ONLY CERTAIN DIVERSITY IS ALLOWABLE

The West picks and chooses which systems diverse from its own it will embrace, and which it will seek to destroy.

Those in the Middle East such as in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia which are supremely authoritarian, cutting off hands and heads with no recourse to appeal are accepted with alacrity, supplied with advanced weaponry to control their populations and taken gladly into the fold.

Certain others who do not exhibit anything approaching the dictatorial level of intolerance regarding justice and governance as the West‘s “good allies" above such as Russia, Cuba and Venezuela are treated with disdain, sanctioned and attacked by continual attempts designed to undermine them.

The elites of the West continue to insist they are driven only by the purest of motives and that their integrity gives them the self-awarded right to judge others. This due to their standards being of the very best. How can this be reconciled with their support of head-chopping authoritarian elites where human rights are almost non-existent along with the West’s much beloved democratic processes?

The whiff of a very convenient hypocrisy and high level of smoke and mirrors sophistry is exceptionally strong.

In any case, who gave the elites of the West the right to be ultimate arbiter on the question of national governance?

The right came of course from the exercise of historical might and the influence stemming from the exercise of that might. The claimed right in the case of the United Kingdom comes as  the direct result of a brutal history of colonialism.

In the case of the United States it is the result of a long journey beginning in genocide, continuing with slavery and ending with obsessional money-making with workers’ rights at a minimum and the consideration that Latin America and much else was rightfully theirs to exploit at will.

The United Kingdom has never lost its delusions of grandeur and its self-granted patrician right to control “Johnny Foreigner”. It grants itself the powers it exploits through the concept of innate superiority over others, a disciplinarian’s view of what constitutes proper etiquette in matters of governance to be decided by itself.

The United States is unable to maintain the same kind of haughty superiority of the British elites but instead relies on a similar if less elegant underpinning of its superiority over others. It bases its superiority on a mix of grand illusions regarding its native population-eliminating first pioneers, its slave-owning ‘Founding Fathers’ and its rather gross notion that it’s simply the best, the richest, the most powerful... and therefore the most entitled.

These are the two nations most inclined to see themselves as world governors whose elites decide who is a despot and who instead, is a revered and treasured ally.

Being a head-chopping, women-demeaning dictatorship in no way precludes you from being accepted and celebrated within the glad-handing fold of those accepted by western elites. If you have copious amounts of money to spend and perhaps some valuable information to relate then you are a most welcome ally to be lauded and supplied with lethal weaponry.

If however, despite having systems that contain many of the elements western elites recognize as vital constituents of just systems, you happen not to incline toward the dominance of western states you are very much out in the cold, subject to multiple efforts to change you, mold you, influence your populations and ultimately totally undermine you... unless you change your ways.

These double standards go largely unremarked and if referred to at all are covered by UK and U.S. elites with a passing reference to the importance of maintaining their “national interests”.

This reference to “national interests” is of course the clue to what is in fact going on. In contrast to the usual public relations rhetoric concerning freedom, democracy and inalienable human rights.

These two nations, the UK and USA, have a glorified notion of their own importance which supersedes all else and which allows them much leeway in asserting their interests over others’. But that self-regarding notion of their own vital importance in regard to maintaining global order camouflages a much less noble quest, to maintain their own political, economic and military dominance over all others.

These are two empires of inherent self-interest, centers of a self-regarding omnipotence based on all previous exploitation by them of their power to subjugate, dominate, manipulate and enslave. This power is the root of their influence and of their iniquity.

They have assigned themselves the permanent and inalienable right to control others, expressed through their  unashamed willingness to oppress, rape, enslave, exploit, invade, degrade and dominate those nations they wish to bring to heel.

This has been their dual history, this has been their work in the world and their intent. And it has brought them great rewards. Now, the inheritors of past plundering, enslaving and consistent engaging in exploitation which brought this wealth and power seek to maintain their privilege and dominance over others in empires that oppress here and support there as their interests demand.

Diversity is a watchword of these hypocritical dominant elites seeking conformity to their demands abroad.

Western elites laud themselves as enlightened democrats whose human rights record is second to none (hundreds of dead due to various regime change operations across the Middle East notwithstanding). However, diversity of governance is a problem for them at times where their interests are not being fulfilled. And where they are being fulfilled by dictatorial head-choppers well, this is hardly a problem, one that is easily overcome and accepted.

Will the great liberal elites of the UK and USA find it in themselves to begin condemning their head-chopping, women-enslaving allies in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East?Present trends appear negative. The UK and USA are the primary suppliers of high tech weaponry and logistical support to Saudi Arabia its one-sided war against the Houthis in Yemen. Their bloody exploits there merit nothing but the very mildest forms of criticism.

Meanwhile, others whose activities are nothing by comparison are treated as virtual enemies of humankind. The self-interest of western elites is all-consuming. It is eternally immune to charges of the most obvious kind of hypocrisy by a compliant western mass media cringing at the thought of making any such charge.

And so it goes on. The West picking its favorites, choosing those that it will laud and those it will lambast. Always according to its own self-interest... not at all according to the self-proclaimed high principles regarding freedom, democracy and human rights. Those fig-leaf facades it uses only for the public acceptance of its crimes against humanity in maintenance of its continuing ability to exploit its power over others.