Secular leaders that oppose American hegemony? We can't have that.
Remember Bush's "Axis of Evil"?
Of course you do, because this scary bogeyman was repeated 24/7 ad nauseam by every trusted television network in North America.
And the endless repetition of this phrase had fantastic results: Within a few months, every responsible, taxpaying American understood that in the "post-9/11 world" it was more important than ever before to chant meaningless slogans and cheer on illegal wars in the Middle East and North Africa.
Even the crumpet-eaters in England got into it. Here is a very helpful interactive map showing exactly where the evil is located on planet Earth (we always find it easier to visualize bamboozling abstractions when the Washington decision makers provide pictures):
© BBC
We were rereading recent reports about "Russia's strongman" in Libya, when we came across this gem in the Guardian:
Haftar, the military commander of Libya's eastern government, has sought Moscow's help to battle Isis, but European diplomats fear that that he could join what has been described as Vladimir Putin's axis of secular authoritarians in the Middle East alongside Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and Egyptian president Abdel Fatah al-Sisi.Putin's "axis of secular authoritarians"? That's a bit of a mouthful — but we like it. Who will stop this cartel of secular Putinbots?
Allow your beloved Russia Insider to make the following observation: Washington has spent well over $5 trillion on its so-called Global War on Terror — but it opposes secular leaders that fight Islamic extremists. Are we wrong to think that this raises serious concerns about the veracity of America's anti-terrorism efforts?
The problem here is that there is no longer any honest, open discussions about what the United States is actually doing to the world.
We are currently living in a reality where the secular leader of Syria is being condemned as a violent mass murderer. Meanwhile, Washington spoons with Saudi Arabia and a dozen other medieval theocracies that play front-and-center roles in making the world awful.
Isn't it amazing that media outlets are having panic attacks about secular leaders that fight Islamist militias? For years we were told about the dangers of "Islamofascism". Apparently we are now supposed to believe that secular leaders (and non-Sunni Muslims) are the real problem.
In Syria, the level of deceit has surpassed self-satire.
We continue to admire how the media rooted for Al Nusra and other "moderate" rebels during the "fall" of Aleppo. These were western-loving militants known for tossing homosexuals off rooftops. But that's neither here nor there.
But again — the real threat to humanity lies with secular leaders who have constructive relationships with Russia, according to the Guardian.
And since we keep dancing around the thesis of this short internet article, perhaps it's time to just come out and say it: The media wants us to believe that a shadowy, dangerous cartel of secular Russia-lovers are gearing up for unspeakable crimes against Islamist militias and other champions of western values.
We call on our readers and the entire world to denounce all secular Putinbots and resist their attempts to actually fight terrorism.
Like Assad says during nearly every interview he gives: the West's anti-terror operations in Syria are "cosmetic".
We're now being told by our trusted media that secular leaders who actually fight terrorism should be viewed with suspicion — and opposed.
Reader Comments
In this day and age it is the only way that can convey the truth, or rather, the terror of the situation.
This is a stance that the entire alt media needs to adopt, in my opinion.