The world I grew up in, the world of the Cold War, was a ‘Multipolar’ world. A number of major powers, notably the USA, Russia and China, and to some extent Britain and France, jostled with each other on the world stage. Briefly following the end of the Cold War the West, really the USA, found itself in what appeared to be a ‘Monopolar’ world where it was the only global power. Russia was in a state of economic and political collapse and was largely inward looking, China was absorbed in growing its economy through constructive trading relationships with the outside world, so the west led by America, had a free hand to shape the world.

Politicians, the western mass media, and western so-called ‘thinkers’ told us this was the ‘end of history’, the beginning of an era of the ‘Pax Americana’ where the west’s enlightened governance would rule over a peaceful world of thriving capitalist business bringing benefits to all. I was never taken in by this ridiculous line of ‘reasoning’ because it was based on an entirely subjective and self-serving view of the world. It did not represent the reality of western behaviour or intentions. Instead I dubbed it the ‘Beginning of History’ expecting the west to go on a military rampage around the world and for the tensions and dangers of inter-state conflicts to grow rapidly. I was proved correct.

For the world quickly saw this was not to be an era of ‘enlightened governance’ but one of rapacious predatory militarism. The power imbalances in the world went straight to the heads of western leaders who steadily embarked on a programme of eliminating their enemies and leaving a trail of destruction and chaos everywhere. The legacy of these years will take many generations to repair.

Worse the power imbalances led to a process of deskilling and ‘unlearning’ by western leaders. Confronted always by foes in vulnerable developing societies where the power imbalance guaranteed an easy victory, our leaders lost all capability for objective thought and genuine strategic thinking. By 2014 strategy had degenerated to merely threatening military force, or using military force against your opponents, they could hardly fight back beyond some so-called ‘asymmetric warfare’. Most couldn’t or wouldn’t even do that.

Finally after nearly a quarter of a century of western power having a free hand to do as it willed in the world, other major nations began reacting accordingly. Countries like Russia which had had a rude awakening and China which was never taken in, began to strengthen themselves militarily and to stand up against the irresponsible, reckless and destructive policies of the west through potential UN Security Council vetoes.

Now the leading ‘thinkers’ of western power are screaming blue murder, we are headed towards a ‘Multipolar’ world, it’s the end of civilisation. In fact we are only returning to the normal condition throughout world history. A ‘Multipolar’ world is a good, healthy, normal thing. It is a world where nations are growing and developing economically. It is the type of world where for generations, politicians, diplomats and generals had to actually earn their money by thinking strategically and analysing situations objectively.

The ‘Multipolar’ world is a world where one power will actually have to consider the interests of another power and compromise, cut deals. It is no longer a world where the west can simply claim to be morally superior and therefore have the right to kill and destroy other nations. It is no longer a world where winning is more important than maintaining the peace. Military postures and foreign policies will have to continuously shift and adjust. Politicians, diplomats and generals will have to earn their money. It is a world where war is an occasional unintended failure, not a continuous normal way of life.

However leaders in the west having been so deskilled are hardly receptive to the idea of adjusting. There is an alternative view of the future built on the hypocritical, self-righteous and totally disingenuous bluster of western ideologues who label themselves the ‘Goodies’ in every drama. They never admit to being motivated by any self-interest, they always want to help other people, usually by destroying their countries.

The Neocons embody the extreme of this view, sometimes called by its critics the ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’. This is the idea that the USA must maintain its global military supremacy by dominating the world by force. If rival powers are arising they must be strangled in their cradle. It is a fascist like view of a world of eternal war. It founded upon the principle that winning is more important than peace. It is the road to nuclear disaster.

People should recognise that the aim of dominating the world is not an entirely sane one. What such American ideologues are trying to do is to stop the course of history to the detriment of most who live in the world. The biggest danger in the future is not the changes in the world, but the way the west might abuse its power to react to these changes.





Since before 2005 I have been accusing the Qatari Royal family of having been behind the 9/11 attacks based on circumstantial evidence which indicates that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the organiser of the attacks, was a Qatari agent who infiltrated Al-Qaeda.

See my earlier post: “KSM on Trial? Are you Kidding!”

Since then I have traced a consistent foreign policy by Qatar to engineer a region-wide sectarian war aimed at isolating Shia Arabs and Iran, with the aim of dragging the west into a war with Iran, their apparent ultimate goal.

One link between Qatar and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), has been found, whose policies were clearly focused against the so-called ‘near enemy’, meaning the Shia Arabs and Iran.

Qatar took a leading role both in the overthrow of Iran’s regional ally Qaddafi in Libya, and against Iran’s only other regional ally Assad in Syria.

I have also been collecting what fragments of evidence I can to link Qatar to the rise of ISIL, the child of AQI.

I have been working on articles to present some of this material but it has proved difficult to find any concrete proof in the public domain. That was until this October when the wall of denials and of playing dumb by western governments was broken by the leaking of an email from Hillary Clinton to political adviser John Podesta.

This email confirms two important facts:

Firstly – Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL. Much as I had always suspected.

Secondly – that the US government knew of this, as I had always suspected.

See my article: “The Shadowboxing Hypothesis”

This information should be politically explosive and is of the highest imaginable public interest. Yet it has been completely ignored by the British mass media, the only place where it could have any political impact.

Thus the revelation remains unknown to the vast majority of the British public and it has had zero political impact.

I have only been able to find one report in the mainstream British press, not counting ‘Russian-owned’ The Independent. This is from the “Daily Mail” which has repeatedly reported accusations that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been financing terrorist groups.

Julian Assange is sticking by the veracity of this leaked email despite innuendo that the messages ‘may’ have been tampered with from John Podesta.