Monday, December 26, 2016

The Fall of [Neconservatism and the Liberation of] Aleppo

Liberated vs Fallen

When a city or nation is successfully invaded by an outside entity, we tend to phrase the act differently depending on who the invader is. If the invader is an ally, or someone we empathize with, then we term it as a liberation. Iraq was liberated from Saddam. The Philippines were liberated from imperial Japan. Gondor was liberated from Sauron.

When the sides are switched, we talk about how our preferred side has fallen. We speak of the fall of Rome, not Rome's liberation by Visigoths. If you search the term "fall of Jerusalem" you will find references to its invasion by Saladin, but if you search for "liberation of Jerusalem" it will return references to Israel's successful 6 Day War of 1967 or to its occupation by Crusaders in medieval times. In the Anglosphere we know that the Fall of France refers to its invasion by Germany, and that the Liberation of Paris was the reactionary invasion by English speaking forces.

There is some fluidity of usage, but normally the opinion of the author can be determined by the phrasing used to describe these kinds of military actions.


In that context, the media's portrayal of the recent ousting of ISIS from Aleppo by the Syrian Army (with Russian support) is telling. Compare the news sources on the first page when searching the following terms in Google, at the time of this writing.

"Liberation of Aleppo"

  • OffGuardian
  • RT (Russian)
  • Mehr News Agency (Iranian)
  • PressTV (Iranian)
  • (anti-MSM source)
  • Katehon
  • Southfront

"Fall of Aleppo"

  • Daily Beast
  • The Atlantic
  • New Jersey Herald
  • The National Review
  • The Telegraph
  • NPR
  • VOX
  • Jerusalem Post
  • Newsweek

The conclusion is clear: the mainstream media sides with the previous occupiers. Their sympathies lie not with the House of Assad, the de facto government of Syria, nor with Russia, the only foreign military force invited by the Syrian government. No, the sympathies of our mainstream media are with ISIS. The Islamic State. The most cruel, barbaric, and despicable state in all of existence. You can't get worse than ISIS. North Korea is not nearly so depraved, so hostile, so cancerous. And that is who the mainstream media is openly siding with. It's so incredible I really do find myself at a loss of words. But let the conclusion be clear:


This is an interesting development for us who have been saying for a while that Obama has aided ISIS, using them as a tool of US foreign policy. This suggestion has some undertones of conspiracy theory, but with the mainstream media, who have done nothing but carry water for Obama's disgraceful foreign policy, now openly aligning with ISISian interests the argument is totally freed from attempts to smear them as wild conspiratorial fantasy. It is not so wild to claim that Obama has aligned with ISIS whenever useful after his media puppets have openly aligned with them as well. And that is something to note is that the media stance is more in defense of Obama's foreign policy than it is explicitly pro-ISIS. The ongoing US-backed invasion of ISIS-held Mosul is being touted as a liberation by his cheerleaders. And of course they aren't going hysterical about the humanitarian casualties of that operation.

Obama's Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism as I understand it can be summed up by the following three principles.
  1. American global hegemony must be extended into the 21st century to ensure world stability.
  2. No regional hegemonies will be tolerated. No national players who reject global US / Western hegemony will be tolerated.
  3. America will use any military, intelligence, political, and economic weapons at it's disposal to preempt the emergence of any power that might contest her empire.
While most associated with the Bush regime, Neoconservatism did not begin or end with W. US Empire At All Costs has been the de facto policy since World War II. (For those who aren't sure what I'm talking about, there are many analyses on the subject. I would suggest Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent as a great starting point.) The CIA has long been covertly sabotaging opponents, the IMF strangling them. The difference with Bush was that pre-emptive military attack became the stated policy. It has long been the de facto policy, but it was largely excluded from the public policy debate and was done as discreetly as possible. Under Obama the Bush Doctrine was alleged to have been overturned, and he was awarded a Nobel peace prize before the farce could be revealed. In reality all the old tricks were on the table, but they were used more aggressively, more openly, more deceitfully, and with greater incompetence. 

For example. it is not new for them to use US air power to influence a foreign war, as Bill Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Nor is it novel to secretly aid rebel groups to overthrow disliked rulers, as happened extensively in Latin America and other places. So it wasn't totally unusual that the Neocon policy would be implemented in Libya, which relied on US bombs and her aid to Islamic rebels/terrorists. But how it occurred was much more in line with the Bush Doctrine. There was no illusion that this was not a US operation. This was official state policy. Obama himself went on the record to demonize the Libyan government and advocate for war. There were UN resolutions passed, which only occurred because they lied to Russia and said the No-Fly Zone would not be used for regime change. Well regime changed did happen. It was brutal. It included Gadaffi being sodomized with a knife by an angry mob. It ended with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton smugly ridiculing his demise on national television. And the outcome was a Somali-level failed state in North Africa, a disastrous refugee crisis in Europe, and ISIS free to commit mass beheadings on the beach.

To reiterate, Obama pretended to roll back Bush's stated Neocon policy but did not, and wielded the normal tactics only more aggressively, more openly, more deceitfully, and with greater incompetence. 

Fall of Neoconservatism

Aleppo is the first great defeat of Neoconservatism. The Russians, duped in Libya, resisted the US in Syria, and outfoxed us both militarily (in secretly setting up air dominance over Syria) and diplomatically (in defusing the situation after the "Red Line" which was being used as a pretext for direct military action). The US has used ISIS as a tool to reduce Assad. This is how desperate they are. The removal of Assad, a secular leader who wears a suit and speaks English, is worth supporting the scourge of the Earth who don't even concoct a pretense of being civilised. The Russians demonstrated for all the world to see that the US bombing campaign against ISIS was a ruse. It was used not to destroy ISIS, but to steer them towards Syria and away from Iraq and other allies. Under US bombing ISIS oil business proceeded unhampered. Under US bombing ISIS boomed. But under Russian attack they're being dismantled. The fall of Aleppo (or should I say liberation?) is not only a blow to Neoconservatism strategically in destroying their dream of removing Assad, who resists US hegemony, but is also devastating in the philosophical or moralistic realm. Now world observers must come to one of two conclusions.
  1. The US is no longer capable of keeping the world safe from terrors like ISIS (but Russia is).
  2. The US is willing to unleash terrors like ISIS on the world to get her way.
It can be debated which is the more damning conclusion, but the point is moot since either conclusion is damning. It could also be debated how Neocons will respond. Will they blame it all on Obama's inept leadership? Will they turn on themselves or become more resolute in defeat? I suspect that point is also moot, because our incoming administration is not friendly to them at all. The only question of importance now is whether Trump will be able (and willing) to dismantle the deep-state apparatus for enforcing Neocon foreign policy in four or eight years. The last president to attempt something like that was publicly assassinated. That is a discussion for another time, but for now it's safe to speculate that Aleppo may be the Battle of Saratoga for all in the world who oppose US Neoconservative imperialism. And any media outlet that uses any language to indicate support with the defeated are illegitimate propaganda outlets that should be immediately discredited by all rational humans who are not Islamic fundamentalists. In fact this may become my new litmus test for sorting the different outlets out. It is a proxy measure for evil that can be quantified.

Monday, December 19, 2016

Predictions and Outcomes of the Left

From what I can tell, the best that can happen for 2020, to Trump's perspective, is for the left to predict he will lose, and for Barrack Obama to campaign on the behalf of his challenger.

Note: apologies for the formatting issues. I intend to migrate this to Wordpress pretty soon.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Political-analytical bifurcation in the mainstream media

This article that just came out of Salon is interesting because it is effectively two separate articles, one embedded inside the other. To pull them apart, take the title, subtitle, first paragraph, last paragraph and the sentence immediately before it, and put them in their own article, which we’ll call the outer article. Then take the remainder and call that the inner article.

 The inner article is a sober and revealing look at the US foreign policy in Yemen. This policy has occurred within Obama’s time in office, so it can’t be attributed to the Bush legacy, and the prognosis is not pretty. This is the kind of analysis I would want to see promoted to the American populace, particularly the left, who don’t seem to always grasp the cold reality of US foreign policy.

 The outer article is all about Trump. It is not friendly. It contains the normal mindless and trivial name calling. And while it doesn’t quite outright blame Trump for the US foreign policy, it does display an extraordinary eagerness to transfer that blame onto him, still more than a month before he steps into the driver’s seat.

 There are two things I’d like to highlight:

 (1) This is a beautiful example of the cognitive dissonance that is occurring on the left. You see they actually have the analytical ability to sift through the public propaganda and unveil the reality of the situation. This is somewhat relieving, as many of us were starting to wonder if the left-aligned media had lost the ability of objective reasoning. The more correct prognosis is that many of these journalists are still capable of higher reasoning, and it is not forbidden from mainstream publication, just as long as the conclusion is politically congruent with ideology.

 Typically this is done by suppressing the analysis where the conclusion is undesirable. This is not a tendency reserved to the media or politics. It is common in academia, in intelligence, etc. This is the first that I’ve noticed where the analysis is allowed to be published, but it is wrapped in more desirable conclusions. This is what I’m calling the political-analytical bifurcation. The two components of the article, the analysis and the conclusion, are allowed to proceed nearly independently of each other.

 Of course I may be overanalysing it. This is just one example, it doesn’t indicate a broader trend. But, such an article is only possible in an environment that includes a healthy dose of doublethink (where mutually opposing thoughts can be held simultaneously, or as I like to think of it, an immunity to cognitive dissonance) and where avoiding undesirable conclusions is the de facto standard. I say de facto standard because the nominal standard is always “we go wherever the facts take us”, but in reality that is not what usually happens.

 (2) This would indicate that mainstream critique of US foreign policy will, after an 8 years lapse, be back on the table again. The media that has never taken Obama or Clinton to task for the utter catastophes unleashed in Lybia and Syria, will be more than happy to do so if it can be pinned on Trump. I for one will take the trade. If Trump is blamed unnecessarily for situations he did not create, but at the same time the supposedly peaceful and anti-war left will again start calling out the bullshit of a foreign policy where no humanitarian disaster is spared in their zeal to maintain US global political and economic hegemony, that will be a positive change.

Some afterthoughts:

  •  I suspect someone might be able to write a best-selling book that critiques Obama's foreign policy legacy, but replaces all instances of Obama's name with Trump.
  • This article indicates just how quickly Obama has become irrelevant in the public eye.
  • You won't see them publish an article called "Hey President Obama, Do You Know Where Your Bombs Are Falling?" (which is what the title would be if the conclusions synced with the analysis).
  • If I was to write a satire of media in 2016 it would read a lot like this. A solid overview of the reality of some issue, coupled with a totally bizarre conclusion.
  • If I wanted to discreetly redpill liberals I would write articles like this, with headlines that are pure clickbait for Drumpf haters, but would subtly expose them to rational discussion.

Friday, December 16, 2016

The Ultimate Virtue

There seem to be two types of people. Some seek happiness. They’re easy to spot. They say phrases like “you need to do whatever makes you happy” or “all you need is love”. These people are usually warm and empathetic.

On the other hand are people who seek truth. They might be analytical or competitive, but ultimately they are of a similar mold. The analytical mind seeks logical consistency to know what is right. The competitor seeks the judgment of action in the world to know what is right.

Sanity is the ultimate virtue. Sanity is the combination of the two types, happiness and understanding. People of the first type can easily slip into insanity. These empathetic people shun uncomfortable truths that may offend someone and harm the path to happiness. Thus they become shut off to aspects of reality. They lose feedback from the world, which is the definition of delusion.

But the truth seekers face their own peril too. They can become zealots, egotistical, or cruel. They share the opposite conundrum; they may become jaded when human nature interferes with the pursuit of truth, or forget about the world outside their arena. They shut themselves off from the spiritual energy of the universe, and they are often disturbed or miserable.

Sanity is the ability to both comprehend reality as it is, as opposed to how one wishes to to see it, combined with the ability to cope with that reality. Sanity is getting dumped but knowing that it was for the best. Sanity is smelling a skunk and realizing their can be a strange pleasantness to the odor. Sanity is being screamed at by your boss and understanding that he is emotionally ill, and that you won’t be infected by it. Sanity is the ability to couple Machiavellian shrewdness with Christian forgiveness.

The world is full of people who only comprehend one half of the sanity equation. They will tug you in their direction. If you don’t follow the path towards pure happiness they will call you hateful. If you don’t follow the path towards pure truth they will call you stupid. The sane person will understand the dynamic and handle the encounter gracefully. It requires both the willingness to fully perceive reality, and the empathy to relate with the other person.

Without sanity nothing matters. Worldly success without sanity is a loss. The love of others without sanity is a loss. Sanity and nothing else is bliss. But with sanity, success, love, and all the other good things are likely to follow.  

Saturday, December 3, 2016

A few thoughts on pregnancy abortion

I used to be against abortion. Now I'm not. I was against it because I thought it was the taking of a viable life. I still believe that to be true. I was against it because I believed that a number of people use abortion in lieu of effective birth control. I still believe that to be true. I used to be against abortion because I thought many women (or all feminists) support abortion primarily as a political action, as a way to really stick it to what they see as an oppressive patriarchy, which is most often an expression of cultural Marxism. I still believe that to be true.

I am no longer against abortion. Two things have changed. And they are not the facts, but my perspective.

First, I've realized this is a dangerous territory for a man to delve into. I am typically not one to hesitate too much to delve into topics and opinions that are social suicide (one of the many perks of a minimalist social life), but I decided that, with all the landmines, and with some understanding of the dynamics, it's best to let women lead this issue. And mostly I do.

As I've taken the mindset of more or less deferring to women on the issue, I've realized that I trust one side more than the other. For the the pro-abortion crowd, I see ulterior motives. As mentioned before, I think many of them are less concerned with the moral, ethical, and logical arguments, and just want to use abortion as a way to really express that men have no power over women. That is, I don't think they are isolating the question at hand, and I think their conclusions are heavily corrupted by outside forces. On the other hand, the anti-abortion women are resisting great social pressure when they stand by their convictions, and I tend to respect their courage and confidence to do so. It has always amazed me, and still does, that so many women make such a show of expressing their right to kill the fetus, the most vulnerable and precious form of human life.

Second, my mentality has shifted somewhat from focusing on the individual to focusing on the group. Focusing on the individual, the termination of the aforementioned innocent life is a felony of the highest order. However, looking at society as a whole,  I realize that those abortions serve a social benefit: they reduce the breeding rate of those amongst us who should be breeding less. Another argument, made by a friend of mine, has had some impact: "I don't see human life as that sacred." This is a Sea Wolf kind of brute mentality, and came from a very kind and giving person. The fact that he could say such a thing reminded me that I actually harbor such sentiments myself, but pretended I didn't.

So I'm in the weird place that I am not anti-abortion, which liberals would approve of, but for reasoning that would make them cringe.