Who Elected Trump? Not Americans


The newer America that elected Obama did not elect Trump.

You know who did?

The Totalitarian International. The Totalintern.

A unified force between all the fringed sides & angles of the political spectrum; left and right, up and down, diagonal, etc.

Putin. Erdogan. Maduro. Assad. Sisi. MBS. Boris Johnson. Le Pen. Aliyev. Kim Jong Un. Xi Jinping. Netanyahu. Modi. Names ring a bell?

How could these men affect American politics?

The same way they do it in other countries.

Propaganda & money.

Trump is broke and dumb.

Come on America. Wake up!

The Totalintern exploited the weaknesses of American society — appealing to an array of post-60s American personas; the cynical leftist, the lazy racist, the pretentious pseudo-intellectual, & the angry celebrity.

From Sam Harris to Jill Stein, Tomi Lahren to Ann Coulter, Maajid Nawaz to Cornel West, Bernie Sanders to Gary Johnson – American pride was their target.

When I scroll through the infamous “comment section” of a news article with statements by apathetic leftists or jobless rightists regarding the topic of, lets say for example, “US Noninterventionism”.

I’ll see something like: “AMERICA KILLED HALF A MILLION IRAQIS.”

Yes, & Saddam fed them watermelon & cheese.

The Totalintern & their “patsies” have coopted indigenous struggles too, such as the liberation of Palestine.

It has been all talk for half a century.

Tensions between smaller nations are assets for the Totalintern too, like the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, over the occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel, or the conflict between Armenia & Azerbaijan, over the occupation of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) by Azerbaijan.

The former occupation was initially orchestrated by Clement Attlee of England which then was replaced by leadership America; and the latter occupation by Stalin which was then replaced by leadership in Russia.

I beseech you. America; wake up.

Being a hero doesn’t mean just protecting freedom.

It means defending it.

For all.


The End of Populism? Fate of the Americas











How Arab Unity Became An Oxymoron – Another Tale of Orientalism
















That boundary has been, since 1948, Palestine.


Democracy will save nothing – unity will.

A Return to the Balance of Power?


Depending on your worldview, political reality shifts.

But consider for a second – this perspective.

On the global scale, we see America as an isolated nation.

In reality, America possesses two qualities which render this assumption baseless.

America is majority Anglo-Saxon; America has been deeply entangled in the foreign affairs of England and the rest of Europe.

The isolationist narrative is deeply flawed and misleading. But it isn’t surprising. America is nation that sees itself as exceptional to the rest of the world. There is only one other country which possesses a similar characteristic – Israel. Both nations, are born out of ideology, not ethnic identity or language. These are conceptual nations, both of which in actuality stole land from indigenous populations. The Europeans, are actually tied to their land historically through language and culture that is distinct. Religion is secondary.

Even the Europeans engaged foreign domination but America replaced them as the unipolar hegemony. We view America and the concept of democracy as somehow special, original and superior. We think of individualism as only possible here. We see capitalism as the only security of human innovation.

But much of this narrative rests on one presumption – the political domination of the international political arena by England and America.

Just because the era of colonialism ended – does not entail the end of colonialism itself.

Since the first balance of power was realized and established by the European order between all powerful nation-states via the Treaty of Westphalia, a change as overtaken the world, due in part to technological and industrial revolutions but more importantly, to policy-decisions by elites to disrupt the tradition of balance of power for the sake of preserving American and British domination over global affairs. This has perpetuated stereotypes of all social groups and nation-states, only enabled by inequality in the global spectrum. This international political reality cannot be separated from the socio-economic miseries within each country in the world. They are all intertwined.

Prosperity and individual happiness have been, in the West, associated with capitalism and democracy. In Europe, while this is true, there is a sense of cultural heritage that preserves and cultivates unity among the population. In America, the population is more polarized – there is less cultural influence on political affairs and more ideological influence in the States.

But if corruption is equally rampant in America, then it is unfair to presume that any nation deserves the position of unipolar hegemony. Unipolar hegemony depends on domination and violations of sovereignty. The British, who attempted this more overtly in the past, faced a similar fate in India as America is currently facing in the Muslim world – brutal and irrational retaliation to a century of arbitrary occupation.

Why is America policing the world? Nobody should be.

But given the reality of politics and the possibility of an emerging threat to balance, nations act both preemptively and directly. Now that technology has enabled nations to communicate more easily, is bipolarity the natural state of politics? For the last three decades, was the Cold War merely warming up?

Whereas the conflict at once was portrayed as capitalism versus communism, is the war really between neoconservatism (imperialism guised with good intent and fear of threat, usually via democratization) versus nationalism (the ambition for sovereignty)?

Realism assumes the intent of domination; and suggests its potentiality. But what if this human quality is a cultural phenomenon more common to the West? Considering democracies prevalence in the West, and the West’s engagement in neoconservative foreign policy, could it be argued that, culturally, the West is more inclined towards domination, whereas, other states are more inclined towards national sovereignty and cultural values and traditions that may not necessarily be majoritarian democracy?

This is the basis of constructivism, a theory of international relations which explains the behavior of states as relative to their cultural orientations. Various institutions of politics are, along this line of thinking, social constructed.

The menace to global peace is neoconservatism. And while at one point communism was seen as the nemesis, it could be argued from the constructivist stance that communism was a response to American and European expansionism into the domains of other dominant powers. Today, the force attempting to resist this is now a loose coalition of Russian expansionism, Chinese assertiveness, Latin American disenchantment, European disintegration, Middle Eastern and African tumult. I argue these all would not exist in a world without an aggressive neoconservative menace.

Either it will be contained, or violence on both ends will rise.

Just like the world organized to contain communism, perhaps now the world is slowly rallying to contain America’s neoconservative trajectory.








The Left’s Rationale: Foreign Conspiracy

The Left’s Rationale: Foreign Conspiracy


Julius al-Assad


When Brutus freed the Romans from Caesar’s absolute rule – he was hailed as a force of liberation – thousands of years later, however, it seems he is regarded with disdain – a traitor who ushered the end of rome, a jealous and devious shadow of Caesar. And so, in today’s world, as millions of westerners rush to their social media outlets to bring light to the protests and uprisings sweeping all these foreign countries, demanding ‘freedom’ from ‘dictatorial rule’, I am forced to ask: Are the uprisings forces of liberation, or are they jealous traitors looking for their chance at glory?