Tony Blair: White Saviour

September 25, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Remember that film – Being John Malkovich? I think there’s opportunity for a sequel of sorts there, we’ll call it ‘Being Tony Blair’. The storyline will centre around a young man desperate for answers to pivotal questions such as:

  • How does it feel to be right all the time, and to be surrounded by people who are so wrong all the time?
  • What does a peace envoy actually do?
  • How does Tony sleep at night?
  • What does Tony say in his confessions at church?
  • Did Tony know that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
  • Does Tony feel even a tiny single shred of regret at the deaths of a million Iraqis?

Actually, we probably know all the answers to those questions and the film only would serve as just another Tony Blair vanity exercise. He’d probably masturbate himself to sleep at the thought of his face appearing on billboards all over the world, he’d revel in the fact that an accomplished method actor would should choose to play him, and as such indulge him in his tales of politicking and war-criming etc.

So no, I won’t be pushing that project any further. But I will write about him. And as I do, I feel like the aura of slime that follows him everywhere has detected this and is now making it’s way towards me, ready to infiltrate my brain and remove those nasty images of Tony authorising the UK to bomb the f*ck out of Iraq  and replace them with images of him running gaily through a meadow with happy Iraqi children throwing flower petals through the air.

Well Tony, understated, quiet little Tony was in the Guardian today reminding us yet again of how he knows everything and we know nothing especially when it comes to the Middle East or, as Tony calls it, Israel. Today he was talking about Bashar al Assad, who the papers have been telling us for ages definitely used Chemical Weapons on civilians in August and is therefore a War Criminal. Understated, quiet little Tony was telling us that we should not let Assad off the hook if he doesn’t give all of his Chemical Weapons to the US (who have never, ever used Chemical Weapons).

What Tony also told us, and if you have some kind of beverage in your mouth please swallow fully before reading on, is that the UN Resolution is absolutely vital. If he breaches the UN Resolution, we have to ‘enforce the will of the International Community’. Yes you did read correct. Tony said that the UN Resolution was vital. Just like the one that the US and the UK obtained allowing them to go to war with Iraq. What number was it again?

Unsurprisingly Tony said that if he were Prime Minister today, he would have pushed very hard to be with America as an ally before going on to add ‘It’s the results that count. I’m not particularly concerned if we do it elegantly or inelegantly.’ I can only speculate as to what that actually means, but it certainly does not sound good. And I think that’s what angers me so much about Tony, it’s not just the illegal war that killed over a million Iraqis based on a Lie of Mass Destruction, or the repeated refusals to accept any blame, or the fact that the allies used Chemical weapons without punishment in Fallujah, or the fact that he has gone on to be a Peace Envoy in the Middle East. No, that all contributes massively, but what really angers me is the ‘White Saviour’ mentality he displays. He actually believes that the Western way is the best way and is seemingly prepared use any excuse to enforce that militarily or at least under-handedly.

This breed of ‘White Saviour’ to me doesn’t seem to be a million miles away from the desires of a fanatacist. He stubbornly believes that the Western way of life is perfect, that everything we do is right, that everyone different is wrong, that ‘we’ must do all we can to convince them of that and if we can’t? Bomb the fuck out of them. The only difference between Tony and the infamous fascists of the past is his public persona. In public Tony is unflappable, calm, cool, collected,scripted, speaks in a middle class English accent and rarely ever displays any negative forms of emotion whereas the fascist figures of the past are depicted as much more fiery, angry, heated, ranty, spontaneous, spoke with a foreign accent and were more likely to show their emotion.

This is how he manages to get away with it. I just hope the people of Britain aren’t taken in by his bullshit.

When The White Man Dies in Africa

September 23, 2013 at 7:33 pm

Mainstream media has been gripped this week by the events unfolding in a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Most people will only really know of Kenya as a place where cute short little people run  fast over long distances, and as a place where you can go on eco-holidays to spot Lions in their natural habitat, or if you’re really rich you can even go hunting for them instead (Lions that is, not people).

But Kenya has also been getting itself heavily involved in neighbouring Somalia’s troubles for quite some time now. In fact it’s just under two years since Operation Linda Nchi began, an operation involving the militaries of Kenya, France, Somalia, Ethiopia and (of course) the US. Linda Nchi entailed a military invasion of southern Somalia in pursuit of Al Shabab militants who had allegedly kidnapped some foreign tourists and aid workers in Kenya. The trigger point was the kidnapping of two Spanish aid workers with rumours pointing towards Al Shabab, but in all reality Kenya had been planning such an exercise for well over a year with co-operation from her Western ‘Partners’.

So from that alone you can probably surmise that Al Shabab have been around for a bit, and they have been seen as a significant threat to Kenya since their inception . They were designated a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organisation’ by the US in 2008 and have been at the heart of the ongoing violence in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. I won’t claim to be an expert on them or of the politics in the region, but what is clear is that for some time now innocent people have been dying. In just two days in August of 2010, three hundred people were killed in Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu. Yes, that’s three hundred. But they were all black, all African. So it wasn’t really big news.

Now though Al Shabab are all over the news. In retaliation to ongoing Kenyan military operations in Somalia, they launched an attack on a shopping mall. And this is BIG news. Firstly, the attack has happened in a country of enough relevance to Westerners to actually care about. If it happened in Somalia, it would merely be just a footnote in time and history. But it’s happened in Kenya, a place where white people regularly travel. And worse still, we find that white people actually died in this attack. That immediately doubles the attack’s score on the International Media Richter Scale.

Of course I disagree with Al Shabab’s methods of retaliation, the people being killed are civilians after all. There’s no excuse for such a disgusting, vile act and there’s no place for it within Islam either. The stories emerging of people being told to recite the Shahada or die are horrific, they are an insult to Islam, an insult to everything it stands for. But equally disgusting is the coverage afforded to this event when compared with the coverage afforded to attacks, whether by Al Shabab or otherwise, in Somalia. The message this sends out is that the black pirate-people of Somalia are an irrelevance, an acceptable loss. Whereas our long-distance running friends in Kenya with their pet Lions, tourists and defence contracts with Western nations are an unacceptable loss. Couple that with White people being killed and it’s clear to see why the International ‘Community’ is having a mini heart attack.

Today David Cameron called for an emergency meeting of Cobra, Britain’s national emergencies committee after it emerged that six British people died. Quite what they will discuss is beyond me, it’s a curious case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. The signs have been there for all to see for so long now, with Kenya, the US and even Israel expanding military operations in and around Somalia, and Al Shabab not really enjoying that fact it was painfully obvious that something was going to give.

But don’t worry white people, it is the top priority of the US, UK and Israel to ensure that all white people visiting Kenya to see those Lions will remain safe. Expect to see increased military co-operation, maybe a few more foreign military bases, new arms deals to bolster the Kenyan armoury and perhaps even a fleet of drones hovering above Mogadishu. Expect a few thousand black Somali deaths (never civilians, always militants), maybe a few brave Kenyans will die in the ‘fight against terror’, but definitely no more White deaths.

When a black man dies in Africa, the world goes on. But When a white man dies, the whole world stops.

 

 

Taking Sides: Black or White

September 16, 2013 at 9:15 pm

It’s been quite some time since I last posted, mainly because I’ve been the subject of a mini spam attack. I don’t quite know why a Japanese designer bag retailer thinks people who visit my site would be interest in the latest Gucci, in fact I don’t know what makes them think anyone even visits.

In the time I’ve been away I’ve largely been trying to hide from the news. I find the way that news is presented to us quite offensive to me as a person. Mainstream media is a bit like the market trader who’s overstocked on poor quality, Chinese manufactured toasters. He/she’s desperate to get rid of them and expends a lot of energy on diverting the punters’ attentions towards these dreadful toasters. The trader tries to make you feel like you have much less choice than you actually do. This is essentially what our governments and press do day in, day out.

To test that theory, you need look no further than Syria. The next time you read, watch or listen to a news item about Syria pay close attention to what is actually being said. Try to imagine yourself as a customer, what are your options? What is your outlet of choice actually trying to sell you? Take closer look at the ‘product’, are they being transparent? Are they trying to conceal something from you?

In the case of Syria, the press are largely selling us two options:

  1. Military intervention in the form of airstrikes
  2. Do nothing, and let Assad kill more people with chemical weapons

If you believe what you’re reading/seeing/hearing, ask yourself this: If I was at the market, and this trader was trying to sell you a poor quality toaster, at an inflated price; would you be so insufferably stupid? Would you allow yourself to be led down the proverbial alley and mugged? Of course you wouldn’t. So why do the masses allow governments and media outlets dictate our choices?

Now go back to Syria, and this may seem a little crazy, try to think of some different options. Can you do it? Can your mind stretch beyond the simple binary equation of bomb/not bomb? Of course it can! Life isn’t quite as black or white as that, there’s a hell of a lot of grey in between. And buried deep within this large mass of grey, you’ll find the real options, the real choices. You’ll find that in all major news stories you’ll be given two options. Black or White. What’s it going to be? There are no alternatives. Choose now. Black or White. Don’t forget now, Black is so unpalatable you’ll be ridiculed if you choose it. White or Black. No pressure now. All your friends have already chosen. Black or White. Experts have chosen white already, what’s taking you so long. Black or White. Look at this photo, look what big, bad Black did to poor little White. WHITE or Black. Too late. It’s done.

Governments and Media revel in how stupid we are. In presenting information in a way that leads us deep into this alley, we become gripped with fear. We see we are being offered just two choices, even though we may think there is actually a third, much better, choice we are too far in to the alley. If we speak now, we’re certain to be beaten to a pulp. As we go deeper still, we find quickly that one of the two options becomes increasingly less viable. We have one option left, but it still doesn’t quite feel right. But all of your friends think it is, experts think it is, our Prime Minister thinks it is, so it must be… right?

It takes a bit of courage whilst in the alley to think the unthinkable, it takes courage to say ‘No, I’m not buying this’. But when you do take that step, you’ll find others who have made that step too. You’ll find that your own actions inspire others to think it too. You’ll find that whilst the world can be a horrible place full of horrible people, it’s also a wondrous place full of incredible people.

Once you’ve taken that step, then you’ll begin to see what our trusted sources of information have been concealing from us. We hear that Assad is the first to use Chemical Weapons since 2001. Really? What about Bush in Iraq, 2003? What About Israel in Gaza? We hear from President Obama that no nation would stand idly by and watch bombs rain down upon it, except Pakistan eh? We hear that drones in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen target and hit militants, yet we don’t hear that the US classes all males of military age as militants.

What do you think of that? Can it really be that Black or White?

What is quite frankly unbelievable is that Putin asked Assad: “Can you put your Chemical Weapons into neutral hands?’ and he said “Yes.” Our Government, our media never gave us that option. That wasn’t on the table.

Perhaps we’re sat at the wrong table.

Diplomacy Isn’t Working

August 26, 2013 at 11:46 am

I was speaking to a friend the other day about Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, whether or not what they did is justifiable and we naturally ended up talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. He was saying that the US still hasn’t learnt its lessons from Vietnam, that regardless of how good your military technology is, if you don’t know the surrounding area very well you’re going to be in for a long hard slog.

At first I agreed, it made sense. But then I got to thinking… Maybe they have learned their lessons. See my friend made the assumption that the US wanted a quick: ‘In, Kill the bad guys, Out’ strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But really, where’s the profit in that? The assumption he made implies that the US is a force for good in the world, that they genuinely wanted to help the Iraqis or Afghans, but is that really the case?

Of course not. Where people are involved, nothing is ever quite that simple. There may well have been an element of misguided ‘White Saviour Syndrome’ in the decision making process, but the lobbying system over in the US means that pretty much any decision made by government is guaranteed to have been corrupted by money and corporations at some stage. I wish that Snowden or Manning had stumbled across a document that revealed the decision making process behind the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but so far they haven’t released anything of that nature so all we can do is look at the situation, see who has benefited most and come up with some conspiracy theories.

If one thing is clear, the civilians on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan have benefited the least. Both countries are now former shadows of themselves, with Iraq now a hotbed of sectarian violence that long ago spiralled beyond anyone’s control and Afghanistan now a wreck of a country where nobody really seems to be in charge. It appears that America made some fatal miscalculations when considering what civilians in both countries actually wanted, if indeed their wishes were even considered. The American assumption was quite simply that everybody in Iraq would be better off without Saddam and that everybody in Afghanistan would be better off without the Taliban, and that they’d be the heroes for delivering such scenarios.

One has to wonder, do the key decision makers recruit Hollywood scriptwriters to devise their plans? It could well be the case that an Iraq without Saddam or an Afghanistan without the Taliban would both be better places, but what was clearly not considered was the method of their removal. An invasion by a foreign military force was only ever going to divide the populations, fear of the unknown does terrible things to societies, it brings out the absolute worst in humanity. This was not considered at all, but in all honesty, the situations we find in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly benefited the US.

I doubt there are any published statistics, but I can guarantee that while America has lost a lot of soldiers ‘fighting for the flag’ it has certainly made billions in profit over the course of these invasions. Remember that America is the largest exporter of arms in the world, what better way to advertise your products than a decade long occupation of a nation with such challenging terrain as Afghanistan and the removal of a notorious Tyrant from one of their biggest enemies? That’s before we even think about the oil contracts handed out to western corporations in the oil-fields of Iraq, there’s that famous map of Iraq, divided into five states: Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and Total.

So, from the military failings of Vietnam, America has learned that military failings don’t necessarily need to mean general failings. Like all good businesses, they’ve learned that in order to make money they need to stick to what they do best and then exploit the s**t out of it. And credit where credit’s due, they’re pretty good at invading other countries under false pretences.

Hence why I’m so nervous about the rhetoric emerging from the US and the UK on Syria. It’s pretty clear that Syria will be far better off without him in charge, he’s lost his grip. But is any kind of military intervention, be it airstrikes or troops on the ground, really the best way to engineer that? Have we thought this through? On the face of it, Syria is divided into at least three large groupings: Assad Supporters, Rebel Supporters and people that just want the fighting to stop. That third group is actually incomprehensible to Western political leaders and Western media outlets. We’re being force-fed this idea that in Syria, you either support Assad, or you support the rebels. But it’s pretty clear that both sides only have their own interests at heart now. Maybe that wasn’t the case initially, but it certainly is now.

What will happen should either of these two sides emerge victorious? Immediately, the scars of war will inevitably be so severe that the victor will oppress those who side(d) with the defeated. They will be rounded up and punished, that’s pretty much guaranteed and we’ve seen that in Libya and more recently following the military coup in Egypt. At the moment Syria appears to be a horrid place to live in, with continual fighting and shortages of food, water and healthcare. If the West believes that eliminating Assad will resolve these problems and make Syria a better place, they have another thing coming.

They should look to their case studies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember watching US troops tearing down Saddam’s statue in Baghdad in my Sixth-Form common room, my teachers watching on in shock, I was 17 then. Over a decade later, how does Iraq look now? Arguably worse. Any intervention in Syria will be catastrophic, because whilst in Iraq the tension was simmering away beneath the surface prior to the invasion, the tension in Syria is smashing your head in with a hammer.

And that is why I find everything that William Hague says on this matter frankly disgusting. ‘Diplomacy hasn’t worked’. That may well be the case, but if it hasn’t worked it’s probably because the West are s**t at diplomacy, not just because the Syrian factions are unwilling. This conflict started well over two years ago, and always looked to be one that could escalate to devastating effect. Instead of acting at the time, we’ve just watched with casual interest, and only recently has our interest been piqued. Has anyone even tried to get Assad and the FSA leaders in a room together?

For what it’s worth, my position on Syria is that there should be no military intervention whatsoever. We live in a world where support is not given out of the goodness of our hearts any longer, any invading force will undoubtedly want something in return. Imagine your house is on fire, and your neighbour has a hosepipe. You ask him for help and he says: ‘Sure, but only if you give me the deeds to your house.’ You’d be incredulous, but that is what Aid amounts to. It’s not free, it comes at a hefty price. A price that the aidee just can’t afford. But a price that the Americans routinely demand.

I think we should be calling for a ceasefire, not to destabilise Assad or the FSA but to stop any further civilian casualties, to get medical aid (with no strings) out there, to get food aid out there, to actually help those who need it. Not only should we call for this ceasefire, we should actually take action. Speak to Assad, speak to the FSA. Get them in a room, knock their heads together. Why are you cutting off your country’s nose? To spite your own face? It sounds incredibly naive, I know. But what other option is there?

Bastions of Free Speech

August 20, 2013 at 7:31 pm

This Sunday past, the 18th of August to be precise, the world witnessed yet another act of intimidation against free speech by a repressive state. A journalist, or rather a partner of a journalist, was detained for a whole nine hours to be questioned by police. I’d always heard of these types of things in the past, where a completely innocent person is detained for long periods of time, and wondered:

“What kind of questions do they ask?

Because to be held for a length of time as substantial as nine hours, you’d think there’d be some probing, cutting questions. Of course I still wonder what questions were asked, but not with the same sense of mystery as I once did. For starters, these detentions were the kind of thing that mainstream media outlets assured us only ever happened in horrible nasty evil strange places like Iran, China, Russia or North Korea. How should I know then what a North Korean interrogator would ask? This kind of thing never happened here and if it did it only happened to nasty people that want to attack our very way of life(!)

The mystery disappeared for me at Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv (except it’s not really in Tel Aviv), when my wife was subjected to a four hour ‘detention’. It was a bit strange how it all happened really. I was let through straight away without any issues or even any questions asked, but my wife was immediately questioned: “Where are you from? No where are you from? What’s your father’s name? What’s your grandfather’s name? What are you doing in my country? Why don’t you go to Spain?’ I could say something about how the answers must have been the wrong ones, but it was clear that it was actually the skin colour and religion that was wrong.

Anyway, taken away to a little room she was ‘detained’ for four hours, subjected to hourly 10 minute sessions of aggressive interrogation that made me wonder: ‘Does this ever actually work?’. I mean, you’d have to be a really bad terrorist to crack under the heat of repetitive questions that began with ‘Why are you visiting Israel?’ and ended with ‘I SAID WHY ARE YOU VISITING MY COUNTRY, WHAT DO YOU WANT HERE? YOU KNOW YOU CAN GO TO SPAIN?’ What’s the fascination with Spain, I wonder? Do the Spanish Tourist board pay the IDF commission?

I imagine David Miranda, being the partner of a journalist who has dared to confront the greatest (by greatest, I mean largest and meanest) powers of our time for partaking in less-than-legal activities, was probably subjected to a far tougher line of questioning than my wife. Though if he were asked the same question ‘Why are you visiting my country?‘, aside from the obvious ‘I’m not, I’m just changing flights‘ I’d have been tempted to say ‘I have no f**king idea mate. It’s sh*t, it’s always f**king wet and the people have a strange sense of self-importance when really these pathetic little Islands are a spent force, periodically sucking American d**k to earn a few brownie points.’

Whatever David was asked, I think Scotland Yard’s claim that his detention was ‘Legally Sound’ is completely irrelevant. It may well have been legally sound, so to speak, but it was definitely not morally sound. In fact, it was morally repugnant. A complete disgrace. It’s pretty clear that this guy was targeted, this was no coincidence, and he was targeted because his partner is engaged in a campaign to reveal some rather inconvenient truths that may or may not affect the public’s view of not only the NSA and GCHQ but also the US & British Governments too. It’s rather easy to shoulder the blame and mistrust onto the security agencies, but they are only following orders.

Even the legally sound bit is becoming a bit irritating actually, because it’s also legally sound to stop ethnic minorities (particularly black males) and search them at will, the only justification required? ‘They looked suspicious guv’. Must be a bit of a shock to bone-headed bobby to discover things like ‘A Brief History of Time’, a violin or even just a pen in a black male’s satchel instead of some weed, a gun or a knife. Probably just carrying it for a white friend or something. ‘I’ve got my eye on you.‘ So the legally sound thing is pretty meaningless, besides the guy was detained under terror laws. I mean really? He doesn’t even have a Muslim Face, for Christ’s sake.

So the upshot of all this is our government just looks worse than it already did before (a spectacular achievement in all fairness as they look like a shower of c*nts as it is), because all this sorry little episode has done is show the British public that in all actuality we are merely slaves to the States. It’s clear that any secrets revealed by Glenn Greenwald will show the UK in a negative light, a seedy light. They will show that GCHQ and by extension, our Government, are whoring out their services to the US in a bid to impress them, to stay in favour. They will show that we fully support everything they do and our most recent actions show that we will support them in trying to suppress the truth too. What our Government must realise though is that, like all whores, once the US has paid us for our services they will have no hesitation to discard us for a more attractive proposition.

Now Russia, Iran, North Korea and China may not exactly be bastions of free speech and democracy, but it seems that neither are we. That’s not to say that whenever a repressive regime commits an immoral or grotesque act of injustice we should remain silent. Definitely not, but in the case of David Miranda and Glenn Greenwald, the UK has destroyed any credibility it may have once had. The next time Putin imprisons one of his political rivals on weak (or non-existent) charges, our voice of condemnation will be even more meaningless than it already would have. Whereas before Putin would have just swatted us away like the irritating fly that thinks it’s an Eagle, now he’ll merely laugh at how ridiculous we look.

Because the way to stop ‘terrorism’ is to confiscate games consoles. Obviously.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: