THE GREATEST WAR OF ALL: THE WAR FOR WORLD DOMINANCE OR GLOBAL TOLERANCE

The power of the affluent western coalition of nations has, until this current epoch, held sway across our world. These jealous nations have worked on a constant basis to maintain and expand their reach and influence in order to continually extend and deepen their power. Individuals, groups, nations and systems of governance that have challenged this power have been relentlessly attacked, undermined, weakened and wherever possible eliminated. These acts of aggression have been justified through the concepts of exceptionalism using the buzzwords ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.

Whether the motivations behind the buzzwords above that seek to justify the constant aggressive responses by the western nations we have seen building in recent years is sincere or not can of course be argued. Whether the true motivations are purely of an idealistic nature or are wholly self-seeking has divided geopolitical thought between the two sides involved. The consequences of the attitude of western leaders however, are clear. They are all very fresh in our memories and most alive today aged 30 and above know of them. The names of the nations involved are sufficient to bring them to the fore. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen have recently been added to a host of others such as Vietnam along with the Latin American nations who have suffered at the hands of the USA in particular.

Whatever geopolitical position we hold one thing is clear, the United States and its allies are involved in a mission to transform the world. The leaders of all nations on the U.S. side of the divide all speak from the same hymn sheet; we are fighting for the ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ that we enjoy to be spread worldwide. The desire to effect their plans for the regions of the world resistant to them overrides most previously accepted rules regarding national sovereignty. Especially since the inception of the so-called ‘War On Terror’ initiated after 9/11 the political elites of the USA and its allies have refused to accept the principle of national sovereignty as a barrier. Now, twenty years after 9/11 the USA and its allies clearly consider that they have the right to intervene within any nation worldwide that they choose to and to effect fundamental changes within them.

The backlash to the above has been slow in coming. The vast majority of nations sympathised with the people of the USA regarding the events of 9/11. Vladimir Putin of Russia for example was one of the first to phone then U.S. president George W. Bush and offer Russia’s assistance. For years after 9/11 almost no one of any stature across the world criticised the USA and the entire mass media elite certainly refrained almost completely from printing a single word critical of its acts of war. Only when it became clear that the United States along with the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ had attacked and invaded Iraq on a false premise regarding weapons of mass destruction did criticisms begin to emerge, though even then quite muted in form. 

Since the debacle in Iraq began, continuing to this day, we saw the chaotic withdrawal of the West’s military from Afghanistan. Between times Libya was attacked by NATO and destabilised, a condition we also see to this very day. In Syria a horrendous, almost decade-long conflict, saw a disastrous U.S. intervention along with its then allies in the Middle East, aiding and abetting a terrorist insurgency in the hope of defeating its army and unseating its president, government and systems of governance. These are all effects of the goal to achieve liberal hegemony and the ostensible delivery of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ worldwide.

The goal mentioned above continues, spurred on by the events on 9/11 but long preceding that awful day. Those behind ‘The New American Century’ project, those named ‘neoconservatives’ or ‘neocons’ had long had this goal as a subset of the general notions of ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘superiority’ held by the U.S. and UK political elites. The goal is none other than the total transformation of the rest of the world not currently being governed in the manner the USA and UK in particular demand. For this transformation to take place all nations not in compliance with U.S. and UK requirements are to be targeted for regime change by whatever means these nations regard as necessary.

This is the war being fought by the USA and its allies now, a war that had its nascent origins in much earlier times where the concepts of western exceptionalism and superiority over others first began to reveal themselves. These are the eras where the genocide of the native population of North America occurred, where the slave trade prospered and where the mass exploitation of colonialism reigned. All of the criminal abuse, aggression and inhumanity inherent in the racist concepts of exceptionalism and superiority over others that underpin the western elite view were seen in their most gross form in these times and arguably are still evident today. The collective west still conceives itself to be the best, most perfect and most obviously superior and thoroughly exceptional example that all others should follow.

 None of the attitudes above take account of the economic history or present day reality of the majority of nations the USA and its allies wish to impose their will upon. The majority of nations targeted for transformation are far poorer than the western states demanding this transformation within them. These nations still retain many of the traditional ways of life that have enabled them to survive in economic conditions not conducive to the kind of affluence seen in the West. These traditional ways of life generally emphasise self-discipline, honesty and dedication to community. Stretching back to ancient history the common factor has been for all to work for the benefit of the many within the strictures necessitated by the paucity of resources. Abundance in ancient societies was relatively rare. Now the forerunners of these societies, still not in a position of excess wealth and constant affluence are being told they must abandon their tried and trusted ways, their long-held traditional modes of culture, society and governance.

The nations above are increasingly banding together to resist the insistence of the West that they MUST change or be changed by them. The order of things that they have known as natural and that they are deeply attached to and for good reason are under threat. Covert actions and at times overt actions by the affluent nations of the West are designed to subvert and undermine their systems, psychological operations and even sabotage are among the tactics that are being used to wage this war for ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. They have no right to be free of these attacks it seems. They have no vote where these are concerned. The USA, UK and other affluent nations in Europe have determined how they should think, the beliefs they should have and most important of all, what systems of governance they should have.

The First World War which raged from 28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918 resulted in the following:

‘An estimated 9 million soldiers were killed in combat, plus another 23 million wounded, while 5 million civilians died as a result of military action, hunger, and disease.’

That war, World War I, was at the time named as, ‘The Great War’ and was seen to be so terrible and never to be seen again that it was described as ‘The war to end all wars’. Sadly this was to be far from true. Now we live in the time of what could be described as the greatest war of them all, the war that will determine the fate of the entire world. When one side or the other win the current war then this will indeed be the war to end all wars for its conclusion will leave one side or the other rendered totally impotent to begin another. If the USA and its allies win they will totally dominate and have complete control via surveillance and power to punish, they will regulate who can be free and who are valid candidates for election. Only within these parameters will there be ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. Why would they allow an opposition to them to grow? They would not leave themselves once again vulnerable to any such development.

If the Asian, Eurasian and Global South nations manage to resist the war of aggression being waged against them by the collective West as described above what would the global outlook be then? If current statements, projects and plans remain as of now then a tolerance for diverse forms of governance worldwide would appear to be the order of the day. Discussions leading to agreements would be the favoured method to find peaceful pathways to resolve problematic areas, cooperation rather than tooth and claw competition would prevail, war would cease to exist as a means to effect nationalistic ambitions and the supreme forum for resolution of areas of confliction would solely be the United Nations, not the individual desires or exceptionalist tendencies of individual nations who proclaim THEIR values as the only appropriate values for all.

THE GREATEST WAR OF ALL: THE WAR FOR WORLD DOMINANCE OR GLOBAL TOLERANCE.