Our Battle is not in Syria, Ukraine or Anywhere Abroad

The apparent swift fall of the Assad regime in Syria may be good news or bad, but either way it’s less significant than what happens at home.

Even without their political affiliation and shared paymasters, the mainstream news media and globalist politicians tend to enact the same distortion of attention. In both cases what matters most, naturally and practically, is nearly always near at hand. But what matters most to them are the strangers in foreign lands.

In the real world you care most about those nearest to you. Your family, your street, your neighbours, your town, your country. This is where your natural attention is focused. And it makes perfect rational and pragmatic sense for this to be the case.

But think about how news functions. Mainstream news is divided into local news and World News. And it’s presented as if local news is only for backwater, parochial, limited interests, whereas World News is where the bigger stars and bigger salaries and bigger stories all are. Local news is ‘cat stuck in tree’ or ‘failed or amateur journalist stuck in the dead-end doldrums of the profession’. World News is where the Important Stuff happens-the wars, the trade deals, the big summits, the global initiatives.

If a journalist is advancing his career, they move from local news to national news, to bigger stations and papers in bigger towns and cities. And if they are at the pinnacle of their advancement, they deal almost exclusively in Big News from Exotic Places. Even without a modern liberal loathing of their own country, this professional structure informs them that the distant, the foreign and the global is always more interesting, more important, and more serious than the events occurring right next to us.

Now add in globalist progressive ideology. This tells us at a minimum that the world is now a global village where what happens a thousand or four thousand or six thousand miles away will inevitably impact us. Thanks to modern travel and technology, of course, this is partly true. But it goes further than just that. The globalist ideology soon becomes one in which only the things that happen elsewhere and only the people who live elsewhere actually matter. People who come from elsewhere matter more than people born here. Events occurring all over the world should matter to you, and if they don’t, there’s something wrong with you.

And even conservatives fall for this perverse identification of importance with the foreign and insignificance with the local. The vastness of America can quite naturally make its people fairly insular, and power too confers a certain disregard of other places. But there is nothing really shameful in this. If you are more successful and larger then most other places it’s an entirely understandable reaction. But both conservatives and progressive radicals sneer at the inward looking gaze. While philosophy insists on knowing thyself, and natural affection does too, US intellectuals of all types consider the American who cares and knows most about America somehow at fault, too stupid and ignorant to look beyond the immediate horizon.

The natural prioritisation of the people you live amongst and care about is called by all manner of unpleasant names-insularity, ignorance, racism, bigotry, lack of education, parochialism, and xenophobia. Not being particularly interested in the life and death of foreign populations is cast as contempt for ALL life, or active hatred of specific groups, even and sometimes particularly when not caring would result in a smarter policy choice than caring too much.

The media and globalist priorities both act as a sort of moral telescope, elevating the importance of every Elsewhere, and diminishing and shrinking the importance of the Somewhere we actually know best. This moral distortion is now so integral to the attitudes of the media and political elite that they cannot conceive of a natural and pragmatic prioritisation of your own in non-negative terms. What was once the chief function of a government, becomes the chief sign of moral flaw, and what was once the certain sign of a morally flawed government, becomes the signal of its virtue under the terms of understanding held by the ruling elite.

The inverted moral telescope renders everyone near at hand too meaningless to notice, and everyone far away of urgent and beloved importance. The only people worth noticing and caring about who might be right next to us, in empathetic and moral terms, are those who have approached from afar and are invested with the sacred quality of the Other. This is perhaps the defining perversion of elite values.

How does this relate to what has happened in Syria?

Well, the fact is that whilst Syria was under the Assad dynasty millions of Syrians were (of course) welcomed into the West. The policy of granting blanket asylum to anyone from any benighted region ensured that millions of Syrians could settle in Germany, France, Ireland, the UK and the US, as well as a few other high target destinations. By pure coincidence, of course these refugees made strenuous efforts to get not to the first available safe place, but to the last available safe place with high welfare payments. The moral telescope observers did not consider this damning or exploitative. After all, the current Assad, just like his father, was a Bad Man. This sanctuary escalated of course when the regime wobbled in 2015/2016 and would have fallen at that point without being propped up by Russian intervention.

Entangled in Ukraine, it seems the Russians were not prepared or able to assist their allied dictator this time, and that deprived of both Russian support due to Ukraine, and Iranian support due to the stunningly successful and determined Israeli in-roads against both Hamas and Hezbollah, the Assad regime did not have the independent strength to halt a rapid uprising against them.

What will happen to all those Syrian refugees now resident in the western nations foolish enough to have an open door of sanctuary to anybody from anywhere? Do we think for a moment that globalist controlled western governments will make any of them return home now that home is, theoretically at least, safe? After all if the logic of asylum is that sanctuary must be offered because of the existence of the Assad government, doesn’t the removal of the same remove the argument for asylum too? If you claim that you must flee because of Assad, then you must be able to return when Assad has gone.

Let’s see just how many refugees, asylum seekers, and fleeing political dissidents from Syria return home, especially those spilling out onto western streets to celebrate Assad’s fall. I suspect not many will. I suspect too that there will be almost zero pressure to make them return now that the supposed urgency of their claims for asylum has departed. Even more tellingly, you don’t find any asylum lawyers who earned fat fees from supporting every asylum claim imaginable suddenly admitting that the claimed reason the asylum is necessary impinges on any continuing right to remain in the West.

What you will probably find is these people simply shifting to processing and supporting asylum claims from Assad loyalists, so that Syrian wars can be recreated in miniature between ethnic gangs in London.

It’s probably necessary here to address the broader geopolitical dimension, at least briefly. The fall of the Assad regime is on the surface of things a success for the West. Ostensibly, Assad era Syria was a Russian puppet, a satellite state beholden to Russian (and Iranian) backing. Western journalists, always using the lines supplied to them by the masters of globalism, are quick to celebrate Assad’s fall. The message they present to the public will be the simplest possible reading there is-that this is a Good Thing because Assad was a Bad Man. If it gets any deeper than that, it will be this is a good thing because it reduces Russian power and influence, or signals Russian weakness thanks to the Most Holy War in Ukraine.

In a round-about way, the vast waste of western resources propping up Ukraine will now be declared money well spent because Assad has fallen in Syria. What better proof of global interconnectedness than that?

There is part of me that does see benefit in Assad’s fall. But it’s not that Russia is too weak to prop up Syria anymore. It is that Iran is too weak to do so. Syria was part of the Iranian Grand Strategy that has imploded so spectacularly thanks to Israeli resolve and competence. Gaza, Lebanon, Syria. Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad. These were the links in the chain that was supposed to encircle and strangle Israel. All of these were allied with and funded by Iran to point at and threaten Israel. All of these were supposed to extend Iranian influence and fulfil the messianic and apocalyptic jihad of wiping Israel off the map while leaving Iran as a regional player superior to its fellow Muslim rivals. The Iranian Grand Strategy was ultimately intended to secure regional hegemony and greater status in the Islamic world (superior to Turkey or Saudi Arabia) by humiliating and eventually eliminating Israel.

The Iranian mullahs thought they could deliver the head of Israel on a plate to the Muslim world, and thereby secure preeminence over every other Muslim regime.

This plan, both genocidal and absurd, was followed for decades, and Iranian prestige was closely tied to it. Under the idiotic and self-hating Obama and Biden administrations, the US pursued detente and cordiality with Iran despite this genocidal focus on the destruction of Israel (and the linked desire to acquire a nuclear arsenal) never going away. But Syria too was part of that, part of the Iranian End Game. Syria, of course, was a sponsor of terrorism and a sanctuary for terrorists funded by Iran.

The Israelis methodical unravelling of all this, the utter destruction of the genocidal vision of the Iranian mullahs, should of course be celebrated. Since Syria was allied with this Iranian strategy (albeit more deviously and subtly than the other partners in it) Assad’s fall is in those terms a very good result.

But this is not a US, UK or western success. It’s not a success earned by western military adventurism or intervention. It’s probably the most complete geopolitical victory in the Middle East for a century, and it’s an exclusively Israeli achievement. That is the great irony that no neocon strategist would note. The greatest victory of the West has been obtained when the West did virtually nothing. In fact it was obtained when a smaller regional power acted in its own interests with fortitude, resolve and extreme competence while ignoring everything the West was telling it to do.

If Israel had listened to the governments of its supposed western allies, it would never have even begun to unravel and destroy the Iranian web of influence and terrorism. It would not have responded to October 7th in a moral and righteous manner. It would not have saved those hostages who have been rescued. It would not have broken most of the power of Hamas, it would not have entered the shelters and sanctuaries of the enemy, it would not have pursued multi-pronged battles with multiple Iranian sponsored terrorist groups and it certainly would not have targeted facilities within Iran itself.

Israel destroyed the Iranian plan, broke its own encirclement, avenged its innocent dead, achieved a stunning victory….all by doing the OPPOSITE of what the genius minds of its western allies suggested (or rather, demanded). Israel took herself off the restraining leash of globalist mandated strategy, with the quite reasonable understanding that Israel cared more about Israeli survival than Germany, France, the UK or the US does.

Only those threatened with extinction know the best policy for fighting it. They are the ones with real skin in the game, and nobody knows this from more bitter experience than a Jewish Zionist does. Israel is the only nation on earth reborn from this level of understanding.

But the thing is this did not require western ground troops. It did not require western intervention, at least above and beyond selling the Israelis arms (from which western companies profit). We didn’t have to give the Israelis our own stores or deplete our own stores. Yes, the US has long given Israel aid, but it does that all over the place, and to a ludicrous extent that saw it funding both sides of this conflict. Israel was motivated and competent enough to do the job entirely by themselves, and achieved far more by ignoring the idiots who are in power in the West.

Israel defeated Iran’s strategy at no additional cost to the US or UK taxpayer, unlike the voraciously demanding Ukrainian government. Really too it is Israel’s success against Hezbollah that left Syria exposed to internal revolt, just as much as the inability of Russia to intervene. Imagine it in playground terms. A group of bullies see one after another of their number fall, smashed by that little Jewish kid. This gives others the confidence that they too can fight back, and sows doubt and despair in the minds of the original aggressors. Crude as the analogy is, it is psychologically accurate. Strength is always measured as both reality and projection. It’s both the force you can bring to bear, and fear of the force you can bring to bear.

Sometimes that second part is something of an illusion. Savagery or brutality suggests more force than is actually possessed. That’s the point of terrorism, after all, to terrify the opponent into submission. The Iranians and Syrians relied on generating that fear, which meant that when the fear evaporated (dispelled by Israeli actions) their true weakness was exposed.

Regimes fall when their citizens lose fear of them, or see that they can be beaten. Strategies based on confident hate wither and die when strong resistance humiliates them. Both these things occurred with the overall Iranian led strategy against Israel and with the internal dynamics of Syria.

But the geopolitical status now existing is not so simple as all this good news suggests. While I am delighted that the Israelis are so competent, and morally aligned with them in every way against Islamic extremism, we have to be realistic as well regarding the consequences of the fall of the Assad regime, knowing what we know from western interventions in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. It is of huge benefit to the West that the fall of Assad was achieved without very obvious direct western involvement this time, that it was not a pure CIA coup or colour revolution so far as it appears today (I’ve no doubt there was some interference. Time will tell how much). What’s important is that we have an incoming Trump Presidency and Trump has rightly declared what happens next in Syria to be none of our business.

We don’t own this one. That’s very good for avoiding another perpetual war entanglement and more trillions of dollars and pounds down the drain or into funding the next generation of terrorists who turn on their western suppliers.

Nor should we think that there is ever an unmitigated good from an Arab or Muslim source. Here we come to the really important bit that no neocon, no globalist, and no modern western government can acknowledge. Here we come to the potential drawback in Assad’s fall and that is this:

There are no Islamic good guys. None. Ever.

The people who have removed Assad are Islamic sectarian rivals of his ruling party. They are no more likely to be Good People than he was. The leader of this rebellion appears to be a former Al-Qeada affiliate. He was a jihadist, and most of his followers are jihadis. Back when the West was sponsoring White Hats and calling them rescue workers and philanthropists, many of them were jihadists too. In a Muslim conflict whatever side you back will be composed of extreme religious fanatics and people with murderous attitudes to us.

Back one side today, and you have armed the enemies of tomorrow. Every side in an Islamic conflict is a Bad Guy, and none of them are people you should cheer on, use as proxies, or trust with anything. Every intervention risk replacing one evil with a worse one, or being drawn into a quagmire. Strong dictators can sometimes bottle up even worse forces, and a brutal stability can be better than a vibrant anarchy. But in all these calculations you should know that there are no Islamic sides that are worth defending.

Far better to concentrate on keeping them out of your own country. Concentrate on that and you will be defended from their terrorism and barbarism far more effectively than you are by picking sides in their internal schisms.

The truth is that with Arab and Muslim nations there are only two conditions under which you get peace and sanity from them. The first is that they fear you enough to respect you, and the second is that rarer case where they are Muslims in name only and have come to value modernity and pleasure more than their professed religion. Some do become modern in a western sense, more interested in luxury cars than in the call of jihad, and those can be negotiated with. Generally, though, Arabs and Muslims respect strength more than they observe innate rights. The law of the desert tribesman and the law of Islam’s global conquest is the same: only strength earns respect. If you show them that you are not to be fucked with, you can buy a temporary respect that prevents them from attacking you. That is maintained only so long as they fear you. And it has to be blunt and backed up. This is what has resulted in many Arabs actually beginning to respect and admire the Israelis, despite Koranic instruction to loathe and despise Jews and despite of course the global pro Palestinian propaganda that Israelis must be despised as conquerors, settlers and occupiers.

All of that rhetoric of loserdom, all of that victim mentality sub Marxist terminology, supplied to the Islamic world by Soviet hands, is an uncomfortable fit with the innate cultural respect for strength and force in Arab and even other Muslim societies. It sells better with pampered western students. The Arabs and Muslims who fully take it on tend to be the western educated ones (which is why the leadership of Islamic terrorist groups usually combine BOTH western education and Islamic instruction).

The West as a whole doesn’t benefit from strength-respect because the Arab and the Muslim worlds know that the West is divided against itself, that it’s people are often soft, pathetic and decadent, that its leaders have no firm moral basis, that we are soft hearted, soft headed, and soft handed weaklings despite our economic strength and military and technological stockpiles. When the West strikes against any Islamic opponent it does so as an indiscriminate child in a brief rage, not as a strong culture or a strong man defending itself with admirable vigour.

We don’t believe in anything anymore, and these barbaric lovers of pure strength know it. We let millions of them pour into our countries and we see our cities turned into their cities. We present no red lines to them. We may bomb them but we don’t conquer them anymore. We pretend that past victories and past dominance are things to be ashamed of. We show them that they can stab on our streets or rape our children and nothing changes in our policy or in our lies about a religion of peace.

The Viking Danes respected Alfred the Great because he actually fought them in a meaningful fashion. Because he was outnumbered and did not submit. Because he had strength. But prior weak Anglo-Saxon kings did not have their respect, nor did the kind of men who were unarmed monks scribbling away at illuminated manuscripts have their respect.

With barbarian peoples you must show that you believe in something solid and real, ironically even if that happens to be an immaterial God, in a way that is prepared to spill blood and does not fear shedding your own. You can’t do that when you bow and scrape to them and worry about them more than your own people, or when you let them rape and pillage you and pay them and put them nice hotels or give them a house while they do it. A barbarian sees kindness as weakness, and an invitation to your home as invitation to rape your daughters. This is the brutal fact. It’s not racism. It’s not prejudice. It’s how barbarians think and there is no Islamic way to escape that style of thinking….except by showing them that you believe in your God as much as they believe in theirs, and that you are as determined to win as they are, and that you fear nothing.

That they will respect. The Israelis have shown that level of determination, firmness and self belief. The wider West has not shown it in a hundred years. We do not enter wars because we believe in something. We enter wars because we don’t believe in anything. Our leaders don’t believe in Democracy, but use it as a hollow slogan. Our military industrial complex don’t believe in the West, they just chase immediate profit.

The Israelis were fighting for their survival, and acted like it. That’s something real. The wider West won’t fight for its survival at home, so all its actions abroad, no matter how many bombs are dropped or how many wars are entered, still look weak.

The West won’t have the admiration of the Islamic world until it acts at least with the fortitude of the Israelis, and that fight is not in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any dusty Islamic shithole in the baked clay deserts of the globe. In Afghanistan we humiliated ourselves before even the Biden debacle. We humiliated ourselves when western commanders told western troops not to interfere in the loathsome local practice of bacha bazi. Heavily armed men ignored little boys being raped because they didn’t want to offend Muslim allies. What moral authority does that impart? We showed them that we respect their values, no matter how depraved, more than our own. We said the West will come here and fire some bullets, but none of it means anything because even your depravities will be accepted.

Tell a rapist you are fine with him raping little boys, and see if he fears you or respects you any more than he respects the little boy. We did that in Afghanistan….but we do it on our own streets too.

What have they to fear from such weaklings? What is there that forces them to respect us and fear our wrath?

In Libya the West funded those who removed Gaddafi. But Gaddafi was right about the larger reality. He said that the West would in its weakness invite its conquest. He said that Muslims breed faster than westerners do. He said that Muslims would move to the West and conquer the West and we would let that happen. He was not the only Muslim leader to make this point. Various Islamic terrorist leaders have said the same. Turkey’s Erdogan has said the same.

Mohammed is the most popular boys name in England. Let’s face the true reality. Gaddafi was right.

Even before we look at the insane threats from globalist leaders to the security, peace, and rights of the average western citizen, even before we recognise that they threaten us with technological experiments, geoengineering, mRNA, GMOs, Net Zero bullshit and thought and speech control, we face an existential threat from their morally inverted telescope of priorities. With that, they tell us to care about the fate of Syria or the fate of Ukraine while ignoring our own demographic extinction in our own lands.

They tell us to ignore the Muslim conquest of our home. Or to celebrate it, even. They actively assist our destruction, while telling us we should care with all our hearts about strangers thousands of miles away or care even more about imported rapists, warlords, murderers and child fondlers that we pay for and sustain after they illegally enter our country.

The Arab and Muslim worlds see all this and laugh. Like barbarians in any age, like the Vikings would have laughed just the same (and did) when greeted with weakness and bribes instead of with strength and arms.

The Israelis at least are prepared to fight for their continued existence. No western nation under globalist rule will fight the most urgent battles there are, which are always the ones closest to home. If our leaders fight at all, it is FOR and TOWARDS our destruction, on the side of our Islamic conquerors.