Tag Archives: Palestine

Defence, historical, Russia and Russian relations, Uncategorized

The Imperial Vacuum in the Middle East and Near East, and Its Consequences

7 Comments

Initial Thoughts

I have been reading about what appears to have been the appalling and unusually cruel murder of a dissident Saudi journalist, supposedly cut up while still alive by some kind of Saudi Arabian “security” team in the Consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul.

This news item made me once again muse on the unsatisfactory position in the “Levant”, the Middle East and also what was once called the Near East.

The region is not one that I know well personally. I have been to Qatar twice on short visits, once in 2001 (when Doha was a rather pleasant and rather sleepy place) and again in 2008 (by which time it had become a horrible, dystopian and skyscraping sprawl). I spent less than a week in the Luxor Hilton in 1994, and another three months in Egypt in 1998 (Aswan, the Red Sea, Alexandria and the oasis of Siwa). I have also spent about 4 months in Turkey and Turkish North Cyprus.

The Gulf

What many younger people fail to realize is just how recent (in present form) are the phenomena we know as Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Qatar etc. Take Abu Dhabi: when I was at school in England, aged 14, in 1970, there were a couple of rather unpleasant boys whose father was chief of police in Abu Dhabi, which was at the time a dusty desert enclave just beginning to profit from its huge hydrocarbon wealth. The British still supplied the senior military, police and other officials in Abu Dhabi at that time. Abu Dhabi, which had been known (right up to the Second World War) only for its pearls and for the slave trade, first struck oil in 1958 (or rather BP, as concession-holder, did). That first strike was followed by others, in 1959, 1962 and 1965.

The growth of Abu Dhabi in terms of population can be judged by the following progression: in 1960, the entire resident population of the city itself was 25,000. That grew to 50,000 by 1965 (though falling back to 46,400 by 1969). By 1995, the population was 398,695, and by 2014 was apparently 1,205,963, an increase of 31% even on the previous year! The latest estimate for the (entire) Abu Dhabi population (2018) is nearly 3 million! Abu Dhabi city (which contains about two-thirds of the entire population) was planned in 1967 for 40,000 inhabitants, which was changed in the 1970s (i.e. less than a decade later!) to a projection of 600,000. The present (2018) population of the city is said to number about 2 million. About 90% of the population of the emirate is foreign.

Qatar, likewise, is a very recent phenomenon in its recent form. Oil was discovered only in 1940, after which successive oil and gas finds in later decades transformed the small enclave once populated by a few thousand fishermen and pearl divers. The population of the entire sultanate in 1970 was 108,000, whereas in 2018 it is between 2.5 million and 3 million. As with Abu Dhabi and other Gulf Arab “states”, something like 90% of the population is foreign and that 90% does almost all of the work (from banking to street-sweeping), and has few rights.

I was once told, around 1977, by a construction person who spent his time in the Gulf, that he was engaged on constructing a new airport (I forget exactly where) there. He told me that the growth in the region (even then) had been phenomenal. I asked him where he thought that the Gulf Arabs would be by some date in the future (probably 2000, but I have in fact forgotten which year I specified) and he answered, cynically, “back riding their camels”! Well, he was wrong (if 2000 was the year), but I wonder whether he will be so wrong when looked back at from, say, 2050 or even 2030.

The Gulf “states” or statelets have no resilience: 90% of their population consists of expats, many of whom are from poor parts of Asia. The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait showed that, for all their expensive Western military toys, the Gulf rulers and their forces are men of straw.

Some Gulf states are running out of hydrocarbons, others have understood that the demand for oil may have peaked with the development of other energy sources, and so have begun to diversify economically. However, in the end, the future for these socially-backward societies with their “ready-to-wear” (bought) Western toys and expertise may be not so good.

The Main Part of the Middle East

We have seen that, from the time of open proclamation of the New World Order [NWO] immediately after 1989, the NWO has destabilized the Middle East and North Africa. Israel is of course pivotal. The destabilization has, overall, helped Israel. Its major opponents militarily (Syria, Iraq) have been cast into chaos, Iran has been embroiled in conflict in Iraq, Yemen and Syria, Egypt has been further suborned and placed under NWO-controlled dictatorship, while even Libya (peripheral, but wealthy and always anti-Israel) has been broken up internally. There are now no regional armies able to pose an immediate threat to Israel, the “Zionist entity”.

Turkey

Turkey was, for much of the past century, a relatively static and relatively neutral player on the geopolitical stage. That was the genius of Ataturk, to make Turkey militarily-strong without (usually, much) using that power externally. Now, Turkey risks being drawn into the sphere of destabilization.

The Big Picture

The combined region of the Middle East and Near East has always been the stage for empires, among them the Alexandrine Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantine Romans, the Ottomans, the British; the French too (from Napoleon’s day until 1945). There were attempts by others to exercise imperial power: the Russians under both Tsarism and Sovietism; also, briefly, Iran under the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s. Now, beyond the strictly regional squabbling players, there are attempts at larger-scale control: Russia, the USA (i.e. the NWO), as well as, on a more limited level of power than the first two (and also than under the Shah), Iran again.

It is clear that the only solution to the problems of the regions, particularly of the core Middle East, likely to last long, will be the imposition of a supervening imperium which can subordinate all existing states to its control. That means that the Arab states and Israel would be ruled by this quasi-imperial power. It is equally clear that such an imperium does not exist. The Americans have huge destructive resources, but lack the imperial will and desire which would enable them to succeed the British, the Ottomans, Byzantium, Rome etc. That is also true of the Russians, who also can be described as largely “defensive” (wishing to defend their Southern flank as much as anything). The Iranians have not the power to make a substantial difference in this arena.

The conclusion is, to me, obvious: the future of the region is not another imperial or quasi-imperial chapter, but large-scale destruction only.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dhabi

http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/abu-dhabi-population/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Qatar

 

Brexit, Campaign Against AntiSemitism, elections, free speech, immigration, Jewish lobby in UK, Labour Friends of Israel, MPs, Nigel Farage, Party Politics, society, The Great Replacement, Uncategorized

Reality and Semblance in the Upcoming UK General Election

3 Comments

First of all, semblance. The msm have been attacking Labour and especially Corbyn-Labour ever since his election as Labour leader. Corbyn himself is said to be “a friend of terrorists” (from the IRA to HAMAS and Black September), a paid tool of Iran, as well as (not very crypto-) Communist and “anti-Semite”. In fact, the attacks on Corbyn have come, ultimately, from only one source, the UK Jewish-Zionist lobby.  You see it on Twitter. Pretty much all of the Zionist Jews on Twitter say the same things or raise a little storm at the same time. Like a shoal of fish.

The Jewish-Zionist lobby controls the anti-Corbyn MPs in Labour. Slowly, they are being removed or are resigning. John Woodcock has resigned from Labour (though not as MP! He wants to keep getting his pay and very inflated expenses for as long as possible!); Michael Dugher resigned as MP too (and was found a suitably-lucrative job outside politics…); Simon Danczuk (like Woodcock) was mired in sex scandal –apart from anything else– and tried to get re-elected as Independent, only to be humiliated; Luciana Berger tried to get a better-paid job as Mayor of Liverpool, but failed. Others are jumping ship or being shunted toward deselection.

So there we have the semblance: the manufactured storms in the msm about “anti-Semitism” and the other stormlets re. Corbyn as IRA collaborator in the 1970s or 1980s. These mean something to an older generation, perhaps, and of course the “anti-Semite” label means something to the approximately quarter of a million Jews in the UK (hardly any of whom vote Labour now anyway).

However, the anti-Corbyn propaganda is not reaching most people under 40 and, still less, those under 30. They are mostly not much interested by the fact that Jews and/or pro-Israel persons hate Corbyn; as for the “Corbyn was pro-IRA” stuff, even if there is some truth in it, that was mostly about 40 years ago, before they were even born. The under 40s are likely to vote on the basis of reality, meaning their reality.

What do I mean by “reality”? One person’s reality is another person’s “unimportant detail” or “cloud cuckoo land”. That is what most of the msm and the “Remain” whiners failed to understand about the pro-Brexit Leave vote in the EU Referendum: for an affluent family in London or the Home Counties, what mattered was (the perception) that the UK’s economy might be depressed by Brexit, that their daughter might be prevented from taking up that unpaid intern position at a Milan fashion house, that their son might not be able to get a lucrative job as a lawyer or accountant with a transnational enterprise in Brussels, Berlin or wherever; that their holiday home in Provence might lose value; that they might not get cheap Eastern European labour to help in the house or garden; that it might take longer to drive off the ferry during holidays etc.

On the other side, a man in the North of England was asked during the Referendum campaign whether he was worried that UK GDP might suffer if the UK exited the EU. His reply: “not really, it’s only me and the dog anyway…”! Easy to scoff, but that was his reality and arguably as “real” as the paper figures for economic performance are to the staff of the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme. What matters to the soldier in the battle? That the battle was won (or lost), or that he lost his life?

Reality for huge numbers of people (potential voters) in the UK means incredibly expensive and often now basically unaffordable housing (whether rented or bought), expensive and overcrowded transport and roads, an NHS which has declined perceptibly for many years, poor pay, fewer real civil rights, a largely-destroyed social security system, a continuing migration-invasion (though perception re. that is blunted because of the huge, pervasive race-mixing propaganda everywhere, eg in TV ads).

Now when those voters vote, most are going to vote on the basis of that reality, not on the basis that Jews (who are in any case not much liked or trusted, on the whole, by most British people) dislike Corbyn or his supporters, or because Corbyn’s connections with the IRA in the 1970s were very doubtful.

The above musings explain why I think that Labour’s vote is likely to be higher than most commentators in the msm expect. In their reality, what matters is whether Labour is “anti-Semitic”, or anti-EU, or anti the (supposedly) free market, or whether “the economy” might be damaged by Brexit or by a Labour government. Those commentators inevitably think as conditioned by their own circumstances and peer group. They make £100,000 or even (in some cases) £500,000+ a year, and certainly not less than £50,000, whereas the “average” (not median) salary in the UK is only around £28,000 and many many people (either employed or not) are actually surviving on as little as half of that.

The msm commentators own their own homes, often outright; they do not have to spend a third or even half their income on rent; au contraire! Many are actually buy to let parasites themselves! They do not have to live in shared houses, or on decaying council estates.

I am willing to accept that about 25% of the voters will vote Conservative at the next general election whatever the defaults of the governments since 2010, either out of self-interest or because of an ingrained dislike of Labour (or because they see a photo of Diane Abbott on Election Day!). That percentage might even be 35%. The other 65% to 75% is in the hazard. Everything depends, in the crazy UK First Past The Post electoral system, on what happens in the 50-150 more marginal constituencies. In our electoral system, a party needs a concentration of support, a Schwerpunkt. Thus it is that the Green Party, which has about 2% support, has an MP (in Brighton…) yet UKIP, which had a nearly 12% overall vote in 2015, has no MPs.

Though no psephologist, I should say that Labour has every chance of becoming the largest party in the House of Commons after the next general election, even if falling short of a majority. Because voters will vote on their reality, not on newspaper semblance.

Final thoughts

Thinking about blocs of support, Labour has, in broad brush terms, the under-40s, maybe even the under-50s; also the ethnic minorities (except Jews); also almost anyone earning the average salary or less. I cannot see the Conservative Party winning a Commons majority.

Update, 11 December 2020

Looking at the above article more than two years after it was written, my conclusion was wrong even though my reasoning was correct. Ironic.

I underestimated the suggestive power of the mass media and overestimated the common sense of the average voter.

Having said that, only a small number of 2017 Labour Party voters moved to be Conservative Party voters in 2019. The Conservatives increased their vote over that of 2017 by only about 1 point, but Labour’s vote declined by 8 points, and nearly half of that was 2017 Labour voters refusing to vote at all in 2019.