Steve Bannon Has Become America’s Fethullah Gulen and Trump Has Become America’s Erdogan

Steve Bannon Has Become America’s Fethullah Gulen and Trump Has Become America’s Erdogan

By Adam Garrie

For the first decade of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s career as Turkish Prime Minister, Fethullah Gulen and his so-called Gulen Movement, were key allies of Erdogan’s centre-right/populist/neo-Islamist AK Party.

Gulen’s powerful network of neo-Islamist supporters played an implicit (however, contemporarily ignored and denied) role in helping Erdogan and his AK Party surge to power in 2003, which in turn led to a period of unbroken AK Party rule which continues to this day under Erdogan’s powerful Presidential position.

Gulen’s association with Erdogan and the AK Party continued through a period dominated by the Ergenekon investigation. Ergenekon was allegedly a group of ultra-secular conspirators within the Turkish deep state and army—both of which are home to historically hard-line Kemalists. The Gulen movement was deeply involved in circulation the rumours that members of Turkey’s judicial system, intellectual elite, civil service and Army were plotting to topple the AK government led by Erdogan.

In the end, most of the individuals investigated as part of Ergenekon turned out be innocent of all charges and furthermore, the “evidence” against them turned out to be largely forged—many say by Gulenists who wanted to fan the flames of an anti-Islamist conspiracy.
The failure of Ergenekon to produce anything tangible, subsequently led to the Gulen Movement joining with opposition parties (notably the secular CHP) in alleging that high levels of corruption were rampant in the AK Party.

This led to the formal split between Erodgan and Gulen in 2013. The former allies are now sworn enemies.

Gulen’s group is now cited by Turkey as the Fethullah Terrorist Organisation (FETO) and is proscribed by every sector of the Turkish state. Gulen himself is currently in exile in the US--which has led to numerous allegations from Ankara that Washington is openly colluding with the now hated movement.

Today, alleged Gulenists continue to be purged from public life and jailed for their stated crime of “terrorism”. Others are prosecuted under the infamous law of “insulting Turkishness”.  In many cases, the Turkish government will accuse anyone it doesn’t like of being a member of the FETO, even when they are not.
If any of this sounds oddly familiar for those who follow US politics more closely than the politics of Turkey, this is because there is indeed a striking parallel.

Long before Donald Trump formally entered the political arena, Steve Bannon was the leader of what is generally described as a right wing or far-right movement centred around groups like The Tea Party and Bannon’s media outlet Breitbart.

Bannon’s narrative that the US has fallen from grace and from greatness were themes picked up by the Trump campaign and immortalised in the slogan “Make America Great Again”.

When Bannon formally joined the Trump campaign team, the de-facto alliance was solidified. This became even more apparent when Bannon was appointed as a special advisor to President Trump.

Bannon’s period in the White House was dominated by allegations from political opponents who claim his team had colluded with Russia. There is a striking parallel here to the period in which Erdogan’s party and Gulen’s movement cooperated in alleging that the Turkish Army and deep state were colluding with conspirators ready to overthrow the Islamist government and replace it with a traditional Kemalist government.

In both cases, no evidence was found to substantiate the conspiratorial claims. Likewise, the revelation that Ergenekon was a non-issue coincided with Gulen’s public falling out with Erdogan and the AK Party.

In the US, as the Russiagate scandal is revealed to be a non-issue, Bannon’s August 2017 exit from the White House has been revealed to be far more acrimonious than first believed, with Trump publically stating that Bannon “cried” and begged for his job back at the time. Trump now calls his former ally “Sloppy Steve” and claims that he has little public support.

This stems from the fact that Bannon is quoted in a “tell-all” book by Michael Wolff, saying that Trump and his team are incompetent, corrupt and essentially worthless. According to the book, Bannon has even raised the issue of “treasonous” dealings on the part of Trump’s family. Bannon has come down hard on both Trump’s son Don Jr. as well as his powerful son-in-law Jared Kushner. This indeed parallels frequent allegations of corruption and even treason, relating to Turkish President Erdogan’s son Ahmet Burak.

While Bannon is under attack by Trump and his allies, he continues to lead a political movement that he has alluded to as a kind of ‘shadow government’, in the same way that Gulen’s movement has a similar covert function in Turkey.

As the ongoing “Russia probe” is becoming more of an internal corruption scandal rather than anything related to Russia—it is widely thought that Bannon might take his newly refined anti-Trump rhetoric straight to Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If Bannon’s quotes from Wolff’s book are any indication, Bannon will not paint a positive picture of Trump to Mueller, just as Gulen joined the ideologically antithetical CHP (the main Kemalist opposition) in alleging corruption in Erdogan’s government beginning in 2013.

With Trump already complaining that he should have legal options to quash the publication of Wolff’s book and with many in the Democratic opposition alleging that Bannon’s movement and the ideology proffered by Breitbart are dangerous movements peddling “hate speech” (the US equivalent of “insulting Turkishness”)—all bets are now off when it comes to Trump’s former sympathies to the free speech of opposition journalists.

While Gulen and Erdogan once stood shoulder to shoulder as campaigners for a more religious Turkish Republic—now Gulen’s followers are treated as terrorists.
Could it be that Bannon’s followers might now be targeted by Trump and his administration with the same vigour that Democrats have wanted to employ for years? The possibility is now very real, especially since Trump has in the past stated that he prefers a liberal interpretation of libel laws rather than a liberal interpretation of free speech laws. This in turn plays into the hands of Trump’s Democratic opposition who have been working with their corporate allies to censor opposition opinions online under the guise that they are “fake news”.

The US now has its own Fethullah Gulen, complete with a shadow government, in the form of Steve Bannon and his media outlet. The US also has its own Erdogan in the form of Donald Trump--a politician who seeks to radically change the social dynamic of the US, is frequently accused of nepotism and corruption and whose foreign policy statements often change drastically from month to month. 
Someone pass the Raki.

Share:

Read More

The Yuan Brings About Pakistan’s Second Declaration of Independence

The Yuan Brings About Pakistan’s Second Declaration of Independence

By Adam Garrie

With Pakistan refusing to bend or break under US pressure, even as Washington is set to cut hundreds of millions in “aid” to Pakistan, many Pakistanis are asking themselves, “why didn’t we do this sooner”?

The answer is—in a word: CHINA.
When the US took the abrasive move to formally censure Pakistan under the guise that it harbours and abets terrorism and cut hundreds of millions in what the US calls “aid” but what in reality is US military investment, Pakistan said, “so be it” and said so boldly.

After losing over 100,000 Pakistanis in America’s ill-advised regional military operation in Afghanistan, a conflict which the US intentionally allowed to spill over Pakistan’s border, Pakistani elites and ordinary people have collectively had enough. Many have had enough for decades, not least PTI leader Imran Khan whose anti-American positions have been largely vindicated by recent events.

But while the uneven “alliance” between Washington and Islamabad has alienated Pakistanis for decades, even prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, what has changed is that there is a new superpower with a colossal presence in the region--one that is willing to forge a thorough partnership with Pakistan and in doing so,  rendering any perceived advantages incurred from a US “alliance” more or less dispensable.

For years, China’s investment in Pakistan along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor has breathed new life into Pakistan’s economy. From the mountainous border in the north to the Panamax Gwadar Port on the Indian Ocean, China’s positive influence can be felt throughout Pakistan’s vast terrain.

The influx of Chinese experts, workers and high level diplomats in the country has proved that a revitalised Cold War era friendship is by the standards of 2017, one based on pragmatism, mutual respect and a win-win mentality that contrasts sharply with a US attitude of disdain towards Pakistan. This attitude is magnified even more deeply by Pakistan’s Saudi “ally” that has used and abused Pakistan for decades, in a cold exploitation of the country’s financial needs.

Pakistan’s refusal to follow Saudi and the UAE into Yemen and likewise, Pakistan’s refusal to take Saudi Arabia’s side in the ongoing dispute with Qatar, is as much a reflection of the confidence and renewed independence that a Chinese partnership has given Pakistan as it is a reflection of the increased professionalization of Pakistan’s “deep state” which is largely immune to the fluxuations of Parliamentary politics, while wise enough not to inhibit the peaceful exercise of Pakistan’s multi-party democracy.

Pakistan’s refusing to blindly follow Washington’s increasingly anti-Pakistan Afghan policies is a further result of the geo-political armour that China has allowed Pakistan to wear with pride, as it is symptomatic of a Pakistani “deep state” that is far more pragmatic and intelligent than it was 20 years ago.

But the most important development thus far, in Pakistan’s 21st century partnership with China is the agreement to conduct bilateral trade in the Yuan rather than the Dollar. This agreement was inevitable, but the fact that it was agreed just after Donald Trump’s insulting statements about Pakistan followed by the withdrawal of “aid”, sends both a pragmatic and symbolic message to the world. Pakistan is not for sale and nor will Pakistan refrain from taking action to build new partnerships out of fear that the US will be permanently lost as an “ally”.  Just as the US closed one door, Pakistan and China quietly and rapidly opened another much larger door.

The treat of US financial blackmail becomes limited in its scope when one realises that Pakistan’s most important long-term trading partner is a country that is not only powerful enough to resist the Dollar’s fading hegemonic grip on global trade, but that moreover, it is a country that owns the lion’s share of US debt. This country is of course, China.

The Dollar might still control much of the world, but with China controlling the Dollar, all the while readying the Yuan for its inevitable transition to a floating currency, it is China that now has the last word when it comes to the effectiveness of US financial blackmail as well as US sanctions.

In this sense, Pakistan’s agreement to trade with China exclusively in Yuan is like a second declaration of independence for Pakistan. Furthermore, the move will certainly inspire other nations to rethink their dependence on Dollar based institutions.

With the US also cutting Pakistan out of security/intelligence sharing agreements, it is high time for Pakistani leaders to admit a long standing reality. The US has never been Pakistan’s ally, it has merely been a two-faced benefactor whose investments in the country were never designed to increase Pakistan’s sovereignty, prestige or safety. In reality, they were designed to bring about the opposite.

By contrast, the Chinese model does not make demands on one’s foreign policy, security policy, wider partnerships or style of government. China demands only honesty and respect and rewards this with the same.

When promoting One Belt—One Road throughout the world, President Xi Jinping is always eager to point out that China’s global trading network is all about enhancing mutual strengths while supplementing areas of economic or production relation weakness. There are no strings attached in One Belt—One Road—the obvious implication being that in the US model of global trading mechanisms there are many strings attached.

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte stated that one of the reasons he prefers modernising the armed forces of Philippines using Russia and Chinese weapons, is because Russia and China do not make such sales conditional upon political demands. The same is true with wider trading partnerships with the great superpowers of the global “east”.

The US will surely amplify its anti-Pakistan rhetoric in the coming months and one shouldn’t be surprised if ultimately this leads to sanctions against a former “ally”.

But China has made Pakistan largely immune to Washington’s bullying techniques and thus serves as a model for the world that if one wants to make one’s own country “great again”—one must ditch the US as an indelible partner and embrace sovereignty with Chinese trading characteristics.

Share:

Read More

Macron Does The Right Thing For Selfish Reasons

Macron Does The Right Thing For Selfish Reasons

By Adam Garrie 

French President Emmanuel Macron has offered a strong statement condemning American, Saudi and Zionist meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. In a statement which is surprisingly robust given Macron’s foreign policy record, the French President stated, 

“The official line pursued by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are our allies in many ways, is almost one that would lead us to war (with Iran)”.

Macron’s modus operandi is clear enough. French businesses, unlike their American counterparts, have taken advantage of the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal), to conduct incredibly high stakes and potentially, massively profitable deals with Iran.

In July of last year, for example, the French energy corporation Total signed a $4.8 Billion deal with Iran relating to gas exploration and extraction along the vast South Pars gas field.

This is just one of many large deals inked between French companies and Iran. As Macron’s biggest support base remains France’s urbane financial and corporate elite, he is certainly not going to risk incurring their wrath. Because of this, he is standing up to the geo-political adventurism of the regimes in Riyadh, Tel Aviv and even Washington, whose goals of regional domination are not shared by France who in this instance, is collectively happy enough to make money from Iran without ruling Iran.

The scenario is not dissimilar to that which France faced in 2003 when President Jacques Chirac became an unlikely anti-war hero due to his vocal opposition to George W. Bush and Anthony Blair’s illegal war upon Iraq.
Unlike the US and UK who largely turned their back on Iraq beginning in 1990, French businesses continued to conduct high level deals  with Saddam Hussein’s country throughout the turbulent 1990s and early 2000s.

It is true that Chirac, like most of the world, realised the madness of a war on Iraq and likewise, he seemed to have a large degree of personal animosity towards Bush and Blair as they embodied the “ugly Anglo-Saxon” mentality that Chirac defined himself as the antithesis of. However, Chirac also knew that French businesses stood to lose billions of Euros from the destruction of Iraq.

Ultimately, he stood up for French business interests, which at that time, coincided with the interests of peace.

Today, Macron is doing largely the same, as the interests of the French corporate class which has ballooned since the more austere Chirac days, are temporarily aligned with the advocacy of peace in Iran. The fact that Washington and Tel Aviv are far more afraid of attacking Iran directly than they were in respect of Iraq in 2003, makes Macron’s intervention all the more important.

Of course there is another factor at play. In trying to diplomatically isolate Iran, Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh are attempting to coerce European parties to the JCPOA, including France, into adopting Washington’s position of opposition to the JCPOA.

Macron’s statement is a clear indication that this strategy has backfired, because for major European powers like France, the JCPOA remains popular.

The other US goal of trying to force Iran to cease its aid to the anti-terrorist struggle of Iraq and Syria also looks like a failure.

Iran’s role in Iraq is now that of a long-term political ally, as Iraq’s war has largely shifted from a military conflict to a security and political rehabilitation programme.  In this sense Iran’s role in Iraq is that of a long term partner which is something most Iranians and most Iraqis few favourably. Iranians who grew up hating Saddam’s Iraq, are now, not only at peace with, but are generally supportive of the Shi’a dominated Iraqi government’s pro-Iranian stance. In this sense, Iran’s position vis-à-vis Iraq is not likely to change.

In respect of Syria, Iran’s main role has evolved from a military advisor, to that of  being the torch bearer of Syrian interests at the Astana Peace Talks. While Russia’s role is that of a supreme balancer and Turkey’s role is one which seeks to legitimise extremist Sunni factions (however contradictory a task this is) while also restraining the influence of Kurdish extremists in Syria, Iran has aligned itself with the majority of anti-Takfiri Syrians. As a Shi’a power in the region, Iran’s pedigree offers a great deal of reassurance for the Syrians who have been most viciously targeted by Takfiri terrorists.

Fellow Astana members Russia and Turkey have offered robust statements in favour of Iran’s sovereignty with both Moscow and Ankara warning against any illegal foreign meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. Turkey has blamed “Israel” and the US for meddling in Iraq, while Russia has gone on the offensive against American hypocrisy.

In this sense, when a fellow Astana member came under attack from “Israel”, the US and Saudi Arabia, Russia and Turkey supported their besieged partner and in so doing, will have encouraged Iran’s further participation in Astana and by extrapolation in the Syria crisis.

Unless the US, “Israel” and Saudi Arabia are willing to flood Iran with terrorists and send new loads of arms to existing terrorist groups inside Iran (including Baloch aligned Takfiris, Kurdish terrorists, MEK sleeper cells and Royalist hooligans), their mission will likely fail.
Even if the aforementioned aggressive powers did send arms and/or cash to terrorists, Iran’s security services are very prepared for such an incident.

In this sense, the two immediate goals of the aggressive powers have failed—Europe has not rejected the JCPOA and Iran is not decreasing its legal influence in Syria and Iraq (nor Lebanon).

Because the aggressors will likely not give up this easily, Iran must remain on guard and ready to crush any hint of western/Zionist/Wahhabi backed sedition at any time.

Share:

Read More

Russia Was Right: The US Spits Upon Peace in Korea

Russia Was Right: The US Spits Upon Peace in Korea

A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie 

Late last year, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov questioned whether America’s goal for the Korean peninsula is peace or whether it is simply to consummately provoke? He further lambasted US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley for delivering “a really blood-soaked tirade” against North Korea at the UN Security Council. 

Today, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the US bluff has been called by Pyongyang and consequently the only reaction the US can muster is one of continued hostility, insults and childish brinksmanship. 

North and South Korean officials have reopened their direct phone line in preparation for further talks. It is not beyond the realm of possible that Kim Jong-un may hold a phone conversation with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, sometime in the near future.

While the two Korean states have developed along entirely different political paths, many foreign observers forget that as a single Korean people, there is no animosity between individuals on opposite sides of the border. 

North Korean songs about unification are neither violent nor boastful, they are generally melancholic pieces about the absence of one’s fellow man and the hope for a more fraternal future.

Likewise, South Korea’s population is overwhelmingly in favour of peace and reconciliation. Demonstrations against the US militarisation of the Korean peninsula are becoming ever more common in the South as ordinary people make impassioned stands in the name of peace and comradeship. 

The latest developments include a possible olive branch from Pyongyang to the South in what seems to be the early stages of a renewed Sunshine policy, in the form of a DPRK offer to participate in the forthcoming Winter Olympics in South Korea. 

One of the major differences between the possible Sunshine Policy of 2018 and the one which began in 1998, is that this time, the first overture was initiated by North Korea’s leader, whilst 20 years ago, South Korea’s Kim Dae-jung made the first move towards political openness with Pyongyang.

This is significant because it proves that for all the talk of how “mysterious” North Korea is, in reality the North Korean government has done everything it said it would. 

North Korea’s position can be summarised in the following way: 

Once North Korea has developed a fully functional nuclear deterrent capable of striking the US mainland, in order to counter US nuclear weapons which can strike anywhere in the world—subsequently, Pyongyang will engage in peace talks with any party that approaches it with respect and does not demand an end to its nuclear deterrent. 

North Korea has also stated that it will only begin to entertain Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposals for a tripartite economic initiative encompassing Russia and the two Korean states, once Pyongyang is satisfied that Seoul does not seek to undermine the DPRK’s security. Such statements were initially offered by the North Korean delegation to the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, in September of 2017. 

It would appear that North Korea’s overtures of South Korea in January of 2018 are an indication that sufficient trust has been secured and Pyongyang will now take the early steps which are necessary in order to begin participation in Putin’s tripartite economic initiative—an initiative which South Korea’s President has also received positively.  

For a region described as “unstable” and in spite of constant threats from the US to “destroy” North Korea, things are progressing in a surprisingly orderly fashion. It could be said that “everything is going according to plan” and certainly from the perspective of North Korea, Pyongyang’s officials are doing everything they said they would do while South Korea under Moon Jae-in has proved itself to be genuinely interested in cooperation and peace rather than confrontation and provocation. 

Russia and China meanwhile have encouraged cross-border cooperation and dialogue as both nations have developed positive relations with South Korea. In China’s case, it could be argued that at this point in time, relations between Beijing and Seoul are smoother than those between Beijing and Pyongyang. That notwithstanding, both Russia and China are certain to welcome the re-commencement of dialogue between the two Koreas. 

Indeed, any nation interested in genuine peace would welcome the latest moves, but one large nation stands alone in protesting the latest positive developments on the Korean peninsula. Predictably, this nation is the United States. 

In taking a pessimistic and indeed threatening attitude to North Korea, as expressed in outrageous Tweets from Donald Trump and statements from Nikki Haley made after Kim Jong-un committed himself to dialogue and reconciliation with South Korea, the US has revealed a truth that many, including Russia’s Foreign Minister, have long acknowledged: peace is not the American goal for the Korean peninsula. 

Instead, the US wants a perpetually frozen conflict which occasionally bushes up against disaster in order to maintain a powerful military presence in South Korea. The reason for this is because the US is intent on disrupting economic connectivity between the two Koreas who in turn would link up with both Russia and China as part of the One Belt—One Road initiative. 

This is the main goal of the US in the region. It is one that seeks to perpetuate conflict in order to retard China’s economic progress with its neighbours and all with the benefit of increasing the sale of overpriced weapons to countries like Japan. 

The two Koreas, China and Russia must not be deterred by the United Sates. Ultimately, it is up to the leaders in Seoul, Pyongyang, Beijing and Moscow to forge a successful and pragmatic peace plan which ultimately could only be destroyed if the US became mad enough to start a new war in the region—something it seems even Trump’s regime is not willing to risk.

In spite of talk of “de-nuclearisation”, at this point in time, such a goal is unrealistic. The most important aim ought to be the creation of an economically integrated environment where the 

importance of such weapons becomes minimised based on an atmosphere of trust. 

North Korea is now ready to trust South Korea, in spite of its distrust of the US. US officials only have themselves to blame for alienating North Korea as much as they have. 

Share:

Read More

The Events In Iran Vindicate North Korea 100%

The Events In Iran Vindicate North Korea 100%

 

A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie

The recent events in Iran, among other things, fully vindicate the security and defence policies of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in every sense. 

Already, recent history has vindicated North Korea’s policy. Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and to an extent Syria were destroyed by western militaries and their terrorist proxies because they did not have the full means to defend themselves, yet North Korea has not been destroyed because it does have the means to defend itself and deter attacks with its nuclear weapons. 

Far from an exotic theory, this is a very obvious matter of fact, one articulated by few world leaders, with the interesting exception of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. 

To further understand why North Korea has been vindicated, one must examine what happens when sovereign minded countries do deals with the west? 

In 2003, Libya agreed to disarm in return for extended business and security ties to the west. The result was the total destruction of Libya less than ten years later and the barbaric murder of its Revolutionary leader Brother Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had often spoken with disappointment, regarding the fact that western business deals never came through in the way he had expected when he agreed to disarm. Still, he remained cooperative and as a reward the US sent savages in to murder him. 

Syria too had softened its traditional policies of scepticism regarding the west in the years immediately preceding the western led proxy war on Syria. The result has been a seven year on Syria by those same western powers and their Takfiri terrorist proxies, most notably ISIS.

In 2015, Iran agreed to the JCPOA, also known as the Iran nuclear deal, in which Iran forfeited its goal of developing a nuclear security deterrent in exchange for business deals with the west.

In 2018, western backed proxies and local traitors now set fire to the streets of Iran, all the while little significant progress has been made in terms Iranian business deals with the west. 

The US continues to sanction Iran, threaten Iran and lie about Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, even though Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain, the EU as a whole and the United Nations, all agree that the JCPOA is being completely upheld by the Iranian government. 

Contrasting with Libya, Syria and Iran, North Korea has stated that no deals will be considered until its nuclear deterrent is fully functional in respect of being able to do to the US what the US can and often threatens to do to it.

 When Donald Trump stands before the UN threatening to “destroy” the DPRK, it is only natural that Pyongyang will want a stronger rather than a weaker means of defending itself. This is something a child in the schoolyard could understand with ease, yet many so-called intellectuals deceive themselves and in doing so, detach themselves from simple logic.

They are either stupid or cowards, not to publicly admit that the DPRK has been proved right and just about everyone else has been proved wrong.

Furthermore, North Korea has stated that even when it is willing to negotiate on other matters, that its nuclear deterrent is not up for negotiation. 

The precedent set by previous US “business” deals in exchange for disarmament totally vindicates the DPRK’s position. Far from good faith agreements, such deals are nothing more than a chance for the US to buy itself time while a stated enemy weakens itself and then, when sufficiently vulnerable, the US, its dependants and its proxies go to war and topple the state it had done a deal with.

The pattern has been repeated over and over again, but only North Korea seems to understand the nature of this clear pattern. 

Even in respect of a superpower like Russia, the US refuses to engage in arms reduction treaties—all the while amassing forces on Russia’s borders, before turning around and criticising Russia for maintaining the strength of its own armed forces. 

Sometimes one wonders if Washington really thinks the rest of the world is completely stupid? 

That being said, much of the world is matter-of-factly naive. The events in Iran speak for themselves. 

The following are the general developments that arise after a nation does a deal with the US and its partners:

--No tangible economic improvement 

--Continued sanctions and military threats 

--Some genuinely frustrated citizens who blame their own government for America’s broken promises 

--US armed forces and proxy militants/terrorist  trying to start a war in your borders 

North Korea is indeed a more closed society than Iran and this too has been vindicated by recent events. The US and its proxies do not reward countries for openness, but destroy them because of openness. The US sees an open door not as a sign of friendship but as a sign of vulnerability. 

If the US were to truly change (something that seems impossible until declining economic conditions wreak havoc upon the west in earnest), then perhaps North Korea would be more open to the rest of the world, but until then, it must protect itself as it continues to do.

North Korea, having suffered so greatly at the hands of the US and its partners in the 1950s, is more aware than most, of the full extent of barbarity that the US is happy to rain upon countries that it views unfavourably. 

But unlike others, the DPRK has never forgotten those important lessons of the relatively recent past, nor has the Supreme Leadership in Pyongyang neglected to study the pattern that begins with rapprochement with the US and is shortly followed by the total destruction of the smaller party to that initial rapprochement. 

One will never see proxy wars, “colour revolutions” and open sedition on the streets of the DPRK. This is because the DPRK knows how the US plays its game. If one thinks that North Korea is playing a hard game itself—one must remember that this game is only as hard as that which is necessary to hold off a US attack. 

North Korea stands vindicated—others are guilty of being naive and the US, as always, is guilty of being a dishonest broker and perennial aggressor.

Share:

Read More

There Are No “Overreactions” When Fighting Terror and Sedition

There Are No “Overreactions” When Fighting Terror and Sedition

A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie

When it comes to securing one’s nation, protecting the people and fighting  terrorism organised by some of the most aggressive states in history—no “reaction” is too tough. There is in fact, no such thing as an overreaction in such situations. 

According to the latest reports from Sputnik, a reliable source which is in no way anti-Iranian, “protests” yesterday became even more charged, with some “protesters” shown attacking a facility belonging to Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. No one with a reasonable mind could believe that attacking the IRGC is an anyway related to any peaceful demonstration over domestic price increases. This was an act of terrorism, if not an act of war. 

If one thinks such words are “strong”, this if of course intentional. A nation can only quash sedition if it does so in such a way that it creates a lasting deterrent against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so that such fiends never attempt such foolish treachery ever again. 

One of the reasons that Chinese cities are among the safest in the world is because China takes all crimes deeply seriously. This is reflected in the sentences that Chinese courts enforce upon such ruthless criminals. Last year, a group of bandits from the United States who were jailed in China for theft, learnt rapidly, just how seriously China takes the criminal activities of lowlifes. 

The only reason they were released was due to the personal intervention of the US President who begged President Xi Jinping for clemency in order to save face. Even Trump later regretted his actions and publically expressed this on Twitter. 

Iran’s soft approach to sedition, as conveyed in President Rouhani’s speech yesterday, could be interpreted both as a sign of confidence in the unity and strength of the state, but it could equally be interpreted as a supremely naïve statement which overlooks the basic principles of how to stop sedition, not just in the immediate term but in the long term. 

In reality, if one’s security forces cracks down hard on a single seditious “protest”--enough for the nation not to be distracted by the event, but enough for would be traitors and foreign enemies to get the message—then such a state will increase the likelihood that such seditious acts or acts of war will never be attempted again in the long term future. This is the priceless value of a deterrent effect.

If one fights against thuggery, seditious mob tactics and against the presence of foreign agents seeking to ignite an insurgency on one’s soil, with the full force of military strength, the enemies will not attempt such methods again. Such an “overreaction” means that one will actually save national exhaustion, resources and ultimately lives in the medium and long term. 

When Brother Muammar Gaddafi learned that his nation was under attack from the terrorist proxies of foreign regimes, he spoke of the need to purify the nation, “street to street…house to house…”. 

 

Sadly, for Gaddafi, he had foolishly disarmed years before which subjected Libya to the onslaught of NATO weaponry that countries like the DPRK are protected from due to their nuclear deterrent.

Iran does not have the material problem of Libya, but it does have a problem of not speaking out forcefully against sedition before it has the chance to inspire the enemies of Iran to sink their teeth in. It is a problem that can and should be fixed.

Already, the US and “Israel” are salivating at the prospect of reinstalling the corrupt heir to the discredited Iranian throne—the Zionist fool Reza Pahlavi, who is cheering on the traitors from his mansion in Beverly Hills, USA.

Iran must put an end not just to the movements of the scoundrels in the street but to future generations of scoundrels, the ambitious of foreign agents and traitors and most importantly the wicked desires of the Zionist and American regimes. 

This is no time to be polite or passive, ultimately many innocent Iranians could become harmed if this blasé attitude continues for much longer.

The only way to do this is to crack down on sedition as China did in 1989.

As I previously wrote,

“During China in the 1980s, an increased number of so-called intellectuals went to academic institutions in the United States where they became seduced by and intentionally programmed by US government operatives keen to see a seditious revolt in the People’s Republic of China--one with the ultimate goal of bringing the regime in Chinese Taipei (aka Taiwan) back to power in Beijing.

Because a readymade regime in Chinese Taipei existed which salivated for power over all of China, the CIA and other aggressive actors did not need to go to the effort of forging a new regime or political model—they simply needed to create agitation among a class of elites in Beijing in order to try and bring down the People’s Republic of China.

Hu Yaobang became the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1982 and by the middle of the decade, he became increasingly seduced by the liberal fantasies peddled by western “educated” academics.

His open flirtations with liberal social ideology proved too much to Deng and other social traditionalists and he was removed from power in favour of Zhao Ziyang in 1987. 

When Hu died in 1989, subversive western orchestrated “protests” among “students” and their academic masters began to foment with Tiananmen Square being a focal point. Rather than put a quick end to the numerically small displays, Zhao Ziyang instead offered sympathy to many of the “protesters”.

Zhao was in many ways one part traitor and one part naive. A man of great experience and with a deeply important political position such as Zhao should have been aware, as others including Deng were, that the “protests” were neither genuine nor spontaneous. He should have realised that the “protests” were an attempt to overthrow the very institutions of the state, paving the way for a pro-western regime. To deny this, as he did, was a sign of both carelessness and a dereliction of duty.

Part of Zhao however did likely feel for the fact that young useful idiots of a western plot essentially volunteered themselves to be on the front line of a proxy war. However, his interventions proved totally insufficient and even had the effect of encouraging the conspirators.

The western orchestrators of the “protests” coordinated them to coincide with the official state visit of Mikhail Gorbachev. A visit which heralded the reconciliation between the two great Communist superpowers, instead became an attempt by the west to embarrass both China and the USSR in the same place and at the same time.

Zhao was finally removed from power in 1989 as China sent out the People’s Liberation Army to cleanse the streets of the western agents and restore order.

The vast majority of the Chinese population was unaffected by the events of 1989, but the ruling elite realised that they needed to take precautions to avoid such western meddling in the future. 

China rapidly recovered because of the ultimately decisive action the government took in putting an end to the “protests” and as a result, China is the unshakable powerhouse that it is today.

Although Iran is smaller than China, the west and “Israel” remain frightened of the prospect of direct military confrontation. They are equally afraid to take on Iran in Syria or Iraq by engaging with the limited number of Iranian anti-terrorist military advisors in the Arab nations.

Because of this, the US and “Israel” have devised a plan to “counter Iran” the sparse details of which have been published in Zionist media.

Like clockwork, “protests” in Tehran and several other Iranian cities broke out simultaneous to the publication of reports on an anti-Iranian agreement made between the US regime and the Zionist entity. Allegedly, the protesters are agitating for economic reform and price controls, but anyone who is not totally naive can see the direct correlation between the reports from Zionist media and the western orchestrated protests in Iran.

This is not the first time the west has attempted to use “protesters” to attempt and destroy the Islamic Revolution. So-called Iranian liberals were mobilised by western and “Israeli” actors in 2011.

In reality these “liberals” are a combination of reactionary monarchists, counter-revolutionary hooligans and useful idiots taking orders from Iranians going back and forth between California and Iran, acting under the same kinds of orders as the Chinese “academics” of the 1980s who conspired against the People’s Republic of China.

It is an open secret that “Israel” pours millions into Iranian groups based primarily in the US whose goal is to destroy the Islamic Revolution and restore the pro-western monarchy whose obscenely gluttonous leaders remain in exile, primarily in the US.

As I write this piece, it has been confirmed that an al-Qaeda linked group of terrorists from Iranian Balochistan have blown up a major oil pipeline in western Iran. This is what happens when traitors are not dealt with—the terrorists rush in.

Iran cannot take any further chances. As China learned, a short but hard crackdown on sedition is necessary in order to avoid the total destruction of the state, its people and society.

Many Iranians will not want to hear this. Many wish to pretend that the protests will simply fizzle out due to their small size and seemingly innocent origins. This attitude however is ultimately one derived from fiction, one which puts the lives of every Iranian man, woman and child in danger.

Western backed so-called “colour revolutions” generally begin with an irritating whimper and end with a blood-soaked bang.

Like China, Iran has it within its power to easily crush the seditious radicals. If Iran is to avoid the fate of Libya and others, it must act swiftly and decisively. The Zionist regime is using the events in Tehran and elsewhere as a test to see how far they can push Iran. The government must not allow the enemy to gain an inch.

It is time for a 1989 Chinese style law and order operation in Iran”.

Since I wrote this, two days ago, the pressing need for such a crackdown is all the more important. Iranian leaders must channel the patriotic rhetoric of Gaddafi and the laser like precision of Chinese officials in 1989, who were fully aware that the happiness of future generations of the people depended on a rapid extinguishing of sedition’s dirty flame. 

Now is not the time to wait, nor is it the time to care what the west thinks. Iran must double down on cultivating its new friendships and let the west rot like a rotten fruit on a wilting branch.

It is time to end all sedition and send a clear message to the aggressors in Tel Aviv and Washington that “None shall pass”!

 

Share:

Read More

South Korea’s Genuine Protests Were Ignored by The West While Iran’s Fake “Protests” Are Praised

South Korea’s Genuine Protests Were Ignored by The West While Iran’s Fake “Protests” Are Praised 

 (A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie)

Beginning in late 2016 and stretching well into 2017, millions of South Koreans engaged in seemingly unending protests against the Presidency of Park Geun-hye.

President Park who herself is the daughter of the infamous South Korean dictator Park Chung-hee, showed the world that when it came to a blind adherence to extremist US authored foreign policy, the apple did not fall far from the tree.

At a time when most South Koreans favour policies of peace, reconciliation and de-escalation with the DPRK, Park authorised the delivery of an unlimited amount of US weapons to Korean soil. She was later exposed to have worked with her intelligence service, the NIS, on plans to illegally assassinate the leader of North Korea, something which would have triggered a wider regional war that could have quickly gone nuclear.

It later emerged that Park conspired with elements of the NIS to rig the 2012 Presidential elections, which would have otherwise been won by the more peace-minded and moderate Moon Jae-in. This was just one of the multiple scandals that brought South Koreans onto the streets this year and the year before, calling for peaceful regime change against a corrupt extremist leader, who was later exposed as having no democratic legitimacy in the first place.

Eventually, Park was impeached and removed from office. She now languishes in prison and will be tried for her crimes against the country.

While the protests lasted for months, on a single day alone, in November of 2016, over 1 million Koreans filled the streets of Seoul demanding Park’s regime be removed from power.

In spite of the massive numbers of genuine protesters and the mounting evidence against Park which no one could responsibly dispute as authentic, there was little coverage of the protests in western media (both alt and mainstream). When western media did report on the events, they tended to portray the protests as a kind of K-pop style street party rather than months of rage and disgust aimed at a corrupt and militant leader who most Koreans could not wait to get rid of.

But there was no talk of “the world is watching” from Barack Obama nor Donald Trump when it came to South Korea. Likewise, there were no US State Department press releases connoting the phrase “regime change” as a desired outcome of the protests. Such words are uniquely reserved for countries like Iran.

Over the last two days, small but worrying “protests” have filled the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, coinciding simultaneously with Zionist media reporting that Washington and Tel Aviv have devised a new plan to “counter” and destabilise Iran.

There are some people naive enough not to see the connection between the publication of such reports and the seditious movements of small groups of agitators in Iran. The reality is that the staged “protests” are the first phase of the US and “Israel” implementing their illegal conspiracy against Iran.

As in the past, the events in Iran are being largely organised by the US, “Israel” and so-called NGOs and “non-profit organisations” whose goal is to promote and ultimately reinstall the reactionary, corrupt and gold drenched Pahlavi family, whose last period in power saw them spending Iran’s national wealth on palaces designed for hosting alcohol soaked parties—parties to which many foreigners and hardly any Iranians were invited.

The US and “Israel” are simply trying to provoke Iran with fake protests which are designed to stoke common concerns about price inflation( which is a concern not only in Iran but in the US, Japan, most of Europe and just about everywhere else in the world) in order to create a more wide reaching violent and seditious movement.

Make no mistake, these “protests” while small in number, are nothing more than a foreign backed operation designed to topple Iran and destroy the Islamic Revolution in the name of the Pahlavi family who seek to once again own Iran as if it was their private property and once again go back to the days of open theft coupled with an embarrassing pro-Zionist foreign policy.

Yet if one were to listen to the western media and politicians like Donald Trump, it is as if the “protests” are some sort of genuine movement in the name of….God knows what…they haven’t been specific in this regard.

When South Koreans had actual protests which numbered into the MILLIONS, the west said nothing. Yet when a few stooges of the Zionist regime and the CIA fill the streets of Iran, all of the sudden the fangs of the west become exposed. Likewise, far too many in alt-media seem all too happy to support a reactionary, US and Zionist backed attempt to replace an Iranian Revolution based on equality, social justice, dignity and scientific progress, with an old haggard royalist regime whose ethos is predicated on self-indulgence, corruption, blind adherence to the Zionist agenda and a total disregard for the needs of the people.

The schism between how the west viewed very real protests in South Korea versus how they excite themselves to the point of frenzy over small and inauthentic “protests” in Iran is shocking but not surprising.

South Korea is after all a historic partner of the US while Iran has helped to fight US and Zionist backed Takfiri terrorism throughout the Middle East. Iran has helped to virtually destroy groups like ISIS (Daesh) and how does the west reward them? The west rewards Iran with a small package of illegal regime change disguised as a popular movement—one that will ultimately fail and fail miserably.

This shows you what the west really wants, not just for Iran but for the wider world.

Share:

Read More

Iran Must Destroy Sedition As China Did In 1989

Iran Must Destroy Sedition As China Did In 1989

(A Russia Truth exclusive article by Adam Garrie)

In the 1980s, the market socialism reforms of Deng Xiaoping helped China to modernise its economy without compromising the ideological, social and cultural integrity of the state. Deng’s model is, for all intents and purposes, responsible for transforming China from a large but struggling agrarian economy into the leading industrial economy of the world which it is today. The fact that China’s great cities are among the most modern, beautiful, cleanest and safest in the world today, is owed to the thought and policies of Deng Xiaoping, as much as it is to contemporary leaders.

The reforms of Deng Xiaoping contrast sharply with those of his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev and his chief ideologue Alexander Yakovlev. Whereas Deng Xiaoping transformed the Chinese economy while strengthening existing cultural institutions, Gorbachev set out to destroy the most important institutions of the nation while allowing a “liberalised” economy to eventually collapse under its own chaotic weight. The reforms predictably ended in a nightmare for the vast majority of Soviet citizens.

However, all great reforms whether successful ones like Deng Xiaoping’s or failed ones such as those of Gorbachev, have their incomplete components which are rife for exploitation.

During China in the 1980s, an increased number of so-called intellectuals went to academic institutions in the United States where they became seduced by and intentionally programmed by US government operatives keen to see a seditious revolt in the People’s Republic of China--one with the ultimate goal of bringing the regime in Chinese Taipei (aka Taiwan) back to power in Beijing.

Because a readymade regime in Chinese Taipei existed which salivated for power over all of China, the CIA and other aggressive actors did not need to go to the effort of forging a new regime or political model—they simply needed to create agitation among a class of elites in Beijing in order to try and bring down the People’s Republic of China.

Hu Yaobang became the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1982 and by the middle of the decade, he became increasingly seduced by the liberal fantasies peddled by western “educated” academics.

His open flirtations with liberal social ideology proved too much to Deng and other social traditionalists and he was removed from power in favour of Zhao Ziyang in 1987. 

When Hu died in 1989, subversive western orchestrated “protests” among “students” and their academic masters began to foment with Tiananmen Square being a focal point. Rather than put a quick end to the numerically small displays, Zhao Ziyang instead offered sympathy to many of the “protesters”.

Zhao was in many ways one part traitor and one part naive. A man of great experience and with a deeply important political position such as Zhao should have been aware, as others including Deng were, that the “protests” were neither genuine nor spontaneous. He should have realised that the “protests” were an attempt to overthrow the very institutions of the state, paving the way for a pro-western regime. To deny this, as he did, was a sign of both carelessness and a dereliction of duty.

Part of Zhao however did likely feel for the fact that young useful idiots of a western plot essentially volunteered themselves to be on the front line of a proxy war. However, his interventions proved totally insufficient and even had the effect of encouraging the conspirators.

The western orchestrators of the “protests” coordinated them to coincide with the official state visit of Mikhail Gorbachev. A visit which heralded the reconciliation between the two great Communist superpowers, instead became an attempt by the west to embarrass both China and the USSR in the same place and at the same time.

Zhao was finally removed from power in 1989 as China sent out the People’s Liberation Army to cleanse the streets of the western agents and restore order.

The vast majority of the Chinese population was unaffected by the events of 1989, but the ruling elite realised that they needed to take precautions to avoid such western meddling in the future. 

China rapidly recovered because of the ultimately decisive action the government took in putting an end to the “protests” and as a result, China is the unshakable powerhouse that it is today.

Although Iran is smaller than China, the west and “Israel” remain frightened of the prospect of direct military confrontation. They are equally afraid to take on Iran in Syria or Iraq by engaging with the limited number of Iranian anti-terrorist military advisors in the Arab nations.

Because of this, the US and “Israel” have devised a plan to “counter Iran” the sparse details of which have been published in Zionist media.

Like clockwork, “protests” in Tehran and several other Iranian cities broke out simultaneous to the publication of reports on an anti-Iranian agreement made between the US regime and the Zionist entity. Allegedly, the protesters are agitating for economic reform and price controls, but anyone who is not totally naive can see the direct correlation between the reports from Zionist media and the western orchestrated protests in Iran.

This is not the first time the west has attempted to use “protesters” to attempt and destroy the Islamic Revolution. So-called Iranian liberals were mobilised by western and “Israeli” actors in 2011.

In reality these “liberals” are a combination of reactionary monarchists, counter-revolutionary hooligans and useful idiots taking orders from Iranians going back and forth between California and Iran, acting under the same kinds of orders as the Chinese “academics” of the 1980s who conspired against the People’s Republic of China.

It is an open secret that “Israel” pours millions into Iranian groups based primarily in the US whose goal is to destroy the Islamic Revolution and restore the pro-western monarchy whose obscenely gluttonous leaders remain in exile, primarily in the US.

As I write this piece, it has been confirmed that an al-Qaeda linked group of terrorists from Iranian Balochistan have blown up a major oil pipeline in western Iran. This is what happens when traitors are not dealt with—the terrorists rush in.

Iran cannot take any further chances. As China learned, a short but hard crackdown on sedition is necessary in order to avoid the total destruction of the state, its people and society.

Many Iranians will not want to hear this. Many wish to pretend that the protests will simply fizzle out due to their small size and seemingly innocent origins. This attitude however is ultimately one derived from fiction, one which puts the lives of every Iranian man, woman and child in danger. 

Western backed so-called “colour revolutions” generally begin with an irritating whimper and end with a blood-soaked bang.

Like China, Iran has it within its power to easily crush the seditious radicals. If Iran is to avoid the fate of Libya and others, it must act swiftly and decisively. The Zionist regime is using the events in Tehran and elsewhere as a test to see how far they can push Iran. The government must not allow the enemy to gain an inch.

It is time for a 1989 Chinese style law and order operation in Iran.

Share:

Read More