A Leninist critique of Western humanitarian imperialism

A Leninist critique of Western humanitarian imperialism

By Nicolas Bonnal
A Leninist critique of Western humanitarian imperialism. 48364.jpeg

We are living dangerous yet moral times, for a few hundreds of arrogant and powerful men (call them Bilderbergs, Illuminati, Trilateralists) have decided to rule the World together in the name of “the commerce and the imaginative”, as put Cecil Rhodes, the founder of the first version of the NWO which opened first modern concentration camps for the Boers’ families 111 years ago.

We are thus ruled by humanitarian oligarchs, by imaginative and moral rascals who mix oil with principles and raw materials with innumerable moral commandments which oblige us to intervene everywhere. Warmongers adore justifying their wars. It is like in the time of Hitler, when he was compelled to invade Czechoslovakia to protect his fellow Germans, then Poland to protect the citizens of Danzig, then soviet Russia to protect the West against the evils of communism (the Nazis, while massacring anyone, often boasted of protecting western heritage)!

And today when the West attacks and bombs Libya, Syria or Lebanon, waiting for poor Iran, massacring civilians, we are used to understand that it is for the promotion of good and to fight evil. Thanks to their own bad faith and disinformation, western mainstream media, politicians, military and adventurers are auto-convinced that they castigate the bad to celebrate the good, may they be the sinister Mujahedin in Syria or elsewhere. Such limited handling of reality explicates in Europe or in America our debt, our uncontrolled immigration, our social unrest, our unemployment, our weakness. Yet it has to be understood. Why are we so wrong?

I was for that reason reading again Lenin’s masterwork about imperialism (Imperialism highest stage of capitalism). Some things have changed, fortunately for some countries (they are no more starved and whipped by democratic colonial powers), some others have not. The imperial and barbaric movement is still the same, except that it is now uneasy to assail India or China for a new break up, and that Russia is too strong and efficiently protects some of her allies. Of course now the hidden companions who rule the world have decided to ruin western people delocalizing all production and developing immigration… but I won’t complaint since at Lenin’s times these enlightened elites had decided to butcher Europe as a whole to defend some local mines or overseas interests… Anyway Lenin shrewdly denounces in his book decaying capitalism, economic parasitism and the oligarchic conduct of the 300, as put Rathenau, who then ruled their gloomy West.

Yet I must recognize that the most interesting parts of Vladimir Lenin’s book come from his quote of an unknown and remarkable British writer named Hobson (John A. Hobson, Imperialism, a study). Contrarily to Lenin, Hobson is not a Marxist, and that perhaps gives him more intuition and finesse when it comes to understand the motives of our humanitarian elites. A capitalist may be a ruthless businessman full of greed, but he can be a real idealist too, and of the worst kind. Writes Hobson on the matter:

In view of the part which the non-economic factors of patriotism, adventure, military enterprise, political ambition, and philanthropy play in imperial expansion, it may appear that to impute to financiers so much power is to take a too narrowly economic view of history.

Hobson then reproaches the sinister role of adventurers, writers (Kipling, Verne, Haggard, etc.), missionaries, travellers, sportsmen, scientists, who promote the imperialist ideals. He writes and it’s always the case that the western imperialist consider that they must have such a divine right of force that they even can lead “to the point of complete subjugation or extermination the physical struggle between races and types of civilisation.” The lower race must disappear not because it is black or yellow, but because it is less moral! This is what happens nowadays with the Arabs, may they be Palestinians, Iraqis, Syrians or Libyans.

Of course in 1900 nobody in the European populations is convinced of the imperialistic benefits. Life is hard in Europe, inequalities fantastic, and many people must emigrate… in free countries, not in our colonies. Also, the expenses for colonial wars are enormous. This is why, for Hobson, the imperialist bankers, traders and their affiliates emphasize humanitarian motives, buy the press, print travel books and celebrate heroism and exotic action. They adore the generous missionaries, travellers (Dr Livingstone, I presume?) and all the Allan Quatermain and Phileas Fogg of the creation… These feelings are fed by a flood of the literature of travel and of imaginative writing… Today we have terrorist novels or books, manipulated reportages, false flag attacks, painted terrorism, faked digital pictures, and so on to justify for instance the “three trillion dollars” (Jo Stieglitz) war of Iraq or of Afghanistan. We all remember famous Randolph Hearst’s expression, pronounced on the verge of infamous American-Spanish war: I’ll produce the war! There was too a false flag attack to unclench war process.

Hobson has got a master point: like every capitalistic operation, imperialism is awfully interested in money yet it is often driven by a foolish agenda based on crossed morality, biased ethics and anarchic interventionism. We have today the human rights agenda, run by non-governmental-organisations, secret services and philanthropist billionaires. Already in 1900, there exists in a considerable though not a large proportion of the British nation a genuine desire to spread Christianity among the heathen, to diminish the cruelty and other sufferings… Hell is often paved with good intentions… western oligarchs want to be good even if, like said Oscar Wilde, “our conscience is always cowardice.”

Since the West is no more Christian, it has become a criminal with a conscience! Western madness, this mix of hubris and nemesis, had of course softened after WW2 and decolonization, but it violently stroke back since the end of USSR; and the American agenda in Balkans and Middle-East was coldly applied by Clinton, Bush or Obama. And the same state of mind has remained: our elites and the so-called public opinion forged by media, polls, and bad consciousness (“we must destroy any new Hitler”, especially if he lives in a small modernist Arab country!) have accustomed themselves to self-deception and fake ideals. Of course we know the strategic role of Afghanistan or Syria, the importance of oilfields, pipelines and minerals. But they’re not alone, and we don’t know how far the limits of Western bad faith can lead. I let humanist and pessimistic Hobson conclude:

The gravest peril of Imperialism lies in the state of mind of a nation which has become habituated to this deception and which has rendered itself incapable of self-criticism.

Nicolas Bonnal

Bolivia Police Stop British Ex-Special Forces Soldier from “Making History” with Machine Gun, Cocaine and a Kill List

[This man named Mark David Hassell was frightening his neighbors with his trained German shepherd and bold threats to “make history in the village” of Rurrenabaque.  Bolivian news sources report that he had a list of names in his possession which might be a hit list.  On Googling his name, we find that “Mark David Hassell” was employed by Ubs Securities Llc, at 1285 Avenue of The Americas, New York.]  

 

British special forces soldier arrested in Bolivia ‘over possession of weapons and cocaine’


Mark David Hassell was arrested on Monday night in his room at a boarding house in Rurrenabaque, Bolivia, after neighbours complained that he threatened them

Google

A former British special forces soldier has been arrested in an Amazon jungle tourist town for illegal possession of weapons and cocaine.

Mark David Hassell was arrested on Monday night in his room at a boarding house in Rurrenabaque, Bolivia, after neighbours complained that he threatened them, said Navy Captain Cimar Vides, the regional military chief.

A police spokesman said he had a submachine gun, a pistol and an unspecified quantity of cocaine.

Hassell was taken to the regional capital, Trinidad, yesterday where he is to appear before a judge on illegal arms and cocaine possession charges, Capt Vides said.

Hassell has the insignia of various British military units tattooed on his body, the official said. He added that Hassell had overstayed a tourist visa obtained last year.

“He has been an elite soldier. He was decorated and took part in the Bosnia war,” Capt Vides said.

The British Embassy said it was providing consular assistance to Hassell but declined further comment.

The police officer who arrested Hassell said the suspect gave his age as 43 and reported he had been in the British special forces and had also fought in Afghanistan.

Hassell had an Argentine-made 9mm MK submachine gun and a Brazilian-made .38-calibre Tauro handgun along with 100 rounds of ammunition in a backpack, and the room smelled of cocaine, officer Agapito Torrez said.

Hassell, who identified himself as a tourist, also had a German shepherd dog that townspeople said had threatened them, the officer said. He said Hassell does not speak Spanish.

Mr Torrez said locals notified police partly because they said they heard Hassell say he would “make history” in Rurrenabaque.

Bolivia is the world’s third largest cocaine producer, but the region where Hassell was arrested is not a coca-growing region although it is not far from the Yungas coca-growing region and is on the air traffic path of flights that ferry partially refined coca paste eastward from Peru.

Rurrenabaque borders the Madidi national park and is popular with foreign tourists.

Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran

Secret legal advice states pre-emptive strike could be in breach of international law as Iran not yet ‘clear and present threat’

Diego Garcia

US diplomats are said to have also lobbied for permission to use US bases on British territory such as Diego Garcia. Photograph: AFP

Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be in breach of international law.

The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.

The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the nuclear standoff with Tehran, but British ministers have so far reacted coolly. They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general’s office which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

This makes clear that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent “a clear and present threat”. Providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law, it states.

“The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran,” said a senior Whitehall source. “It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans.”

Sources said the US had yet to make a formal request to the British government, and that they did not believe an acceleration towards conflict was imminent or more likely. The discussions so far had been to scope out the British position, they said.

“But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance,” said one source. “They’d expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it’s Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise.”

The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts fail.

The navy has up to 10 ships in the region, including a nuclear-powered submarine. Its counter-mine vessels are on permanent rotation to help ensure that the strategically important shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.

The Guardian has been told that a British military delegation with a strong navy contingent flew to US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, earlier this summer to run through a range of contingency plans with US planners.

The UK, however, has assumed that it would only become involved once a conflict had already begun, and has been reluctant to commit overt support to Washington in the buildup to any military action.

“It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran, or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand,” said the source. “In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that way.”

British and US diplomats insisted that the two countries regarded a diplomatic solution as the priority. But this depends on the White House being able to restrain Israel, which is nervous that Iran’s underground uranium enrichment plant will soon make its nuclear programme immune to any outside attempts to stop it.

Israel has a less developed strike capability and its window for action against Iran will close much more quickly than that of the US, explained another official. “The key to holding back Israel is Israeli confidence that the US will deal with Iran when the moment is right.”

With diplomatic efforts stalled by the US presidential election campaign, a new push to resolve the crisis will begin in late November or December.

Six global powers will spearhead a drive which is likely to involve an offer to lift some of the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy in return for Tehran limiting its stockpile of enriched uranium.

The countries involved are the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China. Iran will be represented by its chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

A Foreign Office spokesman said: “As we continue to make clear, the government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time, although no option is off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of pressure through sanctions, which are having an impact, and engagement with Iran is the best way to resolve the nuclear issue. We are not going to speculate about scenarios in which military action would be legal. That would depend on the circumstances at the time.”

The Foreign Office said it would not disclose whether the attorney general’s advice has been sought on any specific issue.

A US state department official said: “The US and the UK co-ordinate on all kinds of subjects all the time, on a huge range of issues. We never speak on the record about these types of conversations.”

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN general assembly last month that Iran’s nuclear programme would reach Israel’s “red line” by “next spring, at most by next summer”, implying that Israel might then take military action in an attempt to destroy nuclear sites and set back the programme.

That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a marker pen on a picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress in making uranium enriched to 20%, which would be much easier than uranium enriched to 5% to turn into weapons-grade material, should Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the strategic decision to abandon Iran’s observance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and try to make a weapon. Tehran insists it has no such intention.

In August, the most senior US military officer, General Martin Dempsey,distanced himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran. He said such an attack would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear programme”.

He added: “I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.”