Neil Clark: Majority of Syrians are 'non-people' for the West

Above you can watch me on Russia Today discussing the west's dismissive reaction to Sunday’s Syrian constitutional referendum. More on this story- and what those great 'democrats' at the EU have been up to, here.

Syrians vote for democracy and western leaders are unhappy

Syria’s referendum on a new democratic constitution saw a turnout of 57% and out of those who voted 89% voted in favour of the new constitution.

The vote is a historic one, for as Russia Today reports : “it puts an end to five decades of one-party rule"

And what’s been the reaction of western leaders- so keen to trumpet their support for democracy-  to this great move forward for democracy in Syria?

It’s ’a cynical ploy’ says Hillary the Hawk Clinton.

 It’s  a ‘sham’ says Guido Westerwelle, German Foreign Minister.

And the oh-so democratic EU responds to this very positive move by imposing even tougher sanctions on Damascus.

As I've said all along, the very last thing the west wants in Syria is democracy. All they are interested in is toppling President Assad and installing a new puppet government in Damascus which will change the country's foreign policy.

Syrians prepare to vote on new constitution

RT reports:

War-torn Syria is gearing up for an unprecedented referendum on a new draft constitution that would put an end to five decades of single-party rule. But the opposition is calling on the population to boycott the vote, which is set for Sunday.



One of the main changes is Article 8, which actually ends over 50 years of single-party rule in Syria. It proclaims that political system in Syria is based on pluralism and multiparty system is permitted.


Now you might have thought that the western powers who shout so loudly about their support for ‘democracy’ across the globe would be welcoming these proposed changes and urging the Syrian opposition to support the referendum. Instead, they’ve either denounced President Assad’s proposed constitutional changes, or simply ignored them. The reality is that the US and its allies don’t want a pluralist, democratic, multiparty political system in Syria to emerge. As I highlighted here, all they're interested in ‘regime change’ and helping to instal a pro-western puppet government, which will break with Iran and change the country’s foreign policy.

Peter Oborne on the western/al-Qaeda alliance in Syria

So, it’s official. Al-Qaeda is acknowledged as an ally of Britain and America in our desire to overturn the Syrian government.



Think about it. Ten years ago, in the wake of the destruction of the Twin Towers, we invaded Afghanistan to eliminate al-Qaeda. Now the world’s most notorious terror organisation wants to join a new “coalition of the willing” in Syria (not just al-Qaeda: yesterday the Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir staged a march through west London in support of their Syrian brothers and the establishment of the Khilafah state).

You can read the whole of Peter Oborne’s brilliant piece on the west’s allies here.

The only point I’d take issue with in Peter’s piece is his line that:

This may be the most profound turnaround in global politics since the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 converted Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany from bitter enemies into allies –

For, as I’ve said here and here, the west and al-Qaeda being on the same side is really nothing new.

Secret Swiss bank accounts are no longer an option

This piece of mine appears in the Daily Express.

LET me tell you about the very rich.



They are different from you and me, the American novelist F Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. One way in which the very rich are different from you and me is their use of tax havens.


While ordinary members of the public have little opportunity to escape paying taxes, the very rich have the possibility of opting out of the system by transferring their money to secret bank accounts in countries where their money is subject to little or no tax. Think that’s a tad unfair? Well, so too does the US President Barack Obama and he’s determined to do something about it.

You can read the full article here.

Neil Clark: “The USA and al-Qaida are often on the same side”

Above you can watch an interview with me on Russia Today on why the news that the terrorist group al-Qaida is supporting the Syrian uprising is unlikely to lead to a change of mind by the US and its allies.
 
More here.

Al- Qaida leader urges support for Syrian uprising

The Guardian reports:

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaida, has called on Muslims around the world to support rebels in Syria who are seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad.



The statement is the most explicit attempt yet by the terrorist group to intervene in the ongoing Syrian conflict.....


At the weekend, US newspapers cited American officials blaming al-Qaida in Iraq, a largely autonomous affiliate of the main group, for two recent bombings in the Syrian capital, Damascus, and a suicide attack in Aleppo on Friday that killed at least 28 people.

Time to read again Professor Peter Dale Scott’s 2011 article from Global Research


.....in Libya in 2011 we see a more complex marriage of convenience between US and al-Qaeda elements: one which repeats a pattern seen in Bosnia in 1992-95, and Kosovo in 1997-98. In those countries America responded to a local conflict in the name of a humanitarian intervention to restrain the side committing atrocities. But in all three cases both sides committed atrocities, and American intervention in fact favored the side allied with al-Qaeda.


And now the latest conflict in which the US (and Britain) is lining up on the same side as Al-Qaida is Syria.



Of course, its no surprise that al-Qaida would want to overthrow a secular regime which governs a


“Middle Eastern country where Christian celebrations are official state holidays and civil servants are allowed to take Sunday morning off to go to church, even though Sunday is a working day.

And “a place where women can smoke and wear make-up and are active in public life.”

But citizens of US and Britain should be asking why on earth are their governments lining up on the same side as the al-Qaida fanatics?
 

 

Why traditional snowy winters warm my heart

It’s been snowing all over England. And across Europe too. It‘s also flipping freezing. Great!

Here’s my 2010 Sunday Express piece on why freezing cold winters warm my heart.

Enjoy the great weather!

UPDATE: It's so cold out there I've just seen one brass monkey frozen to another.

(OK: don't blame me for that, it's a Tony Blackburn joke....)

Britain’s Privatised Railways: The worst in Europe

Who’d have thought it!


Britain’s railways are at the bottom of the league for fares, efficiency and comfort compared with other European countries, according to a union-commissioned study.



The report by think-tank Just Economics said UK rail services were less affordable, less comfortable, slower, more inefficient and more expensive than in other European countries…………..


“In terms of bang for buck, not only does the UK come bottom of the index of outcomes but it also spends a relatively large amount of money to achieve this woeful result. This means that it also comes bottom of the value for money league,” said the report.

More here.


Bravo to the Adam Smith Institute and all others who supported- and continue to support railway privatisation. What a great success it has been!


Sadly- and unbelievably- other countries are following the flawed British model. Has the ASI been out to Pakistan I wonder?

Neo-con Russophobia and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko

Above you can watch me on Russia Today talking about how the 2006 murder of Alexander Litvinenko was used in the neo-con propaganda war against Russia, despite any evidence that the murder was ordered from the Kremlin. More on this story here.

We can of course expect more Russophobia now that Russia (and China) haven’t kowtowed to the The Empire at the UN.

The Lanchester Declaration

Our good friend, the anti-war blogger and writer, David Lindsay, has asked me to post this ‘Lanchester Declaration’, which I am very happy to do.


1. Our common position is one of absolute commitment to the Welfare State, workers’ rights, trade unionism, the co-operative movement and wider mutualism, consumer protection, strong communities, conservation rather than environmentalism, fair taxation, full employment, public ownership, proper local government, and a powerful Parliament.

2. That is fully compatible with a no less absolute commitment to any, all or none of the monarchy, the organic Constitution, national sovereignty, civil liberties, the Union, the Commonwealth, the countryside, traditional structures and methods of education, traditional moral and social values, economic patriotism, balanced migration, a realist foreign policy, an unhysterical approach to climate change, and a base of real property for every household to resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State.

3. Our common position as set out in 1 above requires a truly national party. In the service of that common position, a truly national party would respect and take account of all of the commitments set out in 2 above, though without requiring any of them.

4. A truly national party would be profoundly sensitive to the interests, insights and aspirations of agriculture and manufacturing, small and medium-sized businesses, each and all of the English ceremonial counties, each and all of the Scottish lieutenancy areas, each and all of the Welsh preserved counties, each and all of the traditional Northern Irish counties, each and all of the London Boroughs, and each and all of the Metropolitan Boroughs.

5. A truly national party would be profoundly sensitive to the interests, insights and aspirations of the countryside, local government, the trade unions, mutual enterprises, voluntary organisations, and social and cultural conservatives.

Why Russia must hold firm on Syria at the UN

Above you can watch me on Russia Today on why Russia (and China) should not give into pressure from the US and its allies on Syria- and why, despite shouting the loudest, the US and its chums don’t constitute ‘the international community’.

More on this story here.