The globalists who supported Assad's fall are the bad guys as it'll only spell more death and suffering.
This is something leftists especially don't understand: Democracy DOESN'T work everywhere. In quite a lot of places, having a dictator in charge ensures the peace because they act as the central pillar of power keeping different fractions in line.
With Assad gone they'll quickly try to secure power for each of their seperate groups, devolve into infighting and probably have jihadies executing people openly as a power play. The only good thing is he's still alive so whether it's Iran or even the Saudis, they have a legitimate claim to take back the country if it gets too bad that people openly support his return.
The Regime wants Democracy™ everywhere so it can install puppets with a thin veneer of legitimacy. It has nothing to do with the Will of the People™ or some other happy humanist horseshit.
The precise percentage may be off, but an insane percentage of the population of the country of Georgia is employed by Western-funded "NGOs". 3% IIRC. It's wild.
And then they tried to coup the government because they tried to enact a law like the US FARA, to require these NGOs to disclose from whom they get their funding. We cannot have people finding out what we're doing! Who do they think they are, a sovereign, independent country?
'Democracy' is fake. It's just a legitimizing fig-leaf like the "divine right of kings" was in the early modern era.
Just look at what happened last week in Romania. When their preferred candidate wasn't going to win they just cancelled the election and said Russia did it. Its such a joke.
This is something leftists especially don't understand: Democracy DOESN'T work everywhere.
Does it work anywhere? I used to think it can work in a small ethnically homogenous population, but after the martyrdom of St. Floyd and COVID-19 and decades of refugee worship I saw that no population is immune from pressure to collectively commit national suicide as long as it saves one life and let's us signal that we aren't heckin racist nazis, and that's assuming elections are legitimate which as we saw recently they often aren't. Blame the media or Israel or globalists or whomever for tricking us but that's the situation we live in so in this context democracy can't work. All it does is give fake legitimacy to the regime in charge.
I would argue that democracy doesn't work anywhere for one simple reason: democracy produces politicians, not leaders. These politicians are not accountable to anyone and what inevitably happens is that the democratic country turns into a mafia state that's in bed with corporate and globalist interests.
A dictator or king is far more likely to respect their country's traditions and sovereignty than an elected politician who is only ever interested in political theater while lining their own pockets.
Sure, you could argue that you risk getting a tyrant in autocratic systems. But is avoiding the risk of tyrants worth the risk of almost never getting a true leader that cares for their country?
Even then, it's a lot easier to deal with one tyrant than an entire class of politicians and the bureaucrats under them, and you can mitigate the risk of tyranny by using a monarchical system with family succession. The son of the king can be raised to rule the country wisely, you can't do that with a politician.
And like you said, the public is gullible and unwilling to make any hard decisions or sacrifices most of the time. Closing the border is a hard decision but one that must be made and yet we aren't any closer to it being done because a significant number of Westerners object, despite the obvious damage being done by uncontrolled immigration.
Sure, you could argue that you risk getting a tyrant in autocratic systems. But is avoiding the risk of tyrants worth the risk of almost never getting a true leader that cares for their country?
To quote Mel Gibson's character from The Patriot "Why would I trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for 2000 tyrants one mile away?"
To quote Mel Gibson's character from The Patriot "Why would I trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for 2000 tyrants one mile away?"
Exactly, that's another good point. Let's say you live in a corrupt monarchy where the king keeps using the treasury as his personal debit card. After a certain point he's going to reach a limit where he simply has no more luxuries that he can buy, and things don't deteriorate further.
2000 tyrants are capable of far more evil and corruption than 1 tyrant ever would by himself while being much harder to deal with.
'Democracy' doesn't work because it's not democracy: it's a fig leaf on elite, oligarchical rule. Reading your comment between the lines, it seems that you agree without explicitly stating it.
Question: why is 'dictator' Putin more respectful of his people's wishes than the (lol) democratic European countries?
Democracy in the long term will always devolve into what we have now. It cannot work in a modern context, perhaps in ancient times but even then it has failed and been replaced by other, more autocratic systems.
The problem is simple, how do you keep the oligarhical elites from gaining power and influence over democracy? The answer is that you can't. Simple things like campaign donations pave the way for a lot of oligarhical control. And no, banning things like campaign donations and lobbying is not only impractical, but such bans can be rescinded when the winds change.
Autocrats like Putin are more respectful of their countrymen's wishes due to a simple factor: psychological ownership.
To use an analogy, a house given to a bunch of illegals for free will be trashed while a different house purchased by a hardworking family will be well taken care of for generations. Why is this? The illegals do not see the house as something that they own and are invested in. Even if they own it legally, they do not see it that way in their minds.
The same applies to the democracies vs. autocracies. An autocrat sees the country as "theirs". It's something that they "own" and must take responsibility and care for, just like they would for their house.
A democratic politician on the other hand makes their promises, gets elected and then coasts along while trying to gather as much money as possible. They do not actually feel any responsibility towards their country or fellow countrymen, while at the same time facing no accountability whatsoever.
Western democratic countries represent the globalists and moneyed elites, not the people. That's why we keep seeing all these unpopular policies being forced through no matter which party happens to be in charge today.
Exactly why "conspiracy theorist" was popularized by the CIA to try to destroy the credibility of anyone who knew what was going on re: the Vietnam war and JFK's assassination. What war has US been involved in since that didn't include substantial efforts to manufacturer consent among the electorate?
It seems though Assad brought this upon himself and might not even wanted to stay in power. According to Iranian sources (take it with a big grain of salt) he refused to open another front in the Golan heights (despite Israel regularly bombing Syria), tried to get ever more friendly with Saudi Arabia and pretty much refused/did not ask for any help from Iran. And now the Republic of Syria is no more and Israel swoops in and takes territory while Syria falls into chaos.
So the question is if Assad was part of this plot or if he was just that incompetent that he trusted the wrong people and did not see any of this coming.
That's IF it's believed that siding with Iran more WOULD'VE saved his regime.
Iran and it's proxies have been taking a battering from Israel lately and Russia is drained from their war. Trying to be friendly with the Saudis sounds like trying to save his skin more than anything knowing that Iran doesn't have the cheques that don't bounce to back up it's rhetoric.
Iran and it's proxies have been taking a battering from Israel lately and Russia is drained from their war.
Everyone is drained. The US is drained from supplying Ukraine and Israel. Israel is drained by Gaza, Hezbollah and Yemen.
That's IF it's believed that siding with Iran more WOULD'VE saved his regime.
The way things went nothing Iran or Russia could've done would've saved his regime. That's why I'm asking the question whether or not Assad was in on it or if he was just that grossly incompetent.
Who takes control of Syria after the dust settles remains to be seen. It's going to be a massive shitshow between all the different factions. It's not like the entire thing is a straight Iran vs Israel or US vs Russia proxy conflict.
The globalists who supported Assad's fall are the bad guys as it'll only spell more death and suffering.
This is something leftists especially don't understand: Democracy DOESN'T work everywhere. In quite a lot of places, having a dictator in charge ensures the peace because they act as the central pillar of power keeping different fractions in line.
With Assad gone they'll quickly try to secure power for each of their seperate groups, devolve into infighting and probably have jihadies executing people openly as a power play. The only good thing is he's still alive so whether it's Iran or even the Saudis, they have a legitimate claim to take back the country if it gets too bad that people openly support his return.
The Regime wants Democracy™ everywhere so it can install puppets with a thin veneer of legitimacy. It has nothing to do with the Will of the People™ or some other happy humanist horseshit.
"Democracy" is always the thin veneer that gets the small folk to accept the regime at home. The machine can then be controlled from abroad.
The precise percentage may be off, but an insane percentage of the population of the country of Georgia is employed by Western-funded "NGOs". 3% IIRC. It's wild.
And then they tried to coup the government because they tried to enact a law like the US FARA, to require these NGOs to disclose from whom they get their funding. We cannot have people finding out what we're doing! Who do they think they are, a sovereign, independent country?
'Democracy' is fake. It's just a legitimizing fig-leaf like the "divine right of kings" was in the early modern era.
Well the probably don't have a lot of other jobs.
Just look at what happened last week in Romania. When their preferred candidate wasn't going to win they just cancelled the election and said Russia did it. Its such a joke.
Does it work anywhere? I used to think it can work in a small ethnically homogenous population, but after the martyrdom of St. Floyd and COVID-19 and decades of refugee worship I saw that no population is immune from pressure to collectively commit national suicide as long as it saves one life and let's us signal that we aren't heckin racist nazis, and that's assuming elections are legitimate which as we saw recently they often aren't. Blame the media or Israel or globalists or whomever for tricking us but that's the situation we live in so in this context democracy can't work. All it does is give fake legitimacy to the regime in charge.
I would argue that democracy doesn't work anywhere for one simple reason: democracy produces politicians, not leaders. These politicians are not accountable to anyone and what inevitably happens is that the democratic country turns into a mafia state that's in bed with corporate and globalist interests.
A dictator or king is far more likely to respect their country's traditions and sovereignty than an elected politician who is only ever interested in political theater while lining their own pockets.
Sure, you could argue that you risk getting a tyrant in autocratic systems. But is avoiding the risk of tyrants worth the risk of almost never getting a true leader that cares for their country?
Even then, it's a lot easier to deal with one tyrant than an entire class of politicians and the bureaucrats under them, and you can mitigate the risk of tyranny by using a monarchical system with family succession. The son of the king can be raised to rule the country wisely, you can't do that with a politician.
And like you said, the public is gullible and unwilling to make any hard decisions or sacrifices most of the time. Closing the border is a hard decision but one that must be made and yet we aren't any closer to it being done because a significant number of Westerners object, despite the obvious damage being done by uncontrolled immigration.
To quote Mel Gibson's character from The Patriot "Why would I trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for 2000 tyrants one mile away?"
Exactly, that's another good point. Let's say you live in a corrupt monarchy where the king keeps using the treasury as his personal debit card. After a certain point he's going to reach a limit where he simply has no more luxuries that he can buy, and things don't deteriorate further.
2000 tyrants are capable of far more evil and corruption than 1 tyrant ever would by himself while being much harder to deal with.
'Democracy' doesn't work because it's not democracy: it's a fig leaf on elite, oligarchical rule. Reading your comment between the lines, it seems that you agree without explicitly stating it.
Question: why is 'dictator' Putin more respectful of his people's wishes than the (lol) democratic European countries?
Democracy in the long term will always devolve into what we have now. It cannot work in a modern context, perhaps in ancient times but even then it has failed and been replaced by other, more autocratic systems.
The problem is simple, how do you keep the oligarhical elites from gaining power and influence over democracy? The answer is that you can't. Simple things like campaign donations pave the way for a lot of oligarhical control. And no, banning things like campaign donations and lobbying is not only impractical, but such bans can be rescinded when the winds change.
Autocrats like Putin are more respectful of their countrymen's wishes due to a simple factor: psychological ownership.
To use an analogy, a house given to a bunch of illegals for free will be trashed while a different house purchased by a hardworking family will be well taken care of for generations. Why is this? The illegals do not see the house as something that they own and are invested in. Even if they own it legally, they do not see it that way in their minds.
The same applies to the democracies vs. autocracies. An autocrat sees the country as "theirs". It's something that they "own" and must take responsibility and care for, just like they would for their house.
A democratic politician on the other hand makes their promises, gets elected and then coasts along while trying to gather as much money as possible. They do not actually feel any responsibility towards their country or fellow countrymen, while at the same time facing no accountability whatsoever.
Western democratic countries represent the globalists and moneyed elites, not the people. That's why we keep seeing all these unpopular policies being forced through no matter which party happens to be in charge today.
The illusion of choice keeps people pacified.
If democracy requires the consent of the governed, then all you need to do is manufacture consent.
Exactly why "conspiracy theorist" was popularized by the CIA to try to destroy the credibility of anyone who knew what was going on re: the Vietnam war and JFK's assassination. What war has US been involved in since that didn't include substantial efforts to manufacturer consent among the electorate?
This is almost a reasonable comment, the main problems are
the US federal government isn't functioning as it's designed to but is way out of whack
US was created specifically to NOT be a democracy, so speaking in those terms gives leftards WAY too much power to begin with.
Never let the left control the language! (SEE: 1984)
Democracy "works" everywhere
The purpose of a system is what it does.
It seems though Assad brought this upon himself and might not even wanted to stay in power. According to Iranian sources (take it with a big grain of salt) he refused to open another front in the Golan heights (despite Israel regularly bombing Syria), tried to get ever more friendly with Saudi Arabia and pretty much refused/did not ask for any help from Iran. And now the Republic of Syria is no more and Israel swoops in and takes territory while Syria falls into chaos.
So the question is if Assad was part of this plot or if he was just that incompetent that he trusted the wrong people and did not see any of this coming.
This is so uninformed as to qualify as disinformation, just like the OP tweet.
The reality is FAR more complex, just like basically everything in the middle east.
Count the recent examples of a tyrant being overthrown and how that affects peace and stability afterwards.
That's IF it's believed that siding with Iran more WOULD'VE saved his regime.
Iran and it's proxies have been taking a battering from Israel lately and Russia is drained from their war. Trying to be friendly with the Saudis sounds like trying to save his skin more than anything knowing that Iran doesn't have the cheques that don't bounce to back up it's rhetoric.
Everyone is drained. The US is drained from supplying Ukraine and Israel. Israel is drained by Gaza, Hezbollah and Yemen.
The way things went nothing Iran or Russia could've done would've saved his regime. That's why I'm asking the question whether or not Assad was in on it or if he was just that grossly incompetent.
Who takes control of Syria after the dust settles remains to be seen. It's going to be a massive shitshow between all the different factions. It's not like the entire thing is a straight Iran vs Israel or US vs Russia proxy conflict.
The US can just print $200 billion like that and European leaders, morons that they are, keep their worthless paper as a reserve currency.
Is this stupidity, or is this treason?