The Rebalancing of Powers: From ‘Brexit’ to Babel?


13439101_10154199266405610_2017150733253960148_n.jpg

There is a disconnect between national policy and international relations.

The decision to leave the EU by the UK, or “Brexit”, is a symbol of that disconnect.

But in order to understand the origins of this decision, it is important to highlight the UK’s tradition of reluctance and hesitation towards the EU since its inception.

By nature, the UK, like America, prefers to play a conservative role in international affairs, dabbling in just enough to get the benefit, but not enough to bear the burden.

But the armed crises in the Middle East have created a storm in UK & EU politics, with the migration crisis being the crux of the problem.

Evidently, the UK prefers to leave such matters in the hands of its European counterparts, which is ironic because the UK is America’s closest ally in Europe – both countries are directly responsible for destabilizing the Middle East in the first place, under the premise of liberalization. This is where the disconnect begins.

At least half of the UK truly feels undermined by the concentration of power, underrepresented and almost collectivized by being part of the EU.

13533264_10154199266420610_6003690494943506927_n

But is the decision to leave the EU a right-wing populist scheme exploiting frustrations of the ordinary Brit? In South America, both right and left wing populism have failed to their more centered opponents. The US is still determining its fate.

Has this decision created a more or less secure world? Is this decision likely to produce positive or negative results in the UK’s social, economic and political fabric? How will this impact the rest of Europe? What will happen to the migrants?

It is in fact the people who have decided, through referendum, to leave the EU. Despite a targeted and well-developed “leave” campaign, the decision is also inspired by  general discontent towards the EU in Britain. But the facts and rhetoric surrounding the campaign reveals “Brexit” is more about xenophobia & Islamophobia than it is about sovereignty.

The majority of those who voted to leave the EU were above the age of 40. The vast majority of those who voted against were in their 20s ad 30s.

Given that London just elected its first Muslim mayor, there is reason to believe that unfounded, prejudiced paranoias about migrants and Muslims have stoked fears and insecurities in society, just enough to feed into the allure of right-wing populism and fear.

UK MP Nigel Farage proclaimed victory, ushering the 23rd as the UK’s modern independence day. He went on to claim that such a victory was achieved without any blood spilled. But only last week, British MP Jo Cox was violently murdered by a right-wing extremist who shouted “Britain First” as he committed the murder. Has this been understated by the media? Compared to reporting on terrorism linked to one or more Muslims, it is difficult to say that the media is not biased.

Notable international relations theorist John Mearsheimer predicted the disintegration of the EU as a result of the current international political dynamic which has seen America as the world’s sole superpower since the dissolution of the USSR. That dissolution has almost removed the security incentive for unity, or balancing that brought the EU together in the first place. There appears to be a growing rift among NATO members, particularly between European states and the US on how to manage international affairs. The differences stem from foreign policy on the Middle East primarily. Is the UK’s decision to leave the EU an inching towards or away from subservience to US leadership? That depends on the direction US democracy goes. If the American people also give in to fear, Donald Trump might be the next US president. This suggests that the two of the world’s most influential powers, the UK and America, are juggling between the past and the future – traditions of colonialism, racism & global mischief – and the equally traditional struggle against those forces, political enfranchisement, and socio-economic equality.

Europe is drifting towards a center-left progressive “utopia” – something despised by the British traditional-mentality. The same could be said of the US. This is vindicated by the statistics surrounding the ‘Brexit’ vote which saw the majority of the “leave” supporters being over the age of 40.

Without delving deeply into history books, the average person might not know that much of the US’ post-WWI behavior was determined by the British, by prompting fear and insecurity about illusory global threats. In 1952, it was the British who convinced the US that movements for sovereignty in the Middle East were a threat. Initially the US had actually empathized with the struggles for independence in the Middle East. The UK convinced the US to overthrow a democratically elected leader in Iran, and the US agreed because of the paranoias injected by the UK about the so-called “communist menace”.

To some it may be surprising that racism, Islamophobia and fascism are creeping into US and UK politics. To others, perhaps more victimized by these forces, it is more dangerous than surprising. If the US decides to follow suit and elects Donald Trump, there is reason to believe that global tensions might intensify. Remember that European history is bloody. Wars between France, England, Germany were commonplace. The UK’s exit from the EU might disturb this legacy of peace and harmony in Europe which has endured since WWII. Furthermore, it might reintroduce fascism into the West – long thought gone and dead.

It isn’t hard to imagine what would happen if the US did in fact follow suit. Two blocs would eventually form in the global order – a rebalancing of powers if you will. The UK and the US would be together on one side; Russia, China & Iran on the other. India would likely play an indirect role, but ultimately throwing most of its support behind the latter bloc. The contrary would apply to the Gulf states in the Middle East, Israel and Pakistan, who would likely remain under the auspices of the UK & the US. Altogether this can be described as the modern world order. In this scenario, the EU disintegrates completely. The fault line will likely split between France & Germany – to no surprise, with much of eastern Europe balancing against the UK & the US. The war between fascism and collectivism ensues. The ideologies of capitalism and culture are at war – they are mutually exclusive. In reality, capitalism fully realized is fascist, and collectivism fully realized is communist – both authoritarian to some extent. But the latter is conditional and retaliatory. In a perfect world, neither would exist, and universal democracy could flourish without capitalism and communism. Till then, we must pick sides and lesser evils or resort to anarchism.

There is still hope for the world and America. Clinton is not our salvation – but in politics there are no angels; only lesser devils – or so it seems.

Starbucks Pulls Ad Offensive to Armenians During Genocide Memorial


8d28e04e-d832-43c9-843b-f4aa2fee481a-645x720

Ya apparently we can’t criticize Jews for their monopoly on victimhood but they can mock the Armenian Genocide without reprisal.

I have always suggested that various entities have benefitted off the suppression of historic crimes against humanity. There are many that remain either unknown or unsettled. The issue of racism and slavery in America is one of those issues. In my case, I would say that it is Islamophobic and prejudiced view of white privilege which has prioritized whites & Jews at the top of the conversation on social justice.

And we can’t even criticize Jews, Israel or anything remotely of Judaic persuasion without being ostracized as an extremist Holocaust-denier. Not only is this completely wrong, it creates a monopoly of victimhood and suppresses free speech. Furthermore it reaffirms the existing belief that White Americans have privileges in this country not enjoyed by other minorities.

In France it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. In Turkey, America’s NATO ally, it is illegal to MENTION the Armenian Genocide. How ironic. Look at the difference; in one country you are jailed for denial; in another; you are jailed for awareness. Both are US allies. The double-standard is clear. Who benefits? That is self-explanatory. And I am the anti-semite despite the lack of recognition of the genocide of MY people. And I am the anti-semite despite the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and the theft of their land?

It’s time to gather the courage to clear the air once and for all. I do believe the Jews suffered a holocaust. I do not believe that holocaust to justify the recreation of a religious state which might have existed 5,000 years prior to the more natural civilization of the Palestinians. Furthermore, I think that granting the Jews the amnesty they earned after the Holocaust raised their social status to one of privilege and amnesty, thereby making it difficult to criticize the policies of Israel and the influence of Jewish politics on international affairs.

This advertisement posted by Starbucks, for which they are now apologizing, forced me to write this article. I am disgusted by the world’s silence on the issue of the armenian genocide. When former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raised speculation about his remarks regarding the accuracy of the number of victims during the Holocaust, the world was outraged. But when The Young Turk Network’s Cenk Uygur shows reluctance in labeling the Armenian genocide as such due ‘context, details and apparently some uncertainties,’ there is no way of being ‘sure’ a genocide was committed. Yet again, a double standard.

I will say, as Amal Clooney represents the case for recognition of the Armenian Genocide as I write this article now, the monopoly of victimhood will end because it will prove its own ulterior motives. The Armenians will see justice.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/20/starbucks-offensive-ad-armenia-genocide?CMP=edit_2221

DAWUD


Image

Had an interesting conversation with a dear friend of mine on the issue of the debate between religion and science, atheism and theism. 

While I sought to avoid all the useless rhetoric which leads to no answers – I sought to reconcile what I believe to be two perceptions that are not all quite that different. What I have noticed as a common denominator amongst so-called atheists is a disdain more-so for the morose attributes of religion rather than the philosophy and intellectualism behind it. In reality, even in today’s modern world, religion is a tool for control, power and crime (as expressed through politics), which does nothing to improve the image of the philosophy behind theology in the first place. 

Social liberalism grew largely out of the resistance movements against monarchism, despotism, authoritarianism, and socio-economic control. Since most of these ‘tyrants’ in history were in fact justifying their actions through religious dogma, it only makes sense that individuals would be repulsed by the idea altogether. But just as there have been religiously dogmatic tyrants, there have also been irreligiously dogmatic tyrants. And in the midst of it all, we’ve even had tyrants who could not make the decision for themselves, such as Hitler, who in one angle portrays himself as a God-fearing messiah, and in other, an anti-judaic anti-christ. Stalin and Lenin worked to disenfranchise religion entirely from the socio-political scene. 

Ultimately, each individual ought to be free – atheist or not. In the end it seems to me what matters are the virtues of life that are carried in philosophy altogether. Religious fanatics will claim you cannot be good without obedience to organized religion; atheists claim you can be ABSOLUTELY moral without the help of God. Both seem quite extreme. I sympathize with the atheist however, because religious dogma is terrifying. Yet, I do believe that without God, man falls prey to hubris, which eventually leads to power-grabbing, and an obstruction of human liberty and dignity. 

Ultimately, I must say I am devoted to the Abrahamic God – and I believe all truth and beauty resonates from Him. The wonders of philosophy, morality, existentialism, and secularism as well – all of these resonate from that wonderful truth which is perfection – the Lord of the worlds. No, I do not traditionally welcome the Christian anthropomorphic version of God, and I do reject the evangelical and fundamentalistic zionist interpretation of God – seeing both of these as equally dogmatic and detrimental to individual liberty, dignity, and truth. 

I am a muslim and a jew. I believe in the message of Allah. I do so philosophically, however not ‘religiously’. I submit to God – not to one man’s devious understanding of God. 

 

References:

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/23/10_celebs_you_didnt_know_were_atheists_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

boils in the depths


who knew freedom would be such a struggle

Republicans are negative nancies


Republicans are always negative. They never express optimism, they never express faith in humanity, they never express sympathy, they never express love. It’s all reason reason reason. Beats me man.

the old priest and his gang


by Marko Galac

There he goes preaching his religion,
The old priest and his gang.
Wasting away their time in division,
While warning me of the flame.

Liar liar, the cursed friar,
Television must have him drained.
What has he read but sappy psalms,
And pornographic magazines?