Vince Dhimos anwered a question at Quora: Why do people who know nothing about foreign policy feel so emboldened as to comment on the subject?
Why do people who know nothing about foreign policy feel so emboldened to comment on the subject?
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Answered just now
Because all mainstream reports on foreign policy are written by illiterate but articulate nincompoops with zero knowledge of the culture and history of the countries they write about, for the purpose of sustaining the Establishment narrative instead of the true details. It will work as long as the public refuses to go after the details. These journos are chosen precisely because they are the kind of people with zero interest in cultural and historical details, or knowledge of foreign languages, that might leak into their writings and make their readers actually think – the last thing the Establishment wants because independent thinking is like acid to the current war-supporting narrative.
Sensing this, I personally decided a while back to go after details that were missing in the press. There were lots of them. For ex, which Middle East countries are majority-Shiite and which are majority-Sunni? Reading mainstream news might reveal such details about a few countries, but these details get short shrift, with the focus being on the supposed crimes or misdemeanours of which the leaders of impugned countries are accused. If you don’t know about the Shia-Sunni divide, you will not get far in terms of being your own analyst and you risk being carried away by the fake narrative, which, though devoid of important and relevant detail, is usually couched in excellent prose intended to mislead you very convincingly. All mainstream newspapers and magazines should therefore carry a warning label with a skull and crossbones icon, it’s that dangerous – because it is intended to lead to wars that kill thousands of civilians who are not your enemy and keep adding to the unpayable US debt.
Once I had muddled through this chore of investigating Sunni vs Shia countries (using Wikipedia as a starter), I then sought the answers to the question as to which of the 2 groups group, if any, was supported by the US and which was the target of its wrath. I discovered, that in most cases (exception: Iraq), the US waged war on predominantly Shiite nations. I then recalled that Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, was the country that the US considered its favourite ally -- despite the horrible human-rights record of that country -- and that every war against other countries in the region benefitted the Sunni Wahhabist religion to which the elites and populace adhered. I investigated further and found that the terror groups ISIS and al-Qaeda, known to be funded by the Saudis, were also devotees of the Wahhabist sect of Sunni. Now I was getting somewhere.
Because my search terms included the words ”US” and “Saudi,” I inevitably stumbled across that fact that Richard Nixon had signed a petrodollar agreement with the Saudis in 1973. I found it to be confirmed by Bloomberg and I started to realize that all the US-waged wars in the region favoured the Saudi Wahhabists, leading me to realize that the wars, regardless of the announced pretexts, such as alleged WMDs or alleged chemical weapons, were in fact all aimed at spreading Wahhabist terror on behalf of the Saudi signatory to the petrodollar agreement.
But when I thought about Iraq, I had to ask myself why the US, assuming it was acting on behalf of Saudi, would attack a country that is run by the Sunni Saddam Hussein. But then I realized that Saddam is a secularist who made major concessions to the Shia — unsurprising because Iraq is 2/3 Shiite. He even had a Christian in his cabinet. But of course, Saudi wants strict Shariah law and Hussein refused to play along. So he had to go and the US was the hit-man thanks to the petrodollar agreement. Of course, Saddam was also ant-Israel, and Saudi does not tolerate that either since both countries are anti-Iran and thus bonded.
Of course, anyone who looks at US foreign and military policies will quickly realize that, despite being a nominally “Christian” nation, aside from the US support for Sunni Wahhabism, the US policies were totally immoral and sharply deviated from the teachings of Christ. This circumstance also applied equally to US policy strongly favouring Israel—which was how Trump won the support of AIPAC.
This led me to infer that Saudi Arabia had been chosen as an ally not only because it had such a large oil supply but also for some hidden, perhaps spiritual, reason. Further research in this direction led me to write my article titled:
Murder and displacement of Christians is hardwired into Western government policy:
I eventually accumulated enough information to post the following at Quora:
But lately, since Putin waded into the Syrian conflict in 2015, the Saudis have been forced to back away from their prior stance. Meanwhile, they have admitted Assad back into the Arab League, an amazing accomplishment of the Russians.
But just yesterday, I read that Khalid al-Falih, the Saudi oil minister, has warned the US to back off of their sanctions on Russia.
It seems OPEC is to be reorganized into a 10-nation club with RUSSIA as the head!
Look for the petrodollar agreement to start unravelling, and look for Venezuela — already head of OPEC — to be strongly defended by Saudi against US aggression.
This would be a geopolitical plate shift.
If both Russia and Saudi team up to defend Venezuela, that country can prosper despite US sanctions.