are, even though their constituencies keep telling them
that they perceive them as being so.
They try hard to scorn each other and quarrel over petty matters in
desperate attempts to recreate the schism that once separated them, but
to no avail. If even the mighty Catholic Church reached a point in time
when it was no longer able to fool people, they will need to acknowledge
that their power of swaying opinion and fooling people will not work.
They conjure up all tricks to accentuate the little difference they
have left between them, but they also often go back to adopt some former
policies of their political foes. When the Australian Liberal Party was
in opposition in the 1980’s, it vehemently fought the Australian Labor
Party’s (ALP) so-called “Option C” in which Paul Keating, the then
treasurer, advocated the need for introducing a consumption tax. Yet,
the Liberal John Howard’s Government was unapologetic when it introduced
it nearly a decade later. That said, the ALP was also unapologetic when
it voted against introducing it, even though it was originally an ALP
idea.
Western voters grew increasingly dissatisfied with their political
leaders, and the percentage of citizens who actually vote in countries
in which voting is not compulsory is a simple reflection.
Even in a highly decisive and highly controversial election like the
recent American presidential elections, 90 million eligible voters out
of 231 million did not vote. This is nearly a whopping 40%.
This is democracy in action, and ironically in this instance, perhaps
a reflection of the distrust of American voters in the version of
democracy that the two-party system has been pushing down their throats
for a very long time. Not even a rally like the Clinton-Trump battle was
enough to motivate them.
That said, the 60% who did vote, voted with a loud and clear message; but are the major parties listening? One really wonders.
There was a major twist in this election. The Republican candidate
Donald Trump has actually won the elections without the support of his
party. As a matter of fact, many Republican heavy weights did not
endorse him and made statements that they were not going to vote for
him.
Against protocol, former President George Bush Senior did not even attend the inaugural ceremony.
It is not by accident that Trump is not liked either by his Democrat
foes or by his supposed Republican “comrades”. After all, he has broken
the mold and based his campaign on seeking change, the kind of change
that neither party wants to address, let alone bring up.
What worries the Western “right” and “left” about Trump is the fact
that he has seemingly created a new force in politics and managed to get
in from an open window that they least expected and one previously
unheard of; the window of the “Conservative Revolution”.
The impact of the “Conservative Revolution” is perhaps not any less
virulent in Western politics than the impact of the age of European
enlightenment was on the Church. Only time will tell.
Would it be too immature and inconceivable to say that for the major
Western political parties the worst is yet to come? A close-up look at
them reveals that the Trump phenomenon is likely going to be the
beginning of an avalanche that will politically sweep the West and push
the reset button on its party-based infra-structure.
In the opening article titled “The Conservative Revolution”,
and which was not meant to be an opening article per se but rather a
stand-alone one, I expressed my views about how the move of the
traditional Western “right” and “left” moved to the centre, and how in
doing so, they created separate vacuums in the left and right, and which
were filled by the Greens and Ultra-Right, respectively.
What is intrinsically pertinent is the fact that when people are
denied the opportunity for change, they will find a way to seek it.
Traditionally, the drive for change came from below; from the masses.
That was how the mother of all revolutions, the French Revolution, was
created.
Traditionally also, the conservative reasoning behind maintaining the
status quo came from above; if from authority itself (as in the case of
France’s Louis the XVI), the social and financial upper crust, or both.
The financial divide had been a major driving force that divided the
‘haves and the have nots’; those who wanted change from those who
resisted it.
However, as different contemporary ideologies – political, financial,
doctrinal or otherwise – seem to stem from perspectives and objectives
that are invariably partial in their views, selective in their outlooks,
and primarily irrational in their rationales to varying degrees; they
will always eventually fall down and crumble because they all have their
own and specific Achilles heel, and their heels will all be struck once
they run out of steam and luck.
Thus, what was seen as a triumph of Capitalism over Communism when
the USSR crumbled was in reality a forerunner for Capitalism to come to
terms with reality of the forthcoming demise of its own two-party system
if not more.
There is undeniably a new and unprecedented political move on the
rise in the West, and if the traditional custodians of alternating
Western parties in power have an iota of rationality and long-term
vision, they ought to stop and look at their own status quo, and at what
size hole they have dug up in the middle of the path of their own
political future.
In their denial to the proximity that was created by their
bi-partisan agreement on major issues, little did they see that in doing
so, they had signed a mutual death warrant for each other. Little did
they realize that for them to be perceived to be on opposite sides, they
needed to demonstrate that they were not only the opposite sides of the
same coin, but opposite in every way that was related to their modus
operandi. But they did not.
The masses do not go by what is dictated to them, and right or wrong,
they will invariably go against the stream when they feel marginalized
and ridiculed. If anything, the more they feel they have been
marginalized and ridiculed, the more vehement they become in standing up
against the offender. And if the offender is the authority, the more
they will be inclined to revolt.
As the “left” is clearly no longer what it used to be, and as the
“right” is losing more support from its traditional power base because
it is seen as being almost identical to the “left”, the drive for change
had to open up for itself a new window for self-expression.
This brings us back to the issue of human awakening.
Trump’s “Conservative Revolution” is ideologically and
philosophically not in a position to offer humanity an enlightened
alternative by any stretch of imagination.
That said, it is presenting a challenge, a real and significant challenge.
For the West in general and the United States in particular to ignore
the events that led to the election of Trump as President would be
foolhardy. To blame the happening on Russia is ridiculous and laughable.
At the present time, the West is no longer divided on the
Cold-War-Take-One divide of Capitalism versus Communism. It is no longer
divided on any remaining remnants of that divide that once
distinguished “right” from “left” Western politics either.
At the present time, the political divide that separates the
traditional major parties in the West is increasingly becoming one that
is only seen in the eyes of those parties and their loyal voters. But it
is not the loyal voters who decide who wins elections.
The swinging voters and those who do not vote, at least not on a
regular basis, are indeed those who make that decision, and their
decision is becoming more prominent.
With his business background, Trump may apply fiscal business
pragmatism and run the USA as a business. Whilst this sounds like an
abhorrent prospect, in reality, it may mean relief to millions around
the globe who wish for a cessation of American attempts of further
regime changes that serve them with American-style democracy, courtesy
of B-52’s.
The “Conservative Revolution” is the slap in the face that both major
parties in all Western democracies need and deserve to get. At best
however, it cannot be expected to be much better than just that. It is
inadvertently the emerging and still ill-defined force for change;
ironically a “new left”; even though it does not bear any ideological
resemblance to Guevara’s “left”, but rather just by definition of
seeking change.
In reality, for as long as people continue to look at each other as
groups and nations of conflicting interests, they will find a reason to
quarrel. They will only stop once they see that what unites them is much
stronger and much more profound, and they cannot and will not do this
until they seek proper awakening; the kind of awakening that ancient
Greek Philosophers and the European philosophers taught and sought.
Religion was meant to be an awakening, but sadly it was hijacked by
institutions, twisted, diverted and turned into a tool for suppression
rather than liberation.
Will humanity employ the Trump election win as a precursor and a
reminder and an incentive to go back to the roots of the age of
awakening? This may sound like a huge and a far-fetched call, but in
reality, awakening does not necessarily need a huge nudge for it to
commence.
At the end of the day and going back to basics mentioned in an
earlier article in this series, meddling with the minds of people is a
serious crime. Technically, it is not defined as a form of genocide. It
is not; it is much more serious.
Politics and ethics should go hand in hand, and when they don’t, we see events akin to what humanity is experiencing now.
Humanity will survive and will bring out its best, and the best is yet to come.
At the end of the day again, darkness will never be able to overcome
light any more than it can stop the light of a candle from breaking
darkness and disabling its light from reaching huge distances. Such is
the power of light over darkness, because no intensity of darkness can
stifle a single humble candle.
And finally, at the end of the day, political movements, right, left,
conservative revolutions or otherwise, including the multitude of
religious factions and schools, none of them mean much at all, unless
they offer humanity the real salvation it needs. And the salvation of
humanity will not come from politics and politicians.
But if one looks at different versions of the definitions of
salvation, defining salvation as an outcome of knowledge is a definition
that cannot be surmounted except by those who prefer ignorance.
Part V; The Establishment Strikes Back
With the backlash to the election and inauguration of President
Trump, we are witnessing unprecedented events indeed. Certainly, much of
this is based on his controversial “Executive Orders”, and this is well
expected; especially the one relating to visa restrictions and the
trauma and anxiety it is causing. However, in a major twist of events,
and among many other things, we see THE American President attacking the
Western Mainstream Media (MSM) and his Press Secretary Sean Spicer
warning them that they will be held accountable.
Just a very short time ago, Obama’s Press Secretaries Robert Gibbs
and later on Josh Earnest were playing “I scratch your back and you
scratch mine” with the same MSM; feeding each other with stories they
both loved to hear and making conclusions that suited their “business”
agendas.
For decades, the machine of the “establishment” has been none, but the
so-called “Deep State” represented by the White House, and it’s
figurehead was none but the incumbent President whoever he was. Even the
seemingly benign, humane and smiley Jimmy Carter was a part of that
“establishment” and its “Deep State”, and so was the former President,
who promised to be unlike any other; former President Obama, the
suave-looking self-made African American with his eloquence, elegant
wife and perfect looking family, the President who promised the earth to
end up providing scorched earth, and instead of providing hope,
millions across the globe looked forward to the day they gave him the
title “former president”.
Of course, those shedding crocodile tears for the departure of Obama
and rampaging the streets of America and the world do not know or care
to know about the carnage the Obama administration has caused across the
globe; because they have such a narrow agenda of interests, and because
what they are trying to protect is not human rights and women as they
proclaim, but certain privileges that they personally possess and only
some Western women.
That infamous “establishment” is best described as a pyramid, an
octopus if one wishes, but one with a virtually countless number of legs
and tentacles, and they all feed off the figurehead, and the head does
not only feed them, but offers them raison d’être, protection and all
that they need for sustenance and continuity.
Just like Tolkien’s Orcs cling to Sauron and imbibe their life and
existence from him, the satellite entities of the “establishment” have
always considered the American President to be the apex of the pyramid,
the symbol, the be-all-and-end-all being, a god, upon whom their very
existence depended; even when they claimed otherwise.
So when the head of the “establishment” turns away from his minions,
their struggle for survival kicks in, not only because they need to
survive, but also because in his departure, they inadvertently become
all what is left of the “establishment” and that for them to restore
their might and glory, they will first need to make sure that the
“establishment” must restore its own stature first, and for this reason,
it ought to strike back; albeit at the head that is meant to be its
own.
Thus far, Trump is keeping his election promises; and this is to the
utter disappointment and shear horror to what is left of the
“establishment”.
In all of their divisions, alliances, and private/personal
aspirations, they had been hoping and praying that the moment he got
elected he was going to renege on major election promises. He did not.
They hoped that the moment he sat in the Oval Office he would then turn
his back on his election promises, and thus far he hasn’t. This is not
to say that he will not, but thus far, he hasn’t.
But unlike the Orcs who were engulfed into the fissures in the earth
which were generated after Frodo destroyed the “ring”, what is left of
the “establishment” did not and was not expected to cease to exist the
moment the head was no longer sitting on its shoulders. After all, some
of the satellites of the “establishment” are much more intelligent and
conniving than Orcs; even though at heart, there is little difference
that separates them.
The intelligent ones are capitalizing on the principle of “controlled
opposition”; a strategy they developed for other nations in the past,
in nations they wanted to destabilize, and this had worked effectively
in many places. Now, they are trying this technique at home, and thus
far it is working.
The technique is based on conjuring up a populist issue that inflames
emotions enough to mobilize people to take to the streets; if not more.
We saw this technique work quite effectively in Egypt, Libya and other
places. It almost succeeded in Syria.
Those monsters specialize in social engineering, and they capitalize
on the goodness in humanity and the desire that good people have for
making things better. So, they flag huge issues such as liberty (as in
the case of Egypt), dictatorship (as they did in Libya and Syria), and
they find thousands upon thousands of youth rising up in defense of
those principles.
They are playing similar cards now, but this time, they are doing
this within the United States of America. They are using a number of
anti-Trump trump cards; including misogyny, racism, and Islamophobia.
They are desperately striking back in a life-or-death attempt that
can secure their survival. What is ironic about this “strike back” is
that it is banking on a support base that is extremely diverse, or at
best multi-based.
Throughout history, foot soldiers have either been forcefully drafted
or mobilized by some human passion; and this takes us back to the issue
of the genocidal concept of meddling with peoples’ minds. The foot
soldiers therefore are not the ones to blame; not now, and not at the
time when the Catholic Church mobilized waves upon waves of soldiers to
take back the Holy Land from the Muslim infidels.
However, unlike the revolutionaries of Soviet and post-Soviet eras,
unlike the Al-Qaeda and ISIS Jihadists, the foot soldiers of the
post-Obama presidency era do not have any hierarchal foundation at all.
They do not have neither a specific agenda nor leadership, neither a
preamble nor a strategy, and above all, the diverse backgrounds they
have beggars beliefs as to what unites them.
This is because those who move them and motivate them are similar to
the former initial enemies of Syria who were only united by their hatred
of Syria and her President. And now, the leaders of the protests of
America, who are changing the protests into riots, are united by their
hatred for Trump; full stop.
And speaking of those different backgrounds, here is an interesting
list of those who are anti-Trump; both overtly and covertly. The list
includes the “Deep State”, Soros and his NGO’s, Murdoch and his
tabloids, the Neo-Cons, the Saudi Royal family, ISIL, and of course; the
Western “left”. Need one list more?
Now here is the pertinent question to ask. How do the leaders of the
Western “left” feel at ease being associated with those monstrous people
and organizations? Do those alleged defenders of women actually know
and worry about the fact that they are currently comrades in arms with
the Saudi regime? This is the world’s most oppressive anti-women regime,
a regime in which women are not only forbidden to vote, but they are
not allowed to drive cars either.
And how about the association with Obama himself? The President who
bombed more foreign nations than any other, the one who has caused
global havoc and destruction? Are the people he killed less human in the
eyes of the leaders of the Western “left”? Obviously, they are.
The demise of the Western “left” has to be first and foremost blamed
on the demise of its leaders and think-tanks. After all, it is leaders
who pave the way and set objectives and strategies to achieve them.
But the blame game has to turn inwardly at some stage, because
individuals cannot blame others for all of their actions. They can blame
them for misguiding them, but surely, those individuals must reach a
point in time at which they must assume at least some responsibility and
be able to do their own soul-searching.
Sadly, many leaders and foot soldiers of the Western “left” alike do
not seem to be remotely close to the realization that they have failed
their own doctrine.
By turning the blind eyes to global social justice, the leaders of
the Western “left” have reduced the struggle for freedom and awakening
to specific agendas only restricted to gender equality, LBGT rights and
global warming issues; and no one was “allowed” to bring in any other
subject. And what a short-sighted and moronic definition some of them
have to gender equality! Rather than pushing for equality in its literal
sense, they want to impose equal numbers of men and women in certain
positions. Why do they want to take the suppression of women into
another wrong twist? One wonders. Isn’t equality supposed to be
meritorious in nature? And what if in a certain area there are more
qualified women than men? Do we still need to have 50% male
representation?
Such a vision of gender equality is very ill-conceived indeed, and does not serve women’s rights, not the least.
And how can the alleged protectors of women turn a blind eye to the
sex slave industry inflicted upon the war-torn countries in which their
nations, and even respected leaders, have poked their noses?
Yes, what about the sex slaves that Obama allowed to be bought and
sold under his watchful eyes and tacit quietness? Syrian and Iraqi girls
as young at 10 years old were bought by filthy old Saudi, Gulfie and
Qatari pedophilic men as sex slaves. Where were Meryl Streep and
Madonna? Don’t Syrian and Iraqi women, and young girls, deserve
protection by those alleged protectors of women? Obviously not. We did
not hear a single word, not a whisper from the hundreds of thousands of
them.
The West, and its “left”, cannot hide and pretend that the slave
industry took off after ISIL (its alleged enemy) took control after June
2014, as facts on the ground clearly indicate that the sex slave
industry started very early in the mark at a time when the West fully
and overtly endorsed all anti-government forces in Syria, at times when
John McCain was visiting them and taking photoshoots with them, and at
times when Australia’s then Labor Foreign Minister Bob Carr was calling
for the assassination of President Assad.
Does the Western “left” have any intelligence or sense of shame left in it at all?
The global “left” supporters are now up in arms, not because of
Trump’s infamous grabbing quote, but because he has destroyed the
“establishment”; their establishment, and they are fighting for the
restoration of their stature.
And how does the woman who rose to infamy by parading in a vagina
dress believe that she is presenting, upholding and protecting women? Is
this how she regards women? As vaginas? This is the lowest, most
demeaning and most appalling act of objectifying women that I have ever
seen or expected to live long enough to see. To her I would like to say
that to me, women are my late and beloved mother and grandmother, my
aunts, my daughter, my wife, my daughters-in-law, my nieces, my cousins,
my friends and their friends, my neighbours, and all other women that I
know, respect and love. The women I do not know, when I need to
communicate with them not knowing their names, I give them the
respectful titles such as madam and the like. I do not see them as
vaginas, and they do not represent themselves as vaginas.
The demeanor of the vagina dress woman is far worse than Trump’s
infamous grabbing statement, but yet, no one seems to be making any
comments to condemn her. If anything, she seems to be seen as a heroine.
This woman is clearly a pervert of some sort, and social misfits like
her know well that for decades now, they have decimated and destroyed
what is known as the “good old values”, and they also know that there
are millions upon millions of people across the globe who are sick and
tired of their hypocritical antics. They know that the decent people of
the world are growing impatient with their debauchery and despicable
demeanor.
For decades, they have capitalized on the kindness and acceptance of
the majority of people who have endorsed them, protected them, and
accepted them. This is because it is the decent majority of people who
are the true custodians of democracy and freedom of expression; not
them. It is the efforts and sacrifices of the decent majority that
resulted in the creation of those attributes in civilized societies; not
theirs.
My animated outcry is that of an old leftie who feels that his
movement has been hijacked. I feel that the leadership of the Western
“left” has fallen off the track, they are not listening to their elders.
They are either so politically unsavvy that they don’t know that they
have fallen into the traps of the “establishment” they were meant to
stand up against, or that they have been fooled to allow to be dragged
into it unknowingly. Either way, they have given the reins to a bunch of
brainless scavengers, mental retards who are true Fascists in every
manner of thought and demeanor. And they are all striking back
together, their establishment is striking back with them, because they
know that they have been decapitated and that the rest of the world has
had enough of them.
If I am sounding angry, it is because I have already lost my country
of birth Lebanon and was driven out of it more than 3 decades ago
because the progressive atmosphere and movements that I grew up among in
the fifties and sixties were all replaced by fundamentalism and strife.
In the last 5-6 years, I saw the same happen to my maternal Syrian
cousins and family, and for the same reasons. An age of enlightenment
was just beginning to dawn in the Middle East and was hijacked by the
radical religious movements that swept and destroyed everything in their
path.
And now, in my adopted homeland Australia, the country I love and
dedicate my heart to, is slipping into an opposite but yet very similar
radicalism. That was totally unforeseeable only a few years ago, and
there is no force to blame but the “left” and how it allowed itself to
morph from an impetus for moving forward to a step back into different
forms of spiritual debasement and lack of concern for global justice and
national sovereignty.
This may sound like an ultra-right propaganda, but in reality, it is
not. It is the “left” who has abandoned the principles of the true left
and turned it from a force of change and liberation to a force towards
breakdown of society and family values. If by endorsing those values and
virtues I will be branded a right-wing zealot, then so be it, because
as a die-hard true leftie, I do not see any association between my
principles and values with what is left of the left in the “left”.
