Not so Colourful Revolutions

One of the reasons a lot of people in the West seem to keep falling for the various “colour revolutions” and “springs” that have taken place over the past decade or so, is that they often look — to those whose knowledge of the country in question is limited — to be a straightforward cases of democracy in action: a poor, disenfranchised people, fed up with the actions of the evil oppressor, rising up and toppling them in an act of spontaneous democracy in action. “Hurrah,” we in the West say as we cheer the downfall of a man we know little about, by an opposition that we know even less about, in a country that we are completely ignorant of.

Occasionally, the idea of a downtrodden people rising up to topple the dictator in an outpouring of pent up frustration is just about right. Think Ceausescu in Romania. However, many of the revolutions over the past decade have not been like this at all. In the majority of cases, these revolutions have been deliberately conceived and orchestrated by the US government, and have been designed to look like democracy has just taken place, when in fact the opposite of democracy has occurred.

For a really good and thorough look at this phenomenon and how it works, I recommend this article by Ted Snider. If you had always before assumed that these various revolutions were democracy in action, this article should give you pause for thought.

Make Sense of This if You Can

Many of the official narratives given to us by mainstream media ought to leave us scratching our heads in bemusement. Events on the ground often show them to be palpably false and risible.

Take this for example. According to the United Nations, around 110,000 Ukrainians have fled this year for Russia and another 54,000 have fled their homes but stayed in Ukraine. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the claim that refugees were pouring across the border into the Russian Federation was scoffed at a while back by a number of publications, including this one, for example. The numbers quoted in this article might not be exactly equal to the figures stated by the UN, but the fact of refugees fleeing to Russia turns out to be true after all.

But the most interesting aspect of this is where these people have fled to. Russia? Surely not to the Bear? Now hold on a moment. For months we have been told by the mainstream media that this whole conflict has been stoked up by Russia, who are trying to takeover Ukraine. Vladimir Putin, likened by Hilary Clinton, John McCain and Prince Charles to a new Hitler, is doing all he can to stop the hopes and dreams of the vast majority of Ukrainians who just want to exercise their democratic right to turn away from Russia and embrace the EU and the West.

But if this were even remotely true, wouldn’t Russia be the last place on earth that the peaceful democratic dreamers from Ukraine ought to flee? Surely they should be fleeing to the West not the East?

Well no they shouldn’t, for the simple reason that almost no part of the Western mainstream narrative is true. The government in Kiev is not legitimate. The provisional government from Yanukovych to Poroshenko was the result of a coup d’état, largely orchestrated by neo-Nazi groups such as Pravy Sektor and the far right party, Svoboda, and  included far-right fanatics in government. They had no legitimate right to govern, and their claims to legitimacy were rightly rejected by millions of people, especially in the East and South of the country.

Neither does the new government of the oligarch Petro Poroshenko have proper legitimacy. It owes its existence to the original violent coup d’état, and in the election that put Poroshenko into power, millions of people in the East and South simply didn’t vote, having already turned their backs on the fascist rule of Kiev and expressing their desire to form self-determined independent states.

The fact that Ukrainians from the South and East are fleeing to Russia from the constant bombardment that the warmongers in Kiev have unleashed upon them over the past few months, with the support of the West, puts a whole different slant on what is going on than the one you are likely to hear from the likes of CNN and the BBC. If it was all Putin’s fault, and he was the new Hitler, they would hardly flee into his arms, would they?

Another example of a story that doesn’t make sense, given the mainstream narrative, is this one. The President of the United States has just asked Congress for $500 million to aid Syrian rebels fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad. This should appear to anyone who knows even a little about the situation in Syria and Iraq to be a mildly unhinged request, to say the least, since the Syrian “rebels” and the ISIS jihadists currently wreaking havoc in Iraq are clearly one and the same thing.

So why would the President of the United States want to fund jihadists in Syria, whilst the same people are destroying Iraq? If you get your news from the mainstream media, you would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation. The official enemies in Syria and Iraq are Assad and ISIS respectively. And the mainstream media would have us believe that the West stands against both these formidable foes and seeks their defeat.

The problem with this line is that the government of Assad has been fighting ISIS jihadists for the last three years and the US has been funding them. Defeat for Assad means the triumph not of “Western democracy”, but of extremely violent Islamists who would impose Sharia law on the country if they ever gained power. But the same types that we have been funding in Syria are now — unsurprisingly — turning up in Iraq and turning that poor country into chaos. Given these facts, there is simply no way that America’s actions in Syria or Iraq can have anything whatsoever to do with “bringing democracy” to the Middle East.

So what is the real explanation for all this? Hard to say, but there appear to be only two real options which fit the facts of the US administration’s bizarre behaviour of publicly denouncing ISIS in Iraq, whilst aiding and funding it in Syria.

One explanation is that the American government has no other agenda other than to bring constant chaos to the Middle East. There are a few facts that back this up. Whilst the US administration has condemned ISIS in Iraq, it has disowned the Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki and appears to be unwilling to even supply airplanes to the Iraqi airforce to defend the country against these insurgents. In addition to this, ISIS appears to be getting much of its funding from Saudi Arabia — America’s best friend due to its abundant supply of oil. Are the Saudis and Americans intent on destabilising the rest of the Middle East in order to prevent countries like Syria, Iraq and Iran, with their ties to the BRICS countries from becoming key economic players? It is entirely possible.

The only other explanation for the American government’s schizophrenic behaviour is that its President is mad. That is entirely plausible too.

The metamorphosis of William Hague and the selective reporting of the BBC

Watching the Western governments who inspired the armed coup which toppled the legitimately elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, react to the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk is really rather funny. The elections were “illegal” a “farce” and, according to the warmonger British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, have “zero credibility in the eyes of the world”.

So in Mr Hague’s world, a “government” which came to power off the back of an armed coup led by the known neo-Nazi group, Pravy Sektor, is legitimate, whilst a relatively peaceful referendum showing strong support for autonomy from the unelected Kiev regime is illegitimate. I used to rather like Mr Hague back in the day. That was when he seemed to be vaguely (or is it Haguely) conservative and even made several attempts to stand up to the Blairite juggernaut, which was clearly the most radically leftist government this country had ever seen.

However, sometime over the next few years, after his utter humiliation at the hand of the Blairites had taken place, a sort of “last-chapter-of-1984″ scenario seemed to happen to him and when he re-emerged out of his cocoon, lo and behold he loved Big Blair. So now he is a fully fledged social democrat, joining with the massed ranks of egalitarian champions of the sexual revolution and he has also adopted the Blair strategy on foreign policy too: meddling in other countries affairs, even if it includes sponsoring regime change or dropping bombs on people that pose no threat to this country whatsoever. Mr Hague, the small government, conservative has now under gone his full metamorphosis and has emerged as the ultimate big government, egalitarian globalist.

Elsewhere, the media are having a rollicking good time trying to explain away the referendums as sham democracy. So for example we had these gems from the BBC:

“BBC reporters at polling stations on Sunday witnessed few checks on identity and multiple voting in places.”

“A number of towns in the two regions refused to hold the poll.”

“BBC reporters said only a handful of polling stations served Mariupol, a city of half a million.”

“The BBC filmed a woman casting two ballots.”

“One pro-Ukraine teacher said she received death threats after refusing to let rebels use her school as a polling station.”

Now the point here is not necessarily to cast doubt on any of these assertions, although I would point out that the BBC and the western governments would not have accepted the results even if the votes had been conducted in perfect conditions. These assertions may well all be true, but what those of us with memories that stretch back beyond last Tuesday will find, is that the aspersions being cast on the regularity of the polls in Donetsk and Luhansk are coming from the same organisation that has applauded polls in such beacons of democracy as Egypt a couple of years ago, and recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the case of Afghanistan, one BBC report was accompanied women going to cast their vote.  In one report on the Iraq election, the accompanying picture was a smiling man carrying his two daughters. In both cases the message was clear and unmistakable: These elections signify a new world. One where democracy is triumphing in places torn apart by war.

But does anybody actually think that the votes in these places were without their, ahem, irregularities? It would be absurd to think so. And did the presence of heavily armed soldiers near polling stations in Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan prevent the BBC and other mainstream organisations from hailing these elections and recognising the results? Of course not. So why the different treatment, where the votes in Donetsk and Luhansk are subject to a scrutiny and rubbishing that these other sham elections were not? Simple really. It’s called selective reporting and it is done in order to fit events into an overarching narrative, namely trying to pin all the blame for what has happened in Ukraine away from the real villains who started it — the US and EU — and onto the man who now bears the title of new arch-villain of the world: Osama bin Putin.

Why Should You Vote For Me?

Some people seem to think that voting is a sacred. Apparently people fought and died to give us the vote and to refuse to exercise that vote is a betrayal of their memory. Except that nobody ever fought, much less died, to “give us the vote”. People have fought to protect national sovereignty, and to fend off tyranny, but nobody ever went to war and gave up their lives so that you and I can go and put an X on a piece of paper in a ballot box years down the line.

So I can’t say that I feel particularly guilty about admitting that I didn’t vote at the last General Election. And no it wasn’t out of apathy. This is another error the “voting is a duty” types assume – that if you don’t vote, it is because you don’t care. Certainly not true in my case as readers of this blog might guess.

I remember speaking to a candidate at a local election last year. I told him that I wasn’t intending to vote. He replied that in that case I could hardly complain when people who didn’t represent my views took office and I didn’t like it. However, as I think I explained to him, the reason I wasn’t voting was precisely because there was no one on offer who represented my views. Pretty much all the parties out there are anti-Christian leftists so regardless of whether I vote or not I will get people in power who are anti-Christian leftists who in no way represent my small-government Christianity. Why on earth I would I endorse someone who hates my views just for the sake of voting?

Having said this, I do realise that there are times when voting is a pragmatic and tactical thing. Take the forthcoming European elections. I have no especial love for the UK Independence Party, but that lack of love might be seriously offset by the fact that the other parties – especially the so-called Conservatives – might well be in for a good kicking. Well if I can help that process along…

I have, however, decided to adopt rather different tactics for dealing with candidates that knock on my door than I have in the past. In years gone by, I have sometimes spent some time debating with candidates, doing my best to ask them hard questions about where they stand on such and such, and arguing the case with them upon their response. However, I think I’ve come to the conclusion that such arguments are largely futile, and with six children to muck about with, frankly I’ve got better things to do with my time.

So I have decided that from now on anyone knocking on my door looking for my vote will get just two simple questions put to them:

1. If elected, how do you intend to deal with corruption?

I expect at this point to hear a long list of rules and regulations mentioned, together with an equally long spiel about how their party set up such and such investigations and inquiries in order to deal with politician’s expenses etc etc. I’ll let them talk for a while, and then put my follow up question to them:

2. Well thanks for that, but actually I wasn’t talking about other people’s corruption. I was talking about your own.

There is a wonderful bit in Prince Caspian, where Aslan asks Caspian if he feels ready to become king and assume power. Caspian replies that he doesn’t in the least feel ready and Aslan responds by telling him that this means he is ready. In other words, the one proper qualification for assuming power or authority over other people is to recognise your own sinful tendencies and therefore your own unworthiness for the job.

These days people seem to go into politics because they want to sort out other people’s corruption. But how many amongst our political classes actually start off with sorting out the corruption in their own hearts. My guess — from all I see — is not many.

Yet this ought to be the first and most important test of anyone thinking of assuming some sort of power or authority. Am I free from corruption? Can I be trusted not to let power go to my head? Anyone who answers “Yes” to this question is automatically disqualified from assuming proper authority, since they are unable to see that they are as susceptible to corrupting the authority they have been given as anyone else.

But on the off-chance that a candidate replies with something like, “I understand that the human heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9). And I understand that that includes my own. Which means that I need a lot of checks and balances, and accountability if I am to go into office” — then you never know, I might just be inclined to vote for them.

Have Morsi on them

When will they ever learn?

There seems to be a lot of people celebrating on the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities as their democratically elected leader Mohammed Morsi – the one they elected in free and fair elections – is deposed by the army and kept under house arrest.

Two year ago, presumably some of the same people were out there cheering as their previous leader, Hosni Mubarak was deposed. Mr Mubarak was a dictator they said, and what we want is a proper democratically elected President, just like those nice western countries have got.

So they had their elections, and they elected Mr Morsi. Freely and fairly. And now, without a hint of irony, they are cheering loudly as the army deposes of their democratically elected leader.

What next? Presumably they will be calling for free and fair elections, and a proper democratically elected leader. But they already had that. And they kicked him out – not democratically, but by force – because they didn’t much like what they saw.

Where will those nice western nations stand on this? The ones that encouraged the downfall of Mubarak, Gaddafi and who are now encouraging the fall of Assad? I make no apology for these men. They were or are wicked men. But where will the western governments and media stand now that they see the revolutions which they egged on producing chaos? Will they be on the side of the people – the ones who are cheering as the democratically elected leader is ousted by the army? Will they be on the side of Morsi – the leader chosen in free and fair elections which followed the ousting of the tyrant which was supported and cheered on by the west? Will they arm another bunch of Islamists, just as they are doing in Syria, and create more havoc? Or will they – and yes I realise this is a vain hope – learn their lesson from the folly they have helped bring about in the Middle East and just stay out of it all?

And what of Egypt itself? It is hard to see how it can call for free and fair elections and vote in a democratically elected leader. They have just rejected the democratic process, haven’t they? They can’t have it both ways.

Might I suggest that there is only one solution to that country’s problems. It is called the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When Egyptians fully embrace it, then and only then will they begin to see a peaceful and prosperous land. But until that day, neither the army, nor the Muslim Brotherhood, nor the western governments and media, nor the god democracy itself can save them from turmoil.