Selective moral, humanitarian outrage for US strategic ends continues

International media coverage is often designed to manipulate, for the strategic gain of a particular country. Whenever our focus is directed, by another party, onto a very specific country's alleged human rights abuses, our suspicion is in order. It is especially in order if that other party is part of the mainstream US-based media. Presently, we see incitement against the regime in the case of Belarus, China, and Myanmar, and we know all attention used to be on Syria (that campaign of manipulation ended in failure). While there are genuine human rights abuses and movements to counter them around the world, many such movements are in the thrall of US strategy or would accept such a pathetic role in order to be funded. If someone is criticising a regime, it is most likely to be credible criticism if it is a US-backed regime neglected by media coverage. For that reason, the least misguided assessment of international affairs demands a clear picture of the geography of pro-Western subservience and US-led liberal hegemony. If a country targeted for whatever official "humanitarian" reasons is presently escaping the coercion of the hegemonic power, that may be the only true reason it is being targeted.

Our voices are to be suppressed online in favor of monotonous conformity

Efforts, both known and unknown, are underway at US tech companies to suffocate all political dissent online. The goal is to re-establish the same monotonous conformity to US-led liberal hegemony seen in the 1990s that ultimately enabled the aggression on Iraq in 2003. It has started out by targeting the bombastic political right, including the then US president, but is possibly spreading beyond such a narrow scope to suppress others. Given that those doing this aren't in fact driven by justice but by cold war domination, we should suspect a broader attack on every source of information that doesn't conform to the views of the US establishment and NATO. Those of us who criticise any policy of Biden or the transatlantic policy elites should expect diminished web traffic as a result of shadow banning. Of particular interest is the possibility of Google suppressing your blog or website in search results. Stats should be monitored carefully and any suspicious decrease of traffic or engagement should be discussed with others. At the same time, some may consider putting aside ideological differences with other dissidents and attempting to share readers by being a lot more tolerant of such differences. Consider that social attitudes differ a lot across the globe, yet many people who have conservative views on domestic politics and society are anti-war and are against the far greater humanitarian ills of US imperialism, sanctions, and violence promotion. Such opposition to hegemony has long united people across borders and overridden cultural and political differences. There is no reason to give priority to feuding over minor, distracting differences in political or social views under such circumstances.

The surprises of 2021

With 2020 coming to an end, few can say they know what lies ahead. The pandemic may be dealt with sufficiently by new vaccines that we will see an easing of all restrictions, or there may be new strains that in turn burden health services and cause further public worry. Political turmoil in the US may subside, or increase. The only certainty in any scenario is that the Western governments will increasingly try to harass Russia and China, with increasing focus on China. As the new economic superpower, China attracts the envy and hatred of people who believe they should rule the world. They are the same narrow group of people who regard the bombings of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq as a golden age of peace and civilised life. There will be an effort to make that happen again; to make American war criminals great again. Whatever the outcome, this is a time for writers to review the last year and offer our predictions and suggestions about the next.

US foreign policy to be stable, predictable again

If we are to believe reports, Biden is expected to restore the US to similar policies to the Obama era, including when it comes to foreign policy. There have been reports that Biden wishes the US to rejoin agreements such as the Paris Agreement, JCPOA (Iran Deal), and nuclear arms reduction pacts with Russia. A less bellicose approach to China is expected. Unfortunately, Trump may complicate this before his exit. For those unaware: reports show that he asked for a military strike on Iran, and there has been a recent uptick in the regional violence surrounding Iran. These include Israeli strikes in Syria and Iran-allied militias employing waterborne IEDs against a targeted tanker off the shores of Yemen, in addition to a random assassination of a top Iranian scientist. The recent changes to the US military leadership to elevate more combat-hardened experts, and reduction of potentially vulnerable forces in nearby Afghanistan, also point to an impending attack. Something is definitely afoot, but whether it results in all-out war may be under Iran's control. Once Trump is out, these escalations will probably subside, replaced again with the slower and more patient strategies of the Obama years. Despite this, we cannot ignore the power of the Republicans in the US Senate. They will constantly be pushing for rash attacks in the Middle East region. It should be added that both Obama and Trump were unable to reverse the decline of US power. Both depended on symbolic sanctions and failed to consolidate US power in Europe, the Pacific, or the Middle East. The reversal of the US coups in Bolivia and Venezuela suggests the US on a losing streak there, once again. Biden's team likely can't prevent it.

States continue to act the same after elections

Why do elected leaders so often betray their campaign promises? Every time, even the simplest of promises are not honored by leaders, resulting in a failure to serve the people, no matter how obvious the people's message was. An obvious example is that every US president promises to withdraw from the Middle East and subsequently fails to do so. The problem lies with processes devised to deliberately obfuscate the democratic will, in order for it to be consistently and deliberately disrespected, no matter how voters voted. Full article: https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/11/why-do-presidents-break-their-promises/ 

L'Ordre

Friend of the Mont Order

http://dissidentvoice.org/author/lordre/