Connect with us




The West’s Colonial Mindset Lives on – a Short History of Western Imperial Arrogance

The idea of treating its “partners” as equals is as preposterous as to imagine God sitting down with the Devil at the negotiating table to finally reach a compromise.

The Duran




Submitted by For Sanity in World Affairs:

February 5th, 2019

In designating Venezuelan rebel leader Guaidó as the country’s legitimate president, Western powers, starting with the US, immediately followed by Canada and US allies in Latin America, then by the UK and more recently by the EU parliament, have yet again reaffirmed their privilege to rule over the rest of the world.

A God-given right

For centuries the West has believed in its God-given right – if not duty – to conquer territories on every continent and subjugate the local people to the will and rule of the colonial masters, convinced of their own moral, cultural, intellectual, civilisational superiority.

The Spanish Conquistadores were in no doubt as to their right to kill and pillage their way through the Americas, destroying the ancient civilisations of the so-called New World, for they, as defenders of the Catholic Truth, had been given guardianship by God over these lands populated by heathen savages. English settlers – who later chose to call themselves Americans – completed this religious, moral, civilisational duty in the northern part of the continent, cleansing the land of its inferior inhabitants and false beliefs. Those among the indigenous people who survived were tolerated only once they had fully accepted the pre-eminence of their new masters’ laws, religion and social organisation.

The scientific necessity of Western domination

In the nineteenth century, the British expanded this practice, gaining control of most of Africa and Southern Asia, alongside their French, Dutch, Belgian and Portuguese competitors. Religion was no longer necessary to justify their deeds, since their own civilisation had proved its unquestionable superiority – so they believed – by its achievements in terms of economic success, prosperity, technical progress and scientific knowledge.

The then newly fashionable ideology of liberal capitalism, putting competition at the heart of a modern, healthy society, soon enjoyed the indirect support of Darwinism, which claimed that nature allowed only the fittest to survive. It became quite reasonable to argue that the “inferior” populations of the world, together with their “backward” cultures and societies, would have to submit to the more successful “white race” and Western civilisation, or face being wiped out by the merciless laws of nature and the inevitability of human progress.

A mission to exploit and civilise

From this Western perspective, colonial powers could be thanked for bringing “civilisation” to these backward lands, together with superior institutions, organisational power and culture, as well as the privilege to contribute to the power and wealth of the great, imperial ruler, who knew best how to exploit local natural and human resources. The many wars, massacres and brutal suppression of local rebellions were considered a small, natural price to pay for the indigenous people, not to mention of course the destruction of their potential for autonomous development and nation building.

Another “most civilised” Western nation demands its Empire

The Germans entered the scene of colonial imperialism later than their Western neighbours. But the few colonies they acquired were seized by France and Britain after German defeat in the First World War. However, colonial imperialist philosophy was given a new life in Germany in the form of Nazi ideology. The Nazis believed that to compete with – and surpass – their Western rivals, they needed to conquer an Empire of their own. The British and French had conquered their colonial empires, “white” Americans had gradually conquered their gigantic territory rich in natural resources from the original inhabitants of the continent, making the USA – already at that time – the wealthiest country in the world. However, the Germans knew they could not expect to gain the upper hand in Africa, Asia or the Americas, so they had to look closer to home.

Like the British imperialists, who believed that Britain had a mission to civilise the “backward” regions of the world, the Nazis became convinced it was the destiny of the German people to conquer a vast “living space” (Lebensraum) in the Eastern part of the European continent, which they would transform into the world’s richest and most powerful empire owing to the Germans’ industriousness and superior sense of organisation. A similar view was taken by Italian fascists in relation to other populations of the Mediterranean area and Northern Africa.

Racism as an imperial tool

The British conquests had been facilitated by British imperialist ideology and its assumption that the English race and British civilisation were incommensurably superior to the peoples and cultures of the African and Asian continents.

Now the British imperialists’ German counterparts – the Nazis – had to apply a similar principle to the inhabitants of the territories they coveted. The Slavic people therefore joined the ranks of Jews in being designated as subhumans (Untermenschen); Eastern Slavs (Russians) were described as particularly degenerate, based on the argument that they had intermixed with Asian populations such as Turkic and Mongolian people, widely viewed in the West at that time as racially inferior to Europeans. The Nazis, just like other Western imperialists, viewed it as morally wrong to leave territories with great potential for development in the hands of those who were allegedly not capable of managing them. The Slavs – among others – were consequently destined to submit to and make way for the superior Germans.

The German conquest of the East

Nazi Germany attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941 (Operation Barbarossa) with plans to thoroughly deindustrialise and depopulate the conquered territory, turning it into a rich source of raw materials and agricultural products for the Master Race. To achieve these goals, tens of millions of Soviet people were to be exterminated, starved, driven out towards Siberia and Central Asia, with the remaining forced into submission to their new lords and reduced to servitude. It was a plan for genocide and cultural annihilation on a scale hitherto unknown in recorded human history, by far exceeding not only the tragic losses incurred in the Western colonial rampages through the American, African and Asian continents, but also the Nazis’ better-publicised genocide of the Jewish people. Fortunately, these plans had little time for implementation, as they were thwarted by the heroic resistance of the Soviet people, who paid the heavy price of nearly 30 million lives for the survival of their nation and the defeat of fascist imperialism.

Nazi imperialism – a brand of Western colonialism

Nazi German ideology no doubt contrasted sharply with the liberal democratic ideology of the British Empire or the USA in terms of the countries’ internal political organisation and citizens’ rights. Nazi-German imperialists also clearly surpassed their British and other Western counterparts in the degree of barbarism and cruelty inflicted on the nations who fell victim to their rule, as well as in the systematic nature of extermination policies and atrocities committed. However, the fundamental goals and principles involved in their imperialistic aspirations hardly differed. All Western imperialists – Nazis included – believed it was their right, their destiny, their mission, as leaders of a superior race and a higher form of civilisation, to subject the supposedly inferior, less-developed nations to their absolute domination and exploitation for the benefit of the Empire.

Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable vs Hitler’s Barbarossa

Just like the Nazis with their 1941 surprise attack on the Soviet Union (in violation of the non-aggression deal of 1939), the UK, under the lead of Winston Churchill, did not need the slightest hint of aggression, threat or provocation from its opponents to plan a war aimed at reshaping the world according to the designs of Western imperialists. In early 1945, starting even before the cessation of hostilities, the British leader oversaw the development of a plan, code-named Operation Unthinkable, a large-scale coordinated attack on Soviet forces scheduled to start on July 1st, 1945 and bringing together the British and American armed forces as well as 100,000 remobilised German soldiers. The plan was abandoned only once British experts came to the realisation that the new Western Allies were not capable of militarily defeating Soviet forces in Europe. Therefore, in the eyes of the Western leaders, the agreement they had just reached with the USSR in Yalta in February 1945 could be torn up at any time.

Being “the West” means being right

These representatives of a superior civilisation and society never owed anything to those they chose to consider as racially, culturally or morally inferior. Any deal they reached with their – obviously wicked – opponents could be broken as soon as the self-righteous Westerners felt that the agreement no longer served their interests. Whatever course of action they deemed to be right was always justified, regardless of any agreements signed, promises or commitments made, not to mention their opponents’ perspective, considered as entirely irrelevant and presumably evil. Anything or anybody from outside their cultural and political environment opposing their plans and designs must be evil for the very reason that they oppose the obviously benevolent West.

This also explains, to quote a few contemporary examples, why Western European and US leaders had no qualms about making a commitment to the USSR in 1989-1990 that NATO would “not move one inch to the East”, in exchange for Soviet acceptance that the new, reunited Germany would be part of NATO, and then almost immediately after German reunification, started preparing for the integration of former Eastern Bloc countries into NATO; or why Obama’s US in 2011 would persuade Russia not to veto a UN resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 by assuring that this would not lead to regime change in Libya, with the well-known consequences; or why EU leaders were happy to put their signature to a power-sharing agreement in February 2014 between Ukrainian President Yanukovich and Maidan leaders, only to support the Maidan Coup the very next day, in total breach of the agreement just signed as well as the Ukrainian Constitution.

God does not treat the Devil as an equal

When you act in the name of God, or in today’s language, of “democracy”, “human rights”, “the rule of law”, etc., against those wicked governments who refuse to worship the Holy West, then whatever the means used, your actions will always be justified by the sheer necessity to defend Good against Evil. It is a moral duty of the West to free every nation of the world from governments or political systems that deny their people access to the wonderful paradise they deserve, promised to all those who submit to the holy truth of Western Liberal-Democratic-Globalist ideology.

From the West’s perspective, the idea of treating its “partners” as equals is as preposterous as to imagine God sitting down with the Devil at the negotiating table to finally reach a compromise.

Of course, more pragmatic concerns about Western economic and geopolitical interests are what normally dictates the West’s imperial course of action. And which of the world’s black sheep is next on the target list depends largely on currently favourable circumstances, such as a political or economic crisis in the target country.

Venezuela, whose people supposedly need to be rescued from Maduro’s “criminal and corrupt regime”, is currently feeling the full force of Western imperialism and its everlasting colonial missionary mindset.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Vera GottliebSally Snyder Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sally Snyder
Sally Snyder

As shown in this article, John Bolton’s recent comments on Venezuela have made it very clear that Washington is doomed to repeat its past mistakes in South America:

Nation re-engineering is always about increased profits for Corporate America.

Vera Gottlieb
Vera Gottlieb

And doesn’t the ‘white race’ play a roll too?


The conclusion of Russiagate, Part II – news fatigue across America

The daily barrage of Russiagate news may have been a tool to wear down the American public as the Deep State plays the long game for control.

Seraphim Hanisch



Presently there is a media blitz on across the American news media networks. As was the case with the Russiagate investigation while it was ongoing, the conclusions have merely given rise to a rather unpleasant afterbirth in some ways as all the parties involve pivot their narratives. The conclusion of Russiagate appears to be heavily covered, yet if statistics here at The Duran are any indication, there is a good possibility that the public is absolutely fatigued over this situation.

And, perhaps, folks, that is by design.

Joseph Goebbels had many insights about the use of the media to deliver and enforce propaganda. One of his quotes runs thus:

The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.

and another:

That is of course rather painful for those involved. One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

If there has ever been a narrative that employed these two principles, it is Russiagate.

A staggering amount of attention has been lavished on this nothing-burger issue. Axios reports that an analytics company named Newswhip tallied an astounding 533,074 web articles published about Russia and President Trump and the Mueller investigation (a number which is being driven higher even now, moment by moment, ad nauseam). Newsbusters presently reports that the networks gave 2,284 minutes to the coverage of this issue, a number which seems completely inaccurate because it is much too low (38 hours at present), and we are waiting for a correction on this estimate.

Put it another way: Are you sick of Russiagate? That is because it has dominated the news for over 675 days of nearly wall-to-wall news cycles. The political junkies on both sides are still pretty jazzed up about this story – the Pro-Trump folks rejoicing over the presently ‘cleared’ status, while of course preparing for the upcoming Democrat / Deep State pivot, and the Dems in various levels of stress as they try to figure out exactly how to pivot in such a manner that they do not lose face – or pace – in continuing their efforts to rid their lives of the “Irritant-in-Chief” who now looks like he is in the best position of his entire presidency.

But a lot of people do not care. They are tired.

I hate to say it (and yes, I am speaking personally and directly), but this may be a dangerous fatigue. Here is why:

The barrage of propaganda on this issue was never predicated on any facts. It still isn’t. However, as we noted a few days ago, courtesy of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, at present, 53% of US registered voters believe that the Trump campaign worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

That means 53% of the voting public now believes something that is totally false.

Many of these people are probably simply exhausted from the constant coverage of this allegation as well. So when the news came out Sunday night that there was no evidence of collusion and no conclusive evidence, hence, of obstruction of justice by the Trump Administration – in other words, this whole thing was a nothing burger – will this snap those 53% back into reality?

Probably not. Many of them may well be so worn down that they no longer care. Or worse, they are so worn out that they will continue to believe the things they are told that sustain the lie, despite its being called out as such.

C.S. Lewis wrote about this peculiarity of human nature, in particular in the seventh book of his Chronicles of Narnia. After a prolonged and fierce assault on the sensibilities of the Narnians with the story that Aslan, the Christ figure of this world, was in fact an angry overlord, selling the Narnians themselves into slavery, and selling the whole country out to its enemy, with the final touch being that Aslan and the devilish deity of the enemy nation were in fact one and the same, the Narnians were unable to snap back to reality when it was shown conclusively and clearly that this was in fact not the case.

The fear that was instilled from the use of false narratives persisted and blocked the animals from reality.

Lewis summarized it this way through the thoughts of Tirian, the lead character in this tale:

Tirian had never dreamed that one of the results of an Ape’s setting up as a false Aslan would be to stop people from believing in the real one. He had felt quite sure that the Dwarfs would rally to his side the moment he showed them how they had been deceived. And then next night he would have led them to Stable Hill and shown Puzzle to all the creatures and everyone would have turned against the Ape and, perhaps after a scuffle with the Calormenes, the whole thing would have been over. But now, it seemed, he could count on nothing. How many other Narnians might turn the same way as the Dwarfs?

This is part of the toll this very long propaganda campaign is very likely to take on many Americans. It takes being strongly informed and educated on facts to withstand the withering force of a narrative that never goes away. Indeed, if anything, it takes even more effort now, because the temptation of the pro-Trump side will be to retreat to a set of political talking points that, interestingly enough, validate Robert Mueller’s “integrity” when only a week ago they were attacking this as a false notion.

This is very dangerous, and even though Mr. Trump and his supporters won this battle, if they do not come at this matter in a way that shows education, and not merely the restating of platitudes and talking points that “should be more comfortable, now that we’ve won!”

The cost of Russiagate may be far higher than anyone wants it to be. And yes, speaking personally, I understand the fatigue. I am tired of this issue too. But the temptation to go silent may have already taken a lot of people so far that they will not accept the reality that has just been revealed.

Politics is a very fickle subject. Truth is extremely malleable for many politicians, and that is saying it very nicely. But this issue was not just politics. It was slander with a purpose, and that purpose is unchanged now. In fact things may even be more dangerous for the President – even risking his very life – because if the powers that are working behind the people trying to get rid of President Trump come to realize that they have no political support, they will move to more extreme measures. In fact this may have already been attempted.

We at The Duran reported a few months ago on a very strange but very compelling story that suggested that there was an attempted assassination and coup that was supposed to have taken place on January 17th of this year. It did not happen, but there was a parallel story that noted that the President may have been targeted for assassination already no fewer than twelve times.  Hopefully this is just tinfoil-hat stuff. But we have seen that this effort to be rid of President Trump is fierce and it is extremely well-supported within its group. There is no reason to think that the pressure will lighten now that this battle has been lost.

The stakes are much too high, and even this long investigation may well have been part of the weaponry of the group we sometimes refer to as the “Deep State” in their effort to reacquire power, and in their effort to continue to pursue both a domestic and geopolitical agenda that has so far shown itself to be destructive to both individuals and nations all over the world.

Speculation? Yes. Needless? We hope so. This is a terrible possibility that hopefully no reasonable person wants to consider.

Honestly, folks, we do not know. But we had to put this out there for your consideration.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Parliament Seizes Control Of Brexit From Theresa May




Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Schaeuble, Greece and the lessons learned from a failed GREXIT (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 117.

Alex Christoforou



The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine a recent interview with the Financial Times given by Wolfgang Schäuble, where the former German Finance Minister, who was charged with finding a workable and sustainable solution to the Greek debt crisis, reveals that his plan for Greece to take a 10-year “timeout” from the eurozone (in order to devalue its currency and save its economy) was met with fierce resistance from Brussels hard liners, and Angela Merkel herself.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via FT

“Look where we’re sitting!” says Wolfgang Schäuble, gesturing at the Berlin panorama stretching out beneath us. It is his crisp retort to those who say that Europe is a failure, condemned to a slow demise by its own internal contradictions. “Walk through the Reichstag, the graffiti left by the Red Army soldiers, the images of a destroyed Berlin. Until 1990 the Berlin Wall ran just below where we are now!”

We are in Käfer, a restaurant on the rooftop of the Reichstag. The views are indeed stupendous: Berlin Cathedral and the TV Tower on Alexanderplatz loom through the mist. Both were once in communist East Berlin, cut off from where we are now by the wall. Now they’re landmarks of a single, undivided city. “Without European integration, without this incredible story, we wouldn’t have come close to this point,” he says. “That’s the crazy thing.”

As Angela Merkel’s finance minister from 2009 to 2017, Schäuble was at the heart of efforts to steer the eurozone through a period of unprecedented turbulence. But at home he is most associated with Germany’s postwar political journey, having not only negotiated the 1990 treaty unifying East and West Germany but also campaigned successfully for the capital to move from Bonn.

For a man who has done so much to put Berlin — and the Reichstag — back on the world-historical map, it is hard to imagine a more fitting lunch venue. With its open-plan kitchen and grey formica tables edged in chrome, Käfer has a cool, functional aesthetic that is typical of the city. On the wall hangs a sketch by artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, who famously wrapped the Reichstag in silver fabric in 1995.

The restaurant has one other big advantage: it is easy to reach from Schäuble’s office. Now 76, he has been confined to a wheelchair since he was shot in an assassination attempt in 1990, and mobility is an issue. Aides say he tends to avoid restaurants if he can, especially at lunchtime.

As we take our places, we talk about Schäuble’s old dream — that German reunification would be a harbinger of European unity, a step on the road to a United States of Europe. That seems hopelessly out of reach in these days of Brexit, the gilets jaunes in France, Lega and the Five Star Movement in Italy.

Some blame Schäuble himself for that. He was, after all, the architect of austerity, a fiscal hawk whose policy prescriptions during the euro crisis caused untold hardship for millions of ordinary people, or so his critics say. He became a hate figure, especially in Greece. Posters in Athens in 2015 depicted him with a Hitler moustache below the words: “Wanted — for mass poverty and devastation”.

Schäuble rejects the criticism that austerity caused the rise of populism. “Higher spending doesn’t lead to greater contentment,” he says. The root cause lies in mass immigration, and the insecurities it has unleashed. “What European country doesn’t have this problem?” he asks. “Even Sweden. The poster child of openness and the willingness to help.”

But what of the accusation that he didn’t care enough about the suffering of the southern Europeans? Austerity divided the EU and spawned a real animus against Schäuble. I ask him how that makes him feel now. “Well I’m sad, because I played a part in all of that,” he says, wistfully. “And I think about how we could have done it differently.”

I glance at the menu — simple German classics with a contemporary twist. I’m drawn to the starters, such as Oldenburg duck pâté and the Müritz smoked trout. But true to his somewhat abstemious reputation, Schäuble has no interest in these and zeroes in on the entrées. He chooses Käfer’s signature veal meatballs, a Berlin classic. I go for the Arctic char and pumpkin.

Schäuble switches seamlessly back to the eurozone crisis. The original mistake was in trying to create a common currency without a “common economic, employment and social policy” for all eurozone member states. The fathers of the euro had decided that if they waited for political union to happen first they’d wait forever, he says.

Yet the prospects for greater political union are now worse than they have been in years. “The construction of the EU has proven to be questionable,” he says. “We should have taken the bigger steps towards integration earlier on, and now, because we can’t convince the member states to take them, they are unachievable.”

Greece was a particularly thorny problem. It should never have been admitted to the euro club in the first place, Schäuble says. But when its debt crisis first blew up, it should have taken a 10-year “timeout” from the eurozone — an idea he first floated with Giorgos Papakonstantinou, his Greek counterpart between 2009 and 2011. “I told him you need to be able to devalue your currency, you’re not competitive,” he says. The reforms required to repair the Greek economy were going to be “hard to achieve in a democracy”. “That’s why you need to leave the euro for a certain period. But everyone said there was no chance of that.”

The idea didn’t go away, though. Schäuble pushed for a temporary “Grexit” in 2015, during another round of the debt crisis. But Merkel and the other EU heads of government nixed the idea. He now reveals he thought about resigning over the issue. “On the morning the decision was made, [Merkel] said to me: ‘You’ll carry on?’ . . . But that was one of the instances where we were very close [to my stepping down].”

It is an extraordinary revelation, one that highlights just how rocky his relationship with Merkel has been over the years. Schäuble has been at her side from the start, an éminence grise who has helped to resolve many of the periodic crises of her 13 years as chancellor. But it was never plain sailing.

“There were a few really bad conflicts where she knew too that we were on the edge and I would have gone,” he says. “I always had to weigh up whether to go along with things, even though I knew it was the wrong thing to do, as was the case with Greece, or whether I should go.” But his sense of duty prevailed. “We didn’t always agree — but I was always loyal.”

That might have been the case when he was a serving minister, but since becoming speaker of parliament in late 2017 he has increasingly distanced himself from Merkel. Last year, when she announced she would not seek re-election as leader of the Christian Democratic Union, the party that has governed Germany for 50 of the past 70 years, Schäuble openly backed a candidate described by the Berlin press as the “anti-Merkel”. Friedrich Merz, a millionaire corporate lawyer who is the chairman of BlackRock Germany, had once led the CDU’s parliamentary group but lost out to Merkel in a power struggle in 2002, quitting politics a few years later. He has long been seen as one of the chancellor’s fiercest conservative critics — and is a good friend of Schäuble’s.

Ultimately, in a nail-biting election last December, Merkel’s favoured candidate, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, narrowly beat Merz. The woman universally known as “AKK” is in pole position to succeed Merkel as chancellor when her fourth and final term ends in 2021.

I ask Schäuble if it’s true that he had once again waged a battle against Merkel and once again lost. “I never went to war against Ms Merkel,” he says. “Everybody says that if I’m for Merz then I’m against Merkel. Why is that so? That’s nonsense.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


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

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

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


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter