Connect with us

Latest

Video

Analysis

WATCH: Syrian President Assad explains the REAL reason why he’s still in power

Assad stays in power because he has popular support

Published

on

3,871 Views

We have constantly heard from the West “Assad must go! Assad must go!”, and yet he remains. The Western narrative about Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad literally contradicts itself if you think about it:

There is a brutal dictator who is killing his own people, and the whole world is against him save for a few countries, and his people totally hate him because he is killing them, yet his army is the largest in the nation and they are winning the war…somehow. And despite the world and his people being allegedly against him, he remains in power…despite the odds.

That is the western narrative. The simple reality is, no one could survive, let alone remain in power against such odds, without the support of the people. And Assad has that support, the support of Syria and her people.

In this video, President Assad explains in his own words, why that is, how he remains in power, and talks briefly about Russia’s role. It is very interesting hearing him break down the western narrative levied against him and the Syrian people in his own calm, collected, and articulate words.

Assad explains in the video, how if the western narrative about him were true, if he was really despised by his entire people, he simply could not remain in power. While there can exist evil dictators in the world, there must always be some form of popular support for almost anyone to remain in power against any form of resistance for a prolonged period of time.

The illusion of “The Evil Dictator” must be dispelled, because it’s a crucial component of the way the Zionist powers justify their global war against the free peoples. What do I mean by this?

The West loves to create Black and White juvenile fantasy narratives, there are “The Good Guys” (NATO, Israel, and friends), and the Bad Guys (anyone who doesn’t worship “Western Democracy and Values”). All the good guys are always good, even if in reality they’re brutal dictators, and all the bad guys are always evil, even if they have the support of their people.

This is an example of the type of people you can see supporting Assad in Syria…

These narratives are absolutely necessary for invaders to justify their military interventionism. They can’t come right out and say: “We’re invading this country because they won’t obey us.”, so instead, they must invent a reason to invade which doesn’t make them look like imperialist conquerors.

Thus, they label someone an evil dictator, and all of the sudden, they may now begin a “carpet bombing for world peace” campaign. But the most important aspect of labeling someone an evil dictator is to say they do not have the support if their own people.

It’s very common to see Syrian Orthodox Christian Bishops supporting Assad

This isn’t the Middle Ages, it’s no longer socially acceptable to run around conquering countries because you don’t like the leaders…or rather…conqourers aren’t so honest about their true intentions anymore, as they were in ages past, and they must now justify their actions.

These people…however, are the types of people who show up to ANTI-Assad rallies. These are the people who DON’T support him, and fight him, and receive funds from the US and their allies. Notice the flag of the French Mandate as well as Al-Queda style flags

It’s a lot easier to justify regime change if you claim everyone hates the regime…but think…honestly think…is it really possible for a regime to exist which is truly hated (to the level the West implies Assad is hated) by even 80% of the country?

The reality is…no…to remain in power for so long, some form of popular support is a must. The support can come from various factors, fear of the unknown, a “lesser of two evils”, ignorance or apathy for politics, nationalism, genuine love, but all governments need public support.

Syrians supporting Assad, Russia, and Putin. Note the difference between them and the “moderate” decapitators further above. Heavily armed terrorist psychopaths vs unarmed peaceful civilians. According to the west, THESE people are the problem, not the terrorists whom they arm.

Even if their excuse is that Assad stays in power via the army – the army is still made up of normal human beings with hearts, and souls, and family members that they love. The army is not made of emotionless robots, but the army itself is made up of the people, and the Syrian Army is a diverse group of Syrian Citizens ranging from Sunni Muslims, to Christians, and even the occasional Syrian Jew.

These women support Assad and fight with the Syrian Army – you won’t see women with uncovered hair running and gunning with the “Syrian” Rebels. They believe women are roughly equal to cattle, unlike the Syrian leaders.

When a person joins the army, they don’t magically cease to be a member of the people. While rule through fear is possible…fear of what? Death? People are already dying in Syria…there is a war waging. You can’t threaten the entire country and population with death, such methods only work against a people with an implied threat…once the actual fighting starts, there is no more implied threat.

The other narrative the West uses, is that Russia is the only thing keeping Assad in power. While that has helped save Syria, that is not the only reason Assad is in power. In the video, he pointed out how the Shah of Iran had the total support of the US, but he still fell when the people turned against him. Would the US imply that the support of Russia is stronger than the support of the US? The Shah fell because he lost the support of the people.

When the US invaded Vietnam, they fought for years in a complex war, they were engaged in a scale far greater than Russia was in Syria, and yet they still failed. Why? Because they did not have the support of the Vietnamese people.

The truth is, there are very few nations in the world, if any, where there is not some form of popular support, at least enough to prevent a violent revolution. And this is not meant to imply that there are no brutal leaders in the world, nor that popular support guarantees a leader or policy is good, merely that these issues are more complicated than it seems.

The topic of whether or not “the people” can be wrong, is altogether another one, which can shake the foundations of faith in democracy. Hitler’s Nazi Germany is an example of a situation in which…while yes, there was oppressed opposition, however, there still was a frighteningly large amount of public support, and the masses chose an evil future for themselves.

Considering how that happened is a sobering event, which requires inward contemplation about human nature. Nazi Germany wasn’t created by Satan magically, the Devil is not known for his creativity; it was humans which permitted that to happen, and “civilized Europe” is letting it happen again in Ukraine.

It shows us that indeed, humans can make evil decisions which are not the act of evil dictators alone, which we dehumanize, but regular people can simply give their passive support to destructive regimes like Nazi Germany. All it takes for evil to succeed is for regular people to say “Моя хата з краю” (it’s none of my business).

This too is possible, which is why I described this Black and White view of the world as a juvenile fantasy narrative. Indeed, there is true Good, and true Evil, I do not believe in moral relativism, but humans tend to fall anywhere in between on that scale, and its shocking how much evil can come from the most simple of sources. We should not be so quick to pass judgments on people, moreover, powers like NATO should not run around the world accusing others of war crimes when they commit and tolerate them at will.

Sometimes Good people can do bad things, which doesn’t make them as a whole evil, and sometimes evil people can do good things, which does not totally justify them.

Dostoyevsky, in fact, said, that the majority of evil people are in fact far more naive than we realize.

It would be naive to assume the West can simply step into a conflict in an ancient country with a little regime change, and all will be well.

Russian people experienced this first hand, when a foreign ideology was imported into the Motherland, and the divinely anointed Russian Czar was murdered by evil men, bringing the curse of regicide, and a sea of blood upon long-suffering Russia.

The word Bolshevik even comes from the word “majority”, and while it can not be said that the majority of Russians support the Bolsheviks, they still seized power and ruled Russia none the less. It was also during the Soviet era, when the people rose together and saved the world from Nazism, and slowly, the Russian Faith bloomed again, so it’s hard to look at these events in human history with the simplistic frame the West applies to everything.

It is this simplistic style of framing the West uses which is designed to gain that all to precious public support from otherwise ignorant and apathetic citizens.

While Americans may not understand too well the cultures of the world in their complexity, the reality is, these situations are truly ancient issues which must be solved by the people living in the country in question, with the possible help of close neighbors – like Russia.

Why does Assad remain in power? Simple, because its the choice of the people, and honestly, unless you are a Syrian citizen, that is all you need to know. The internal politics of Syria remain an issue for the Syrian people, not for western foreigners to judge what will be a good future path for them.

Ultimately, only the Syrian people can truly create a lasting future for Syria, because whatever the future in Syria will be, and whatever or whoever will go, come, or stay, they must live with that future.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

Denmark As A Model For American Socialists?

In Denmark, everyone pays at least the 25% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. Income tax rates are high.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Lars Hedegard via The Gatestone Institute:


Here are some facts to consider before American “democratic socialists” look to Denmark for guidance, as Senator Bernie Sanders did during the 2016 presidential campaign.

First of all, Danes actually pay for their brand of socialism through heavy taxation. In Denmark, everyone pays at least the 25% value-added tax (VAT) on all purchases. Income tax rates are high. If you receive public support and are of working age and healthy enough to work, the state will require that you look for a job or it will force a job on you.

The willingness of all the Danes to pay high taxes is predicated on the country’s high degree of homogeneity and level of citizens’ trust in each other, what sociologists call “social capital.” By and large, Danes do not mind paying into the welfare state because they know that the money will go to other Danes like themselves, who share their values and because they can easily imagine themselves to be in need of help — as most of them, from time to time, will be.

Whenever politicians propose tax cuts, they are met with vehement opposition: So, you want to cut taxes? What part of the welfare state are you willing to amputate? And that ends the debate.

Danes, in contrast to American socialists gaining ground in the Democratic Party, are increasingly aware that the welfare state cannot be sustained in conditions of open immigration. A political party agitating for “no borders” could never win a Danish election. Danes do not suffer from historical guilt: they have not attacked any other country for more than two centuries and have never committed a genocide.

Moreover, there is an even deeper truth to ponder: Denmark is not really socialist but constitutes a sui generis fusion of free-market capitalism and some socialist elements. Denmark has no minimum wage mandated by law. Wages, benefits and working conditions are determined through negotiations between employers and trade unions. 67% of Danish wage-earners are members of a union, compared to 19% in Germany and 8% in France. Strikes and lockouts are common, and the government will usually stay out of labor conflicts unless the parties are unable to agree.

It is uncomplicated for enterprises to fire workers, which gives them great flexibility to adapt to shifting market conditions. To alleviate the pain, the state has in place a number of arrangements such as generous unemployment benefits and programs to retrain and upgrade redundant workers.

Danish companies must make ends meet or perish. They generally will not get handouts from the government.

Denmark is more free-market oriented than the US. According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2018 Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark is number 12, ahead of the United States (number 18). Venezuela is at the bottom, one place ahead of number 180, North Korea.

Mads Lundby Hansen, chief economist of Denmark’s respected pro-free-market think tank CEPOS, comments:

“Very high taxes and the vast public sector clearly detract in the capitalism index and reduce economic freedom. But Denmark compensates by protecting property rights, by low corruption, relatively little regulation of private enterprise, open foreign trade, healthy public finances and more. This high degree of economic freedom is among the reasons for Denmark’s relatively high affluence.”
Trish Regan recently claimed on Fox Business that Danes pay a “federal tax rate” of 56% on their income. This is misleading. The 55.8% is the levied on the marginaltax for the top income bracket, only on the part of their income above DKK 498,900 ($76,500). Any income under DKK 498,900 is taxed at lower rates. And the 55.8% marginal rate does not represent a “federal” or “national” rate. It represents the total of all taxes on income: national tax, regional tax, municipal tax and labor market tax. It does not, however, include Denmark’s 25% value-added tax (VAT), paid on all purchases.

Regan also claimed that Danes pay a 180% tax on cars. While it is true that there was once a maximum tax of 180% on care in Denmark, the vehicle tax rates have been lowered in recent years. Today, the first DKK 185,100 ($28,400) of the price of a gas- or diesel-powered car is taxed at 85%, and if the car’s price is above DKK 185,100, the remaining amount is taxed at 150% — which is of course bad enough.

Denmark’s total tax burden amounts to 45.9% of GDP, the highest of all countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

As pointed out in the Fox Business segment, all education for Danes is tuition-free, all the way through to a Ph.D. Not only that; the state will, within certain time constraints, pay students to study. For students at university level no longer living with their parents, the monthly cash grant comes to almost $1,000 per month. No fewer than 325,000 students out of a total population of 5.6 million benefit from this generous arrangement setting the state back to the tune of DKK 20.9 billion or 1% of GDP (latest 2018 figures just in and supplied by Mads Lundby Hansen). Denmark even pays student support to 20,000 foreign students.

Attempts by fiscal conservatives to cut down on payments to students have been successfully resisted by the vociferous and influential student organizations; at present it would appear impossible to muster anything like a parliamentary majority to limit the student handouts.

Fox Business is right that a great many Danes are on public transfer payments. Government figures from 2017 indicate that 712,300 Danes of working age (16-64) — not including recipients of student benefits — get public financial support. But Regan’s claim that most Danes do not work is ludicrous. According to Statistics Denmark, 69.9% of Danes aged 16-64 are active in the labor market.

How can Denmark pay for its comprehensive welfare state, which includes free medical care regardless of the severity of your condition? Regan claims that Denmark is “heavily in debt.” Not so. As it turns out, Denmark is among the least indebted countries in the world, even when compared to other Western countries. The Danish government’s gross debt stands at 35.9% of GDP. Compare that to, e.g., The United Kingdom (86.3 %), The United States (108%), Belgium (101%), Canada (86.6%), France (96.3%), Germany (59.8%), The Netherlands (53.5%), Italy (129.7%), Spain (96.7%) and even Switzerland (41.9%).

Comparing Denmark to the US, Madsen notes that the latter has a problem with fiscal sustainability that may necessitate tax increases. Denmark enjoys what he labels fiscal “oversustainability” (“overholdbarhed”).

At a time when socialism appears to be popular among certain sections of the American population, its proponents would do well not to cite Denmark as a model. The Danish fusion of free-market capitalism and a comprehensive welfare state has worked because Denmark is a small country with a very homogeneous population. This economic and social model rests on more than 150 years of political, social and economic compromises between peasants and landowners, business-owners and workers, and right- and left-leaning political parties. This has led to a measure of social and political stability that would be hard to emulate in much larger and more diverse counties such as the United States.


Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Speech Society, is based in Denmark.

Continue Reading

Latest

Ron Paul: Protectionism Abroad and Socialism at Home

One of the most insidious ways politicians expand government is by creating new programs to “solve” problems created by politicians.

Ron Paul

Published

on

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity:


One of the most insidious ways politicians expand government is by creating new programs to “solve” problems created by politicians. For example, government interference in health care increased health care costs, making it difficult or even impossible for many to obtain affordable, quality care. The effects of these prior interventions were used to justify Obamacare.

Now, the failures of Obamacare are being used to justify further government intervention in health care. This does not just include the renewed push for socialized medicine. It also includes supporting new laws mandating price transparency. The lack of transparency in health care pricing is a direct result of government policies encouraging overreliance on third-party payers.

This phenomenon is also observed in foreign policy. American military interventions result in blowback that is used to justify more military intervention. The result is an ever-expanding warfare state and curtailments on our liberty in the name of security.

Another example of this is related to the reaction to President Trump’s tariffs. Many of America’s leading trading partners have imposed “retaliatory” tariffs on US goods. Many of these tariffs target agriculture exports. These tariffs could be devastating for American farmers, since exports compose as much as 20 percent of the average farmer’s income.

President Trump has responded to the hardships imposed on farmers by these retaliatory tariffs with a 12 billion dollars farm bailout program. The program has three elements: direct payments to farmers, use of federal funds to buy surplus crops and distribute them to food banks and nutrition programs, and a new federal effort to promote American agriculture overseas.

This program will not fix the problems caused by Tramp’s tariffs. For one thing, the payments are unlikely to equal the money farmers will lose from this trade war. Also, government marketing programs benefit large agribusiness but do nothing to help small farmers. In fact, by giving another advantage to large agribusiness, the program may make it more difficult for small farmers to compete in the global marketplace.

Distributing surplus food to programs serving the needy may seem like a worthwhile use of government funds. However, the federal government has neither constitutional nor moral authority to use money taken by force from taxpayers for charitable purposes. Government-funded welfare programs also crowd out much more effective and compassionate private efforts. Of course, if government regulations such as the minimum wage and occupational licensing did not destroy job opportunities, government farm programs did not increase food prices, and the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies did not continuously erode purchasing power, the demand for food aid would be much less. By increasing spending and debt, the agriculture bailout will do much more to create poverty than to help the needy.

Agriculture is hardly the only industry suffering from the new trade war. Industries — such as automobile manufacturing — that depend on imports for affordable materials are suffering along with American exporters. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (who supports tariffs) has called for bailouts of industries negatively impacted by tariffs. He is likely to be joined in his advocacy by crony capitalists seeking another government handout.

More bailouts will only add to the trade war’s economic damage by increasing government spending and hastening the welfare–warfare state’s collapse and the rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Instead of trying to fix tariffs-caused damage through more corporate welfare, President Trump and Congress should pursue a policy of free markets and free trade for all and bailouts for none.

Continue Reading

Latest

In Monsters We Trust: US Mainstream Media No Friend of the American People

Over 300 US newspapers ran editorials on the same day denouncing Trump, an event in itself that points to some high degree of collusion and groupthink.

Published

on

Authored by Robert Bridge via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


Over the course of his turbulent presidency, Donald Trump has accused various media companies, with special attention reserved for CNN, as being purveyors of ‘fake news.’ In one early-morning Tweet last year, he slammed the “FAKE NEWS media” as the “enemy of the people.”

This week, over 300 US newspapers ran editorials on the same day – an event in itself that points to some high degree of collusion and groupthink – denouncing Trump’s insensitive portrayal of them, as if the notion that journalists were not in the same sleaze league as lawyers, politicians and professional con artists never crossed anyone’s mind before. Even the peace-loving Mahatma Gandhi recommended “equality for everyone except reporters and photographers.”

But is the MSM really an “enemy of the people?”

First, it cannot be denied that the US media, taken in all its wholesomeness, has been overwhelmingly consistent in its ‘style’ of reporting on Donald Trump, the 45th POTUS. And by consistent I mean unprecedentedly critical, misleading and outright aggressive in its guerilla coverage of him. If one is not convinced by the gloom-and-doom Trump stories featured daily in the Yahoo News feed, then a study by the Media Research Center (MRC) should do the job. From January 1 through April 30, evening news coverage of the US leader – courtesy of ABC, CBS and NBC – were 90 percent negative, which is pretty much the same incredible average revealed by MRC one year earlier.

The study looked at every one of the 1,065 network evening news stories about Trump and his administration during the first four months of 2018. Total negative news time devoted to Trump: 1,774 minutes, or about one-third of all evening news airtime. That’s pretty much the definition of a circle jerk.

“Nearly two-fifths (39%) of the TV coverage we examined focused on Trump scandals and controversies, while 45 percent was devoted to various policy issues,” MRC wrote in its report.

Meanwhile, the farcical Russia ‘collusion’ story was consistently the main grabber — clocking in at 321 minutes, or nearly one-fifth of all Trump coverage. Of the 598 statements MRC calculated about Trump’s personal scandals, virtually all of them (579, or 97%) came out of the media wash cycle tarred and feathered.

If this represents an orchestrated attack on the Commander-in-Chief, and in light of those numbers it would be difficult to argue it isn’t, the strategy appears to be falling flat. Despite, or precisely because of, the avalanche of negative media coverage, Trump’s popularity rating smashed the 50 percent ceiling in early August and continues to remain high.

In Monsters We Trust

Although it can be safely stated that the MSM is an entrenched and relentless enemy of Donald Trump, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s an “enemy of the American people,” as Trump argues it is. Let’s be a bit more diplomatic and say it isn’t our friend.

One yard stick for proving the claim is to consider the steadily mounting concentration of media holdings. In 1983, 90 percent of US media were controlled by 50 companies; today, 90 percent is controlled by the Big Six (AT&TComcastThe Walt Disney Company21st Century FoxCBS and Viacom control the spoken and printed word from sea to shining sea).Although many people are aware of the monopolistic tendencies of the US mainstream media, it’s important to understand the level of concentration. It means the vast majority of everything you see and hear on any electronic device or printed publication is ‘democratically’ controlled by six average white guys and their shareholders.

However, keeping track of who owns what these days is practically impossible since the dozens of subsidiary companies that fall under each main company are themselves fiefdoms, each with their own separate holdings. In fact, the already short ‘Big Six’ list is already dated, since National Amusements, Inc. has gobbled up both Viacom and CBS, while 21st Century Fox merged with Disney this year. As for the 350 US newspapers that penned tortured editorials decrying Trump’s critical opinion of them, many of those ‘local’ publications get their marching orders from either the Hearst Communications or the Gannett Company on the East Coast.

Now, with this sort of massive power and influence lying around like dynamite, it stands to reason, or unreason, that the corporate and political worlds will succumb to the law of attraction and gravitation, forging powerful and impregnable relationships. It’s no secret that the politicians, our so-called ‘public servants,’ are mostly in the game to make a fast buck, while the corporations, desperate for ‘democratic representation’ to control regulation and market share, have an inexhaustible source of funds to secure it. Naturally, this oligarchical system precludes any sort of democratic participation from the average person on the street, who thinks just because he remembers to yank a lever once every several years he is somehow invested in the multibillion-dollar franchise.

As far as media corporations being ‘private enterprises’ and therefore free to demolish the freedom of speech (even censoring major media players, like Infowars, simply because they whistle to a different political tune), that is quickly becoming revealed as nothing more than corporate cover for state-sponsored machinations.

“In a corporatist system of government, wherein there is no meaningful separation between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship,” writes Caitlin Johnstone. “Because legalized bribery in the form of corporate lobbying and campaign donations has given wealthy Americans the ability to control the US government’s policy and behavior while ordinary Americans have no effective influence whatsoever, the US unquestionably has a corporatist system of government.”

Meanwhile, it cannot be denied, from the perspective of an impartial observer, that the mainstream media is nearly always positioned to promote the government narrative on any number of significant issues. From the media’s unanimous and uncritical clamoring that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 (even the FBI has admitted it has no “hard evidence” that bin Laden carried out the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon), to its gung-ho enthusiasm for the 2003 Iraq War, to the sycophantic cheerleading for a war in Syria, the examples of media toeing the government line are legion. And if US intel is in bed with Hollywood you can be damn sure they’re spending time in the MSM whorehouse as well.

Is it any surprise, then, that public trust in the US media is reaching all-time lows, while news consumers are increasingly looking to alternative news sites – themselves under relentless attack – to get some semblance of the elusive truth, which is the God-given right of any man? Truth is our due, and we should demand nothing less.

As Thomas Paine reminded the world in the face of a different foe: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending