The Year's End

This shall be but a short post to celebrate the end of 2011 and beginning of 2012, using two poems from some of my favourite poets.

Year by year,

the monkey's mask

reveals the monkey.

-Basho

The ugiusu

Has begun to sing but still
In the falling snow
The cedar needles are white
At Ausaka Mountain.
-Emperor Gotoba

Kim Jong-il & The Future of the Koreas

The announcement of Kim Jong-il's death two days ago, the Confucian mourning period having been observed, is an event the aftermath of which will be difficult, if not impossible, to predict. The 69 year old's death is hardly a surprise - he had been ailing for some time after all. The two enigmas as far as concerns the future of North Korea both relate to his designated successor, Kim Jong-un: namely, that we know next to nothing about this man, including how well prepared he is for the leadership.

As far as concerns the first of these points, experts believe that Kim Jong-un will follow a similar policy to his father and grandfather, with an emphasis on military development and specifically nuclear and atomic weapons. In short, a continuation of the policies of his father and grandfather, a continued grim outlook for Asian peace, the North Korean economy, and human rights. This is, however, largely guesswork - until last year, after all, we had no knowledge of what Kim Jong-un even looked like, so getting a good idea of how he will rule North Korea can't be too accurate. All this presupposes that he will rule, but that is, as previously mentioned, less than certain.

Because of his young age (no older than 29), the de facto power may end up in the hands of a person or persons outside of the Kim family, with a number of possiblities arising if this were to happen. The Kim dynasty may be phased out and come to an end. Or, perhaps, there will be a factional split in the party and a power struggle will ensue; if it is anything like the one between Deng Xiaoping and Hua Guofeng, then the regime may in fact come out stronger than before. Certainly, any such power struggle will be played out behind closed doors, and is unlikely to spiral out of control into some sort of democratic revolution - the best case scenario would be a power struggle that served to weaken the regime's power base in some way, and would in the long run lead to its end.

For the time being, even with the death of Kim Jong-il, a free and united Korea is a little more than a distant dream. I am sure Kim Jong-un, or any other successor to the late 'Great Man, Who Descended From Heaven', will be keen to see that it stays that way.

Saif al-Islam Must Live

Many of the secrets of Lockerbie, the IRA, and other controversial acts in the Jamahiriya's erratic and often irresponsible foreign policy - for which it is primarily remembered outside of Libya - died with Muammar Gaddafi. For those victims of a foreign policy totally out of line with the direct democratic principles of the Third International Theory, questions will likely remain tragically unanswered (the barbarians are partially to blame for this), as any hope of closure evaporates into mist.

Saif al-Islam, the current leader of the Gaddafist movement, is not thought to be privy to such details, having been a mere child at the time. But Saif, whereabouts unknown, has one lethal weapon that he could use against the nations that brutally assassinated his father: his dealings with the West in the years before the Jamahiriya fell, circa 2004 to 2011, have given him great insight - and knowledge - of these countries. As such, he is a dangerous opponent in this respect, and it is in the interest of truth that he must stay alive.

As for the issue of fighting, it is time to accept that Libya's Gaddafi era is well and truly over. The dreams of the Jamahiriya became corrupted, they stagnated, and thus they were destroyed. Saif al-Islam, in the interest of his own security, should flee to Algeria and join his family, avoid the puppets at the ICC at all costs, and tell us in written and spoken form all the secrets he has amassed. Perhaps, one day in the distant future, the Third International Theory can be revived. But now is not that time.

RIP Muammar

RIP Muammar Gaddafi. May peace now return to Libya, following the sad death of its true leader: for there is a vacuum, and I care not who fills it. Let us all remember those poignant, true, and saddening last words: 'What did I ever do to you?'

Brother Leader, Stand Firm

Muammar Gaddafi is not finished yet. The fall of Tripoli to the armed gangs of the National Transitional Council, the murderers of countless black Africans trying simply to make a living, and the purveyors of an inferior democratic model than that of the Third International Theory, was a crushing blow. To anyone but the Brother Leader, it would have been the end. Instead, the Jamahiriyah relocated to Sirte, which continues to hold out against the rebellion.

The rebels are desperate to do anything to stop Gaddafi. They offer bounties to his inner circle. They have confirmed that they will take revenge, like petty men, by executing Gaddafi should he be captured. Clearly, an eye for an eye is still a valid concept for Mr Jalil and co. The murder of General Younes in July by fellow rebels showed this more than any other event in the history of the NTC.

At the end of the day, the Third International Theory is the solution to the problems of capitalism and democracy. To rebel against it, as many have since the creation of the Jamahiriyah, would be entirely wrong. It is not tyranny to prevent those who wish to pervert the course of direct and pure democracy with weak-willed demagoguism from doing so. And, were it not for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, then the Jamahiriyah would have continued to operate fully and properly from Tripoli. It was only the 'no-fly zone' that prevented the demagogues from being silenced.

True, the Gaddafis have abused their ideology and status, but this has only been the case since the world, at the behest of the USA, decided to try and cripple Libya's booming economy by imposing sanctions, in the hope that Gaddafi would change his ways or lose support. It took a long time for the latter to happen. It seems, luckily, that the former shall never become a reality. Gaddafi must stand firm. But, if he were to loose control over all Libya, rather than prevent development by the NTC. Should Mr Jalil and friends ever manage to implement their form of democracy, however, I would prefer that they allow Gaddafi, or one of his sons, to run on behalf of the Third International Theory.

Jack Layton

To say that I've ever agreed with Jack Layton's policies would be untrue. If I were a Canadian, I'd undoubtedly vote for the Conservative Party. But I do respect the late leader of the NDP; he was undoubtedly one of the better politicians in the western world. Layton became the party's leader in 2003, at a time when it had a mere 13 seats in Parliament, thus making it the 4th largest party by quite some way (the third largest, the Bloc Québécois, had 25 more seats).

Under Layton, this grew to 19 seats in 2004, then to 29 seats in 2006, then to 37 seats in 2008. The 2011 election seemed to greatly upset the status quo. Though the Conservatives won, the NDP surged to attain 103 seats, their highest electoral result ever, thus entering the role of opposition for the first time ever. In the same election, the Greens attained their first ever Parliamentary seat, and the Bloc Québécois were almost wiped out, going from 47 to 4 seats.

The key to Layton's success seems to be more than just the luck and political savvy that every politician needs to be a success. The 2011 campaign was bold and, ultimately, a well-deserved success for the NDP. Layton stated boldly his ambitions for Canada - to become Prime Minister. Layton argued passionately that his party had the best economic and social policies. The NDP confroted the Bloc Québécois in their stronghold and won; indeed, many NDP gains came from Quebec. Layton's charisma and sound policies (even those of us who disagree with them must admit they are indeed sound) were not alone in turning him into the Leader of the Opposition this year; it was also down to his radical new approach to the electoral process.

It remains to be seen whether or not the NP can continue the electoral success started by Layton. A letter written by Layton a mere two days before his death is full of optimism, but it remains to be see whether a new full-time leader - Layton's letter gives the impression this will take place in the new year - can continue the wave of optimism and electoral success ushered in by Layton.

Today, it was announced that Layton would be honoured with a rare state funeral. It is a fitting tribute to an extraordinary man in Canadian politics.

London Riots

I've contemplated posting about this for a while. Though the entire subject is a little dull for me - rioting is just a tragic reminder that there are still morons in the world - I feel compelled nevertheless to provide my personal view on the matter. Seeing as I have no connections to anyone affected, I feel I can speak with greater calm than those feeling vengeful, upset, or whatever else the aftermath of a riot feels like.

The left is, in this instance, wrong. People like Polly Toynbee and other sickening, patronising bullshitters who harp on about poverty, circumstances and other lofty ideals are only deluding themselves. They need to wake up to a few fundamental realities: except in a communist or socialist idyll (ie, a quixotic fantasy) can wealth be totally equal. Thus, some people will always be poorer, and others richer. It also follows that, were the poor wealthier, then the rich would be too, meaning that the goods, living conditions and societal status they would aspire to would be still more extravagent and advance than those of today. In such a circumstance, people at the bottom, or near it, would still feel trodden down upon and thus the need to steal would remain. It's been a constant of humanity ever since they first huddled together around the Euphrates in Mesapotamia of old to form Uruk, the first true settlement. By this logic, the Labour arguments of giving the rioters and their class things so as to remove the incentive to steal is flawed.

Plato quite rightly pointed out that bad men will always find ways round any laws, and good ones uphold their virtues (apart from little incidents of reneging, eg when sex is involved) in spite of any laws that may be in place. Plenty of the poorer people in London did not riot. Some who did not need to riot, from a financial and societal viewpoint, did. The root of these riots are not political, either. Once again, those who make this claim are living in an idealised fantasy where poverty is the sole cause of moral depravity.

The cause is culture and idiocy. Our culture caters too readily to idiots and encourages them to be as moronic and scummy as their inherent nature makes them. Rather than cure them with good literature, quality press and good education - the state must do more, and Gove is, for the latter -, they are left to wallow in reality television, the tabloid press, inane sports and gossip magazines. It affects their psyche and behaviour, and leads to a watering down of nationwide culture.

As for the solution, I am not so bothered so long as the punishments: punish only the individual, but punish to the extent of being a deterrent to others - ie, punish them more than usual. Breaking the law is one thing. Breaking the law in an organised and overtly destructive way is excessive, crass and opportunistic. These people must be punished in line with their actions, and some. Or their successors will never learn to behave like men, and will continue to writhe around in the dirt like animals.

General Younes & Rebel Divisions

Late last month, the rebel military leader - General Younes - died at the hands of an assassin in Benghazi, believed to be of a rival tribe or internal faction of the Transitional National Council. The fact is, this latest killing is important in highlighting just how flawed, divided and, despite their best efforts to mask it, tribally influenced this so called 'revolution' (a word carrying strong implications that it brings liberation) really is.

General Younes' power struggle with Khalifa Haftar in March and April was symbolic of the divisions within the TNC. The rebels admit that the assassination was carried out by one of their own, though they're unsure quite who it was. Younes was suspected of having links to Qaddafi and was generally distrusted by the rebels - he'd been a friend and close ally for over four decades, after all.

Mr Jalil has since sacked his entire cabinet over the incident. This shows as much division among the rebels as the defections by Qaddafi ministers earlier this year. Of course, the media downplayed this - heck, it received less news coverage than rumours of Oil Minister Ghanem's defection (which turned out to be false).

As Ramadan and the Libyan Civil War drags on, there is still hope that the people will tire of the demagogue that is Mustafa Abdul Jalil and his fraudulent, cowardly council.

US credit rating

The old US of A has lost its AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's over concerns about the budget deficit. It looks like Mr Boehner has a reason to cry now; it was his party, after all, that spent the US into the red in the first place, that made a big political fiasco out of the self-imposed August 2nd deadline, and then refused to co-operate, thanks largely to the lunatic Tea Party faction.

Already the idiotic Tea Partiers, hell bent on seeing their atavistic and quixotic idyll of what it means to be American implemented, have seen the first effects of their unrelenting Representatives and moronic domestic policy ideas. Cue market panic.

Melanie Phillips & 2083

The news that Andres Behring Breivik included extensive quotations from Melanie Phillips in his 2083: A Manifesto, the lunatic document in which he 'justifies' the atrocious killings of 69 people during a shooting spree on Utoya island and a further 8 when he set off a car bomb in central Oslo, is no surprise.

Mad Mel, as she's known to straight thinking people, decided to try and blame this on the left wing and attack various other aspects of our culture. I personally cannot see why she has responded in this way. A woman who spends her time warning of the dangers of a Muslim takeover of London - whilst also accusing everyone that criticises Israel of "anti-Semitism" - shouldn't really be surprised that her writing has fuelled hatred against Muslims and minorities (because that's exactly what she intends to do), and then respond with the usual baseless hysteria, rather than actually admitting the fact that she's a racist fuck. I think that the anti-suffrage people in the early 20th century who argued that women were too irrational to vote could've cited Melanie Phillips, had she been around at the time, and their argument would've been so convincing that women probably wouldn't have the vote today.

Anyone who actually reads the Mail, especially Phillips' work, is a braindead, racist, scumbag piece of shit. Fact.

Barack Obama Crumbles

It's a shame to see how this US debt saga ended: Republican victory, aka the worst possible thing for the country at this moment. In the US political arena, I often see the Democrats act as a check and balance to the insane Republicans, who've only become less mentally stable over the past years with the emergence of the Tea Party.

The debt deal that's been agreed sees the spending cuts demanded by the Republican Party as a whole, the spending cap that was a key demand of the Tea Party. But the Democrats demand of increased taxes, so as to raise more revenues, was not a part of this deal. Medicare and social security seem safe for the time being - they've been ringfenced, I hear - and the raising of the debt ceiling might give Obama some time to negotiate some tax rises, which would doubtless help in alleviating the US' trillions of dollars of sovereign debt.

This looks like another blow to Mr Obama, and seems to me another example of the President's inability to back up his fine rhetoric. A part of me even wishes that Mr Obama loses the 2012 election, so that the Republicans can get into office during this difficult period - be it Romney or Bachmann -, just to ruin the Republican brand name and get a new Democrat with a little more experience into office.

Basho - Poet of the Month

Matsuo Basho is one of my favourite poets of all time (after Ryokan), and is best known for the trouble he had reconciling his fame with his spiritual side. By the time of his death in 1694, Basho was already revered for rejuvenating the hokku form, still in its infancy as a standalone Japanese poetic model, which was expiring from artificiality in the hands of thematic rulesmiths such as Soin and Saikaku, whose wordplays and common-man appeal were prevalent. Though poetically skilled in this respect, both men lacked a certain poetic beauty in their verse that allowed Basho to create, thanks in part to his Zen learning (Basho was a Zen monk), a serious and aesthetic style that became popular as Basho's paradigm status was cemented.

Basho's haibun - poetry infused with prose - travelogues are equally famous. The best known is undoubtedly The Narrow Road to the Deep North, but others (some just as eloquent) exist. One of my favourites is the short travelogue 'A Visit to Sarashina Village', which contains the beautiful opening sentence; "The autumn wind inspired my heart with a desire to see the rise of the full moon over Mount Obasute."

Rather than write at length about my favourite aspects of Basho's poetry or prose, I have decided instead to post a few poems I've copied out of a wonderful volume entitled 'On Love and Barley - Haiku of Basho', as translated beautifully by Lucien Stryk. The final poem is the last Basho ever wrote, and is in effect his death poem.


You the butterfly -
I, Chuang Tzu's
dreaming heart.


Sound of rapids -
silent yellow petals
of the mountain rose.


Octopus traps -
summer's moonspun dreams,
soon ended.


Come, see real
flowers
of this painful world.


Chestnuts of Kiso -
mementoes for
the floating world.


Friends part
forever - wild geese
lost in cloud.


Mad with poetry,
I stride like Chikusai
into the wind.


Sick on a journey -
over parched fields
dreams wander on.

Piers Morgan 'demands apology'

Piers Morgan tells of his own importance

Piers Morgan, perhaps one of the biggest twats on the planet, has demanded an apology from Tory MP Louise Mensch over comments she made during the recent hearing of the hearing of the Murdochs by the Culture et al select committee.

Mrs Mensch, formerly known as bestselling author Louise Bagshawe (admittedly, her books are chick lit trash), made the following comment during the hearing; "As a former editor of the Daily Mirror, he said in his book The Insider recently that that 'little trick' of entering a 'standard four digit code' will allow 'anyone' to call a number and 'hear all your messages'.

"In that book, he boasted that using that "little trick" enabled him to win scoop of the year on a story about Sven-Goran Eriksson. That is a former editor of the Daily Mirror being very open about his personal use of phone hacking."

Piers Morgans response was both retarded and pompous, as anyone unlucky enough to be aware of the man's existence would expect.

"For an MP to use Parliamentary privilege and state that I wrote in my book that I use phone hacking for stories is a complete outrage because anyone who has read the book knows that I said no such thing.

"I would quite like her to read the book and then apologise in the same public forum that she used to make these ridiculous allegations."

Mrs Mensch is under no obligation to apologise; indeed, I'd rather than she hadn't. It's only likely to have inflated an ego already full to bursting. Piers Morgan, after all, is a contemptible man in that he is not just pompous, self-important, and the host of the most inane chat show I've ever watched, he also possesses the single characteristic I loathe most: hypocrisy. Piers Morgan is a left wing man who has spent his time trying to make as much money as possible, be it through papers, TV, or books. Morgan is talentless, but appears on TV regularly to judge talent because it makes him money. Morgan is in his mid forties, but has already written three volumes of memoirs; I assume they sold if he made so many, but I honestly can't see why. A boring man must surely have had a boring life. I can only assume Morgan's egoism facilitated the metastasis of his 'story' into three volumes of garbage.

One of these days, Piers Morgan is going to have to apologise for watering down the cultural landscape, blatant hypocrisy, and rampant arrogance. Until then, I'll continue to ignore him as best I can.

Jules Michelet - Quote of the Month

"The Orient advances, invincible, fatal to the light of the gods by the charm of its dreams, by the magic of its chiaroscuro."

The 19th century Occident viewpoint in a nutshell, methinks.

Open Letter to Osama Bin Laden

I've come across something interesting, from an issue of Foreign Policy magazine last year. It is an open letter to Osama Bin Laden, authored by the influential former jihadists Noman Benotman (pictured) and Abu Muhammed Al-Libi. I'll let you read it for yourselves, but let's just say I found it an incredibly interesting read. Of course, the letter is largely redundant since Bin Laden's demise, but it's still an interesting piece of history; if nothing else, it's evidence that you can have strong Islamic views without resorting to violence. The link for the letter is below.

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/10/an_open_letter_to_osama_bin_laden

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

Yesterday's announcement that the News of the World is going to end its centuries old run is nothing short of brilliant. For far too long, the paper has spewed out its filth and garbage and polluted the minds of the lower classes of the British population. I have nothing but contempt for all tabloid newspapers, and so the death of one of them is a step closer to the quality press being validated as the true and proper source of news for all people.

I am not a Rupert Murdoch hater. Personally, I very much enjoy reading The Times - though The Sunday Times is a little too wasteful in my eyes -, and find it to be the best paper available in the UK. Similarly, I am sure that this NotW incident fits perfectly into his scheme for launching a Sunday edition of The Sun, so all those that rejoice in the purported "death" of News Corporation are quite mistaken. I am just saddened that Murdoch continues to print tabloids at all. From a business persepective, it makes perfect sense; tabloids are by far the most profitable papers of all. But, from a cultural perspective, they are like an awful plague that lure people into their web of poor journalism and inane content.

Let us hope that the News of the World never returns to corrupt the people of this country with its drivel.

Enoch Powell & U-Turns

To say that I've ever agreed with Enoch Powell's politics would be a lie. I am not an ultra-capitalist, anti-immigration imperialist, and never shall I be one. But the method in which Enoch Powell went about his political career is something the politicians of today, especially Cameron's government, could learn from.

Powell stood by his views. Repenting at any time would have likely assured his readmission into the cabinet, but he never did and never would. To him, politics was not merely an instrument for trying to gain as higher position as possible just to be powerful/famous. For Powell, politics was the career one sought if one wanted to try to shape the world in a way that suited their strongly held ideological convictions. David Cameron, on the other hand, has moulded - and continues to mould - his policies on the whims of public opinion.

People of such strongly held political beliefs are always marginalised, regardless of their political stance. On the right, Conservative Dan Hannan is an MEP only - not an influential role by any means - because of his staunch right wing ideals, while, on the left, George Galloway was fired from the Labour Party for his pacifism.

It is up to politicians to choose between their beliefs and their careers. I'd always urge them to go for the former - though I do not share much ideological ground with Powell, Hannan, Benn or Galloway -, simply because there is nothing I despise more than spineless politicians. Though David Cameron is not that bad, he is by no means the best Conservative leader. I would love Ken Clarke to be PM.

Socialist Workless Party

UK politics is far calmer today than it once was. Just look at the current government; a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that functions quite well and where disagreements in ideology have been successfully ironed out in the interests of the country. Similarly, the political mainstream continues to drift ever closer to the centre, leaving extremist parties like the British National Party marginalised. Personally, I find this to be a good thing; the more people abhor them, the harder it becomes for them to get a political voice at all.

One party I particularly despise is the Socialist Workers' Party - a Marxist party -, which manages to spout its useless crap at every possible opportunity. Of late, they've made a big deal out of the spending cuts, talking of "united action" (strikes) as if it still has the power to initiate them. Truth be told, the days of polarised and violent political conflict - aka the 1970s - is over, and a combination of internal doctrinal disputes and a lack of societal need for such a party in these increasingly centrist times has left the SWP fragmented, smaller and redundant. Today, watching an SWP protest is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I recently watched a video of an SWP rally last October; they were staging a protest outside of the 2010 Tory party conference. It was raining. The SWP were outside, in the rain, shouting. The Tories were inside, dry, and couldn't hear them. Similarly, the idea that the Tories, of all parties, care about this lunatic fringe party is laughable. But the actual content of the speeches are the true comedy gold. In this particular instance, the speaker was a middle class woman doing a paltry job of adopting a working class accent to match her clothing and aggressive demeanour.

One particular favourite of mine was "cut the private sector, not the public sector". Clearly, this woman didn't think her statement through. First, the government cannot 'cut' the private sector - because it is private and therefore does not receive any government funding to be cut. The only equivalent would be heavy taxation. Similarly, they seem totally oblivious to the need to reduce the state deficit; how do they propose we do it? Centrally planned economy, as the wish to create? A party that doesn't understand the difference between public and private is, as far as I'm concerned, unfit to run a centrally planned economy (a dismal idea as it is). Instead, the moronic speaker proclaimed herself a "deficit denier". Thus we see the downside of state education.

The calls for "united action" were cheered on by the foolish few at the rally, but of course the SWP - its heyday having passed long ago - was totally and rightly ignored in this respect.

But my favourite of all the oxymoronic statements by this archaic demagogue was "we, the workers". Those at the rally, and those who regularly attend the other SWP rallies, were, at midday in the middle of the working week, standing outside a Tory conference a shouting. Last time I checked, this was neither a profession or a part of any other job. I suggest that these so-called workers, if they're angry with their lot, go and either get a job or, if they already have one, actually turn up to it. I'm sure then they'd find this is a way of getting an income. Then again, I imagine most SWP members and supporters are benefit parasites anyway.

These days, the SWP is continuing its long decline. Senior members resign, one by one, because of laughable, inconsequential doctrinal disagreements, leaving the party ever smaller. The only regret I'll have when the SWP eventually succumbs to common sense is that a very valuable part of the British comedy scene will be gone. Other than that, it's good riddance to loud, aggressive, nonsensical rubbish.

Middle Class Pretentiousness

For me, the 2010 UK general election was a massive relief. Finally, the disgraceful shambles of 'new Labour' - perhaps one of the most successful PR stunts in British history - came to an end. My only regret is that David Cameron did not have a large enough mandate to govern alone. I suppose he never was; Britain is plagued by a "personality politics" culture that stops someone like Cameron, who exacerbates the 'problem' of being an Etonian by doing a shoddy job of hiding it, achieving true popularity.

But there was one piece of awful news from Brighton from this election. The idiotic Green Party gained its first MP ever, in the form of its smug leader Caroline Lucas, from this constitutency. I suppose it was the closest to a 'safe-seat' the Greens had; a retiring Labour MP and a place famed for its pretentious desire to be 'alternative' (hence the thriving gay scene).

The British middle classes are full of pretenses. Many of them in the middle middle try, pathetically, to talk and act like the upper middle class in order to seem 'erudite', 'well-educated' and so on. I see nothing wrong with the upper middle class existing and being themselves, but trying to emulate them to seem somehow better is futile and, frankly, makes the person doing it look like a complete twat. The people that do this are the self-obsessed middle class; those who care only for their own pride and so on.

Conversely, there is a new type of equally pretentious middle class that seems to consist of much of the Brighton electorate. These people often have roots (sometimes very distant ones) in the working class, but their financial and social status is assuredly middle class. Instead of concerning themselves with trying to be something they're not, they spend their time worrying about left wing concerns. They are the sort who join Amnesty International (whose letter writing has been massively undermined by the Arab Spring), lecture others on charity and the carbon footprint, and vote either Lib Dem or Green. These people are easily swayed by fads, so long as it appeal to their innate belief in fairly wishy-washy morals. Thus, they are easily influenced by 'alternative' lifestyles, such as the acceptance of transgender people.

One particular pet hate of mine is the practice of meditation by everyday, non-religious people. It is not so much the fact that they meditate to relax themselves (though for the record it is a placebo), but the fact that they do so with little to no understanding of what meditation really is. It is entirely superficial.

Caroline Lucas and her party belong to the latter group. They are self-righteous and condescending, and Lucas care little for any cause other than trying to make history as the "first Green MP" and so on. It's all very petty and, frankly, laughable. The people of Brighton, in their willingness to be faddish, jumped on to yet another bandwagon in voting for this lady. As such, they've effectively thrown away their opportunity for having a true voice in the Commons. This is a party with a very narrow view of politics that thrives on voters who embrace them simply because it "upsets the status quo". The fact that the Guardian made a big thing of it is indicative of their audience. I'm not the sort to believe that two party hegemony is the only way, but trying to change it for the sake of changing it, as per the Green Party, is pathetic.

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to be left wing, alternative and PC, vote Lib Dem. They may be a political disaster, but at least they're not as upstart, fake, and opportunistic like the Greens. Let us hope that this Green voice in Parliament really is a passing fad and, come 2015, Lucas and her smug face are booted out of the Commons by the voters (though they'll probably elect some LBGT independent candidate in her place). If the Greens become a Parliamentary fixture, it's a bad sign that democracy is degenerating; how can so narrow a party ever become a legitimate political force?

Cut Throat Politics



Japanese PM Naoto Kan



Former Italian PM Romano Prodi

 I must admit, I am fascinated by the variety shown in the political dynamics of democratic countries. Across Europe, Asia, and the Americas, the common thread of democracy is interpreted very differently by all parties and people. To say that any two democracies are entirely the same would be wrong. It doesn't matter if they've got a Parliamentary or Presidential system; differences between nations with Parliamentary systems are chiasmic, for example.

Let us compare, for example, the USA and France, two Presidential democracies. In the USA, for example, the Senate is shared by two parties; the Democrats and Republicans. In France, however, there are far more parties in the Senate; aside from the UMP and PS, there are also Senators from the centrist union, Communist Party, Left Party and so on.

Parliamentary systems also have large differences between them. In the UK, for example, though there are two dominant parties, Labour and Conservative, the third party Liberal Democrats have a sizeable representation in the Commons (57 of 650 seats). In Italy, on the other hand, no party ever has a majority, because there are three tiers of party size. The current government, for example, depends on a coalition between Il Popolo della Liberta and Lega Nord.

The dynamics of the parties and their respective power is only one interesting aspect. Another is the patience of the party members and electorate with their political and party leaders, and the longevity of political parties. In the UK, the two main parties are both quite old; the modern Conservative party was founded in 1834, and the Labour Party in 1900. In Italy, however, the two main parties, Il Popolo della Liberta and the Democratic Party were founded in 2009 and 2007 respectively. Similarly, the Conservative Party has been lead by David Cameron since 2005, while Italy's Democratic Party has had four leaders in just under four years.

All of these trends and comparisons, as interesting as they are, are little more than mere trivialities in most cases. The USA, UK, France, and so on, all function properly despite their different systems and dynamics.

But there are two countries that suffer as a result of their unique political dynamics. I am, of course, referring to Japan and Italy. If we look at both these countries, they suffer from short lived governments and, by western standards, political instability. Both countries have exceptions to the rule; Junchiro Koizumi in Japan and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, but, overall, governments don't tend to last long in these countries.

Since 2006, Japan has had five Prime Ministers. Italy, on the other hand, has had two. There is no doubt that Prime Ministers are quicker to resign in Japan, but their governments are also more effective. Italy and Japan have very different problems that plague their democratic systems.

Italy's, as previously mentioned, is the fact that there are so many parties, with so little ideological overlap, that they all tend to eclipse each other and none can ever, ever get an absolute majority. Thus coalitions are always formed. I am not talking about coalitions in the sense of the Conservative-Lib Dem government we currently have in the UK, where two parties together govern. I am talking about coalitions of many parties with a great many conflicting ideals and interests.

Take, for example, the most recent government to collapse; the second government of Romano Prodi. Formed in 2006, it collapsed in 2008, after less than two years. Why? The fact that it was composed of 11 political parties (after some merged with each other) likely contributed to this. Balancing the unique interests of all these parties is like dancing on a pit of snakes. The only reason that Silvio Berlusconi is able to make his coalitions (his first government aside) stay together is a rare talent that likely has something to do with the media monopoly he has. This is not to say that Berlusconi is totally immune to issues; recent local elections and the nuclear power referendum show his influence is on the wane, though it may always re surge, as it has in the past.

The problem Japan has is totally different. Governments here consistently form majority governments; indeed, it is well known that the centre-right Liberal Democratic Party ruled consistently from 1955 (I think) until 2009, with one eleven month interregnum in the 1990s. Since 2009, the Democratic Party has managed to rule with a majority. But it has had two Prime Ministers.

The problem as I see it with Japan is that the politicians and public are unforgiving, and the former too willing to backstab to improve their lot. In Italy, Berlusconi gets away with all the gaffes he likes; he is, if you will, immune. Conversely, Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama made history in September 2009 when he ended 54 years of LDP rule, but in June 2010 resigned because of gaffes that, in other countries, would have been shrugged off and pale in comparison to Berlusconi's sex games and tactless remarks.

Naoto Kan has done an admirable job of staying in office for what is now over a year. Recently, he resisted pressure to resign. Members of the LDP sided with members of his own party to try and get him to resign... because there was an earthquake and tsunami, and they felt his handling was not up to scratch. Japanese politics are ruthless, petty, and very bad for the country, in the same way that Italian politics are unstable, corrupt, and similarly bad for the country.

The democratic system is a wonderful one but, clearly, it does not always work as it should. In such countries, measures need to be taken because, at the end of the day, very little has been achieved politically in the past decade. Similarly Japan, a country beset by natural disasters, needs to have a little more respect for its leaders and needs politicians who are more loyal. Until such a time as both of these countries realise and sort out their problems - in Italy, this means once Berlusconi is retired and/or dead - then real progress cannot be made.

Ron Paul: The Sensible Choice for the USA

To say that I've ever been much of a fan of post-WWII US foreign policy would be, quite simply, a lie. Ever since Truman, the USA has always been a country to involve itself in every other nation on earth. The USA feels it needs to validate its vast military spending with perpetual war, with often awful results for them and their global image. In places where they don't intervene directly, they squander their money on weapons and aid for regimes that couldn't otherwise survive. Many, such as that of the Shah of Iran, couldn't survive even with the US aid.

But Ron Paul has given me some hope. The Texas Congressman, currently seeking the Republican nomination for the 2012 Presidential election, is a breath of fresh air in a party that otherwise consists of imbeciles (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann), outlandish hawks (Bush, Reagan), or characterless political opportunists (Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum). Their political ideology is often based around a set of exaggerated, 18th century values, all of which are no less demagogical than left wing rhetoric.

Ron Paul is different. In a recent debate, Paul said of US intervention in Afghanistan: "it's time to end that war that hasn't helped us and hasn't helped anybody in the Middle East."

Congressman Paul, as a proud European, I salute you. For once, a US politician tells the truth. I never thought I'd hear it out of a Republican. Ron Paul also believes in bringing troops home to improve homeland security, rather than have them scattered across the world in around 130 nations. It makes sense to me, and may even contribute to ending the military-industrial complex.

Paul's ideas make sense not only on a practicle level, but on a more symbolic level. Let us not forget that America's endless policing of the protecting the world is the thing that many hate most about it. It is what prompted Imam Khomeini to claim that "America is behind everything that's gone wrong", it's what Ahmedinejad's popular support in Iran thrives on. It is a view held by a great many civilians across the world.

But, most importantly, America's greatest enemy would be almost entirely defeated by this move. I am, of course, referring to al-Qaida, the single organisation that has inspired the most fear in the American public and government.

Many American citizens will be unaware of this fact - in the words of Hassan Nasrallah, the American public is "distant and ignorant to what is going on in the world" -, but removing troops and shutting down bases across the world would do a great deal of damage to al-Qaida.

Because, for all of its atrocious actions and barbarities, al-Qaida is an ideological organisation. Its aims are manifold, but many do not purport directly to the USA. The reason Osama Bin Laden harboured such resentment of the USA is because of its "continuous injustice and oppression practiced against our sons in Palestine and Iraq..." in his own words. In essence, the basis for al-Qaida's hatred for the USA stems from their bases in Saudi Arabia (which they consider holy), from their constant involvement in the Ummah, perceived oppression of Arabs and Muslims, and their support for Israel. Bin Laden has also referred to the Ummah as "being torn into pieces between the teeth of a wolf". In the eyes of al-Qaida, US presence and influence across the world is tantamount to occupation.

Though I do not agree with Bin Laden's ideology, I am able to make the connection between his ideas and the positive effects of Ron Paul's thinking on the Middle East situation. If America were to withdraw its bases from the Ummah, the only ideological reason to launch attacks against the USA, from al-Qaida at least, would be its support of Israel. But wait! Ron Paul has a suggestion for that too.

"They [Israel] have become too dependent on us, not only for money and have economically become dependent, they've become dependent in that they can't even work toward peace with a country we might not like them to do it. But I don't want any of this foreign aid, Pakistan or anybody else, because the principle is wrong and because it doesn't achieve anything... Israel is in charge of its sovereignty."

There we have it, folks. Ron Paul is advocating leaving Israel alone. US aid to Israel is massive, and this is something that al-Qaida, and other groups such as Hezbollah, view as US/Israeli occupation of Arab land. Cutting off all aid to Israel would take the USA out of this equation of hatred. Of course, AIPAC will be unhappy, but AIPAC are a scummy organisation of liars with little place in a democracy as far as I'm concerned.

Bringings troops home and ending foreign aid to Israel would remove all ideological reasons for al-Qaida to attack the USA. Some politicians would be afraid of losing face. But what they fail to realise is that these bases and aggressive foreign policy (which, regrettably, has changed little under Obama) only create more resentment and strengthen groups like al-Qaida, which diversified after the beginning of the War on Terror and increased their members because, not in spite of, American aggression.

The evidence of this approach working on a smaller scale can be made clear from Lebanon. Back when the US had military personnel in Lebanon, during the Israeli occupation no less, their bases came under constant and very deadly attacks from Hezbollah. Since they withdrew, Hezbollah has become a problem of the past. Al-Qaida may strike US soil directly, but their different methods are both strategies to solve domestic 'problems', and removing the ideological grounding al-Qaida has against the US in the way outlined above would almost certainly have a similar effect.

If we look at al-Qaida today, it is an organisation on the backfoot. It has failed to influence events in the Arab Spring. Bin Laden, as much an operational leader as a charismatic ideological one, is dead and his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a pedantic man who is divisive in jihadist circles. I've no doubt his ability to lead al-Qaida, on the surface, will pale in comparison to Bin Laden. The only true successor, in terms of being a charismatic recruiter, is the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Like Bin Laden, he's proven a slippery snake for the US - he escaped a US drone strike just days after Bin Laden died with a clever car swap - and so it would be far easier to simply undermine his ideological mesage than spend decades bombing Yemen and hindering their development for one man. True, there are some pure thugs in al-Qaida, but their leadership are largely very ideologically motivated and, if the USA brought troops back and stopped funding Israel, it's likely al-Qaida would move on to trying to create an Islamic caliphate across the Ummah. The USA would no longer feature on its radar, and it on theirs.

Bin Laden may be dead today, but these jihadist and other terrorist organisations have proven far more difficult to eradicate than the trillions of dollars of military investment would suggest. Ten years on, Mullah Omar is alive and the British government have admitted that talks with the Taliban would be essential to a lasting peace in Afghanistan. In the name of God, has the west achieved anything there in the last decade? Blair and Bush might as well have pissed on our money and burnt it, it would've had the same effect. Military intervention left, right and centre has never really worked as a strategy.

If President Ron Paul had been in office in 2001, things would be very different in the world today. Unfortunately for the Middle East, al-Qaida would likely be very strong there, and only there, in its attempt to create its pan-Arabic caliphate. Saddam Hussein would also be in power (though the Arab Spring may change it in the future). On the other hand, the USA wouldn't have the vast deficit it does today, or be on the receiving end of the condemnation of so many in the Ummah and wider world. Israel, too, might not exist anymore, and in its place an Iranian exclave or God knows what else. For the wider world, these consequences may not be good, but the USA would be in a markedly better position than it is today and, at the end of the day, it is the job of a leader (of any nation) to put his country's interests first and foremost. Bush did it in a stupid, debt-building way. Paul would do it in a sensible, somewhat isolationist way. Personally, I prefer Paul's method.

Ironic Quote of the Month

"Iran is a threat to world peace."
-George W Bush

Gaddafi will win in the long run

In this Libyan civil war, victory on the ground will eventually be that of the rebels. As sad a fact as it is, NATO is not going to be able to find a way out diplomatically and will not want to be defeated. Thus Gaddafi - for all of his resilience - will eventually fall from power. It is better for us to come to terms with this reality rather than attempt to convince ourselves otherwise. But what happens next will be a true testament to the ability of these armed gangs masquerading as rebels wanting democracy.

Post Gaddafi Libya will be one of chaos and turmoil. Despite western media efforts to polarise the conflict, there is a very even divide in the country in terms of support. If anything, it is Gaddafi who has the more support. And why not? It is Gaddafi who renegotiated oil contracts and, before Reagan bombed Libya and most of the world imposed sanctions on it in the 1980s, the standard of living for a Libyan was better than that of an American. Even today, it is Africa's wealthiest country, and wealthier than a fair few European nations. Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim pointed out, quite rightly, that the fact that formerly rebel held towns such as Zawiyah and Zintan were liberated and accepted Gaddafi control. If this were truly a popular uprising, this would not be possible. Similarly, the Gaddafi government has only killed those civilians who took up arms against them - as any western government undoubtedly would. Jalil and his National Transitional Council have used the democracy smokescreen to lure the west into what is a poorly organised rebellion with no more than half of Libyans supporting it.

For a disorganised group of soldiers and politicians - who number just 31, despite media reports of 'widespread defections' - establishing order once all Gaddafi's defences have been bombed will not be easy. Tripoli, a city of 1.7 million people (in a nation of 6 million) largely supports Gaddafi. Many in the Tripolitania and Fezzan tribal areas do. Libya has never tried to have a European democratic system whatsoever; countries like Egypt and Tunisia used it as a facade, whereas Gaddafi has pursued his vision of democracy; the Jamahiriya. Any attempt, therefore, at imposing a European democratic system will require a great deal of time, effort and organisation. This will be made more difficult by those who do not want to see the Jamahiriya gone.

The lasting effect of Gaddafi and his rule will make the transition difficult and likely quite bloody. I resent the rebels and western medai for ignoring Gaddafi ceasefires; everytime Gaddafi's forces declare a ceasefire, the rebel forces continue to engage Gaddafi's, leaving them no option but to retaliate. Then the rebels claim that the Gaddafi forces 'do not uphold' their ceasefire, and use it as a pretext to continue fighting. Gaddafi and his government are more than happy to compromise, and the African Union deal was a very reasonable one. It was the rebels who rejected it and all other attempts at peace. They are only prolonging this civil war by refusing to compromise and let Gaddafi initiate reform - which would be the sensible option which would do the least harm to the people; trying to build a European democracy from the ground up is going to take some turbulent years if it even succeeds.

I feel that Libyan government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim, in this unfortunately titled video, makes some very good points about the civil war. The western media can only shield us from fact for so long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB-wumHm9xY

China: About as Communist as the USA

Officially, China has been a Communist state since the proclaimation of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong on 1 October 1949. In reality, the Communist state of China ended with Mao's death in 1976, and ever since it has been Communist only in name.

Under Deng Xiaoping, China began a period of massive economic reform which has culminated in the beginning of rapid economic and developmental expansion. Mao's leadership never really advanced the country much; his agricultural policies were an abysmal failure that led to a 1959-1961 famine in which it is estimated over 30 million people died. The last decade of his rule was marred by the Cultural Revolution, a period in which Chinese people went bezerk destroying their own cultural heritage, famously one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Instead, it was Deng Xiaoping who instigated the manufacturing boom which led to the epiphet 'Made in China' becoming a common sight on manufactured goods.

These days, it's more than just plastic boxes and toy cars that come out of Chinese factories; goods as sophisticated as iPods and other electronics are made in the 'Workshop of the World'. China is the world's second largest economy after the USA, and a leading world exporter. One would assume that, in a single party state under the watchful eye of the Communist Party, the wealth would be even distributed between the 1.3 billion people.

This is not, and has never been, the case. There exists a chiasmic gap in China between the rich and poor which is only widening as the country's gross domestic product grows year on year. Rural areas across the vast country remain invariably poor and archaic, while the skyscrapers of Shanghai house ever wealthier residents. In China, you need money to get ahead. Rich people can also circumvent certain laws; for example, the fine for breaking the One Child Policy is easy to pay for a wealthy person.

In reality, therefore, China is a capitalist autocracy. It is also no secret that China has an incredibly poor human rights record. The aforementioned One Child Policy has been criticised for forcing women into abortions at nine months pregnant. Efforts to suppress national identity in the autonomous regions of Tibet and Inner Mongolia have included genocide, surviellance in such sacred areas as monasteries (with imprisonment and torture of all who resist) and cultural assimilation bordering on ethnic cleansing. Jobs created by plundering the natural resources of the regions go to the Han Chinese; any Inner Mongolians or Tibetans seeking good jobs are forced to abandon their cultural identity, language, and religion in order to do so. Buddhist festivals are now dominated by Chinese military processions. The list of atrocities goes on.

On the other hand, China is a country so vast, both geographically and demographically, that perhaps a government where things can be done quickly and efficiently is necessary. In my opinion, the need for a One Child Policy was desparate in the 1970s, and a democratic process may not have been the most efficient way of implementing the policy. If one compares China, its economic development and current political situation, to its closest rival in terms of population - India -, it is clear that the Chinese government has done a better job of developing the nation. China has a history of autocracy, from Qin Shi Huangdi to Wu Handi, and it has yet to shake this off. For all of Mao's purging of the old during the Cultural Revolution, this fundamental aspect of Chinese government remains.

In a modern world where dictatorships are succumbing, one by one, to the ideals of democracy - as the recent Arab Spring has shown us - China's autocracy will eventually have to relax if it is to survive. The government and army may be large, but a united Chinese populace would overwhelm even the most firm handed Party official.

It is my personal view that a country as large and diverse as China would not be effectively governed by a system that replicates the European/American one, with its endless debates and demagogism, but I also feel that the current authoritarian, paranoid and elitist government, lurking behind a paltry Communist facade, will need to reform itself. All the immaculately dressed government spokesmen claiming China does not abuse human rights do not convince a soul. For all of its modernisation and economic expansion, China's political institution is a remnant from the 20th century, an artefact from a bygone age, in much the same way its Imperial one was this time a century ago, when it was abolished, the difference being that China in 2011 is far stronger than Qing in 1911, but really equally outdated. But, because of the economic strangehold China has on the west, and the social and political strangehold it has on its own people, change seems like nothing more than a distant idyll.

Gaddafi, crazy?

Many people believe that Muammar Gaddafi is mad. The fact is, no one other than a very good politician retains power for 41 years. This video, an address by Gaddafi to the Arab League, is also the best and most measured approach to the Israel problem I've ever seen. To conclude: Gaddafi isn't mad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP2ePHOLSqo&feature=related

The Meagre Reflection

Life is but existence as seen in water; all is a skewed reflection. Thus, we cannot and should not put too much value in moral judgements of good, or bad, or right, or wrong. Each and every one of these concepts is flexible and ever-changing. In order to rise above and beyond these transient ideas, one must be simply calm, as the water is. The calmer the water, the clearer the reflection, and the easier it is to see what is truly being reflected. In our modern world, the waters move so quickly that trying to distinguish this is difficult. Only through calm contemplation do we stand a chance of understanding that reflection.

The Libyan Civil War

In a metaphorical sense, there are really two civil wars going on in Libya today; one is the actual civil war, the other is the war as portrayed by the Western media. This single conflict has been misconstrued to the public thanks to a careful manipulation of facts in the media, for what reason I do not know - perhaps national bias, perhaps government intervention. But I do know this: the Libyan Civil War, unlike uprisings in Egypt or Tunisia, is not a one-sided conflict of good vs. bad. The 'War on Terror' has taught us that things are no so polarised, despite the efforts of propagandists.

The biggest difference between the events in Libya and those of its neighbours is the society. Libya, much like Yemen, is a tribal society at heart, whereas Tunisia and Egypt follow social hierarchies far more similar to those of European nations, making them far more relateable, in that they are divided by class, rather than by tribe. In these class-based societies, the protests were the voice of a middle class group, spurred on by social networking, angered by the corruption, oligarchy and so on which deprived them of the same lifestyle benefits as their European counterparts.

Libya is not quite so simple, and approaching it in the same way would be foolish. Because, where Libya is tribal, the opposition is not the voice of a middle class spurred on by Western ideals - it is the voice of the the tribes of Cyrenaica, the eastern part of Libya. These tribes previously controlled Libya during the reign of King Idris, and it is here that opposition to Gaddafi and his regime is strongest. Idris, as a ruler, was subservient to the West - this was his downfall.

Gaddafi, on the other hand, is originally from a tribe from the Fezzan area deep in the Sahara (he was born near Sirte but the Qadhadhfa originate from Sabha), though he has closely allied himself with the tribes of Tripolitania, and he has an appeal and identity that spans both groups of tribes. Thus, his rule has been very much one of tribal dominance over Cyrenaica, and this civil war is an attempt by Cyrenaican tribes to regain the tribal hegemony they lost 41 years ago.

This is why the majority of rebel-held areas are in Cyrenaica - Benghazi, Tobruk, etc - with the exceptions (such as Misrata) being in Tripolitania. It is no conincidence that the Fezzan tribal areas are completely controlled by Gaddafi. In his 22 February address, Gaddafi's statement of "I have millions who support me", disparaged by the Western media as 'mad', makes more sense to our culture in the light of this.

The Cyrenaican tribes have seized the chance to reestablish themselves in the light of recent events, because they can use the cover of democracy and garner significant attention from the world. They present themselves in suits, as democratic men, but in reality they are just as tribal as Gaddafi in his robes. The Western leaders have been played the sympathy card by these tribes, and the press have ensured that any attempt to dodge military involvement is subject to derision.

This reality also opens our eyes to the fact that Gaddafi's rule over Libya has been very constructive and peaceful, considering the tribal nature of its society. If we compare Libya with the other notable Arab tribal nation - Yemen - the starkness of the contrast goes some way to illustrating this difference. Gaddafi has been criticised for decentralising Libyan society, but this is perhaps a good way to avoid conflicts between tribes. Yemen is full of strife and tribal violence, it is an al-Qaeda hotbed and unemployment is massive. Libya is Africa's most prosperous country, with Africa's highest standards of living, clean water, wealth, low unemployment, and so on. The Libyan economy remained strong despite Western efforts to cripple it with sanctions, and Gaddafi's spending on public works has greatly improved his people's quality of life. True, this is in part due to Libya's oil, but Gaddafi's determination in forcing oil companies to renegotiate contracts ensured a fairer deal for Libya that meant they got more out of their oil than they did with King Idris.

I find the West's pious approach to Libyan state sponsored terrorism distasteful. The USA bombed Libya in '86 on flimsy evidence that Libya was behind a bombing in Berlin which killed 3 people. 'Operation El Dorado Canyon' killed 45 soldiers and 15 civilians, including Gaddafi's own adopted baby daughter, and tried to kill Gaddafi. I needn't remind you that the assassination of heads of state is illegal by international law, and it's typical of American foreign policy at the time to ignore this. Gaddafi supported the IRA in Ireland (killed 1,800 people) and Bokassa, the mad but relatively harmless dictator (100 killed) of the Central African Republic/Empire, as well as Ethiopia's Haile Mariam, who killed around 2,000 people during his incumbency.

This is, of course, an awful thing, but it pales in comparison to the list of dictators and terrorists backed by the USA. Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam) killed 50,000 people. Chiang Kai-shek (China, then Taiwan) killed 12,000 people in Shanghai in April 1927. Francois Duvalier (Haiti) killed 30,000. Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic) killed at least 50,000. Idi Amin (Uganda) killed over 300,000. Augusto Pinochet (Chile) killed 1,000-3,000 or so. I don't think that the USA can honestly take the moral high ground in this instance.

The media also tries to convince us is that Gaddafi has no support, and the National Transitional Council has all the support, and things are one-dimensional. They assume this because Gaddafi uses mercenaries in his armed forces. But it is simply not the case. Throughout his rule, Gaddafi, who came to power via (bloodless) coup, has kept the military weak so that the same does not happen to him. It may be a little paranoid, but its sensible. As a result, Gaddafi has used his wealth to hire mercenaries to ensure his army is well equipped to fight the rebels; he could use civilians in the way the rebels do, but who can honestly say that they are an effective fighting force? Gaddafi has the means, and he has used them, and he has stopped his supporters from being killed in doing so. Large numbers of tribes in Fezzan and Tripolitania support Gaddafi, and the massive pro-Gaddafi rallies in Tripoli - a huge proportion of the Libyan population - are evidence that a significant demographic of the Libyan people still support him.

One other criticism is that Gaddafi has used force against civilians. The fact is, the Cyrenaican civilians have been very quick to take up arms against Gaddafi, and he has simply responded to violence with violence. I recall a video of a small protest in Tripoli; the Western media derided the police for using tear gas against protesters who had burnt a car. In reality, it's not much of a crime outside of the Western psyche of piety and superiority. Again, Gaddafi's use of human shields is out of pragmatism rather than sadism; in the face of all the firepower of NATO, what choice does he have? And what right have we, in our comfortable capitalist cocoon, to judge him for it?

I am not trying to say that Gaddafi is a saint, but I am merely trying to dispel the false accusations and exaggerations which permeate the media. It seems inevitable that even the defiant Gaddafi will fall, as NATO bombing continues to intensify, and the Cyrenaican tribes will have their vindication. Rest assured, post-Gaddafi Libya will be ruled from Benghazi, by Cyrenaican tribes which put their duty to the USA above their duty to themselves, under a facade of a 21st century democracy. The idea that the rebels are fighting simply for Western democracy is farcical; it is a thin veneer which conceals the tribality of their cause. Meanwhile, our bombs continue to fall on yet another Muslim nation, whose culture we do not understand, in order to spread our ideals, and yet we are surprised that there are those in the Muslim world that resent us. The International Criminal Court is judging Gaddafi and his regime according to a set of Western values imposed upon the world. Yet where are the arrest warrants for Bush, Blair, or Netanyahu? The Libyan Civil War continues.