Haris, Waderas and their Jiyalas in between.

I apologise for typos..

The image I would like to bring to the attention of readers before I proceed, is that of bonded laborers working in brick kilns, or the relationship between Haris, Waderas and their Jiyalas in between.

European and American democracies... which set the model for the World (by force in most cases) are tripartite conspiracies between the wealthy/aristocracy, private industry and government of that particular country, to the end of assuring the wealthy remain wealthy and are not threatened by class conflict or mobility.

There is no “classical democracy" in any Western country, where in each case the government consists of a certain class of the elite (irrespective of artificial party divisions) who have the sole purposes of protecting themselves and the wealthy and to act as a policing agency for private industry.

Elections in the West are meaningless exercises that merely placate the public and the status quo actually never changes.

The Western public are also incredibly illiterate and quite happy to choose between RED poverty and corporate criminals.... and the other option BLUE poverty and corporate criminals and then pat themselves on the back for being so liberated.

Simultaneously an extremely aggressive regimen of lifestyle advertising and PR telling the public how free they are compared to the rest of the World is perpetually in play.

I have always maintained that PR and advertising are the most important element of any enterprise (political or otherwise) and even now I cannot emphasize this enough.

Subscription to all of this is popularly known as civilization, and since recently rejection of this is known as terrorism.

It used to be called communism before that.


.The reason for the success of this system, is institutionalized wealth and decision making, more or less divorced from public input, but nevertheless with some elements of national public welfare maintained and upheld, if only in order to prevent revolution and social conflict.

This is called stability.

Any system, be it Islamic fundamentalism or rampant communism can be potentially stable, if and only if institutional power exists behind it.

Western nations have had centuries of colonial income and slowly tempered social change to establish the functionality of their democracy.

Almost all Western citizenry (including women) only acquired the right to participate in elections, previously the reserve of the establishment, well within living memory.

The West want to be the World's establishment with all else as peasants below.


Although this in my opinion is a very regrettable system, testamentary to human intellectual impoverishment, greed, myopia and illiteracy, it is the only system that seems to be working. It is to this system that the Soviet Union fell and it is this system that is (on the face of it) battling the against International Islamic fundamentalism, if not inciting it.


Today the West is trying to impose democracy (by force) of the rest of the World. This is sheer imperialism based a presumption of feudal ownership and almost divine righteousness and is calculated in order to prevent an alternative course of institutional power developing anywhere else in the World, in any other form.

There also seems to be a racial element to the divide between groups who are enlightened and those who need democratic enlightenment.

The end of all Western foreign policy, is to prevent the creation of any true institutional establishment which is independent of the West, in any nation. It is my belief that no nation, which is not White, Jewish or of their more developed vassals (India, Saudi-Arabia etc) can exist as a capitalist democracy, without of total economic and political subservience to the West.

To give the reader a flavour of the attitude at hand, I believe Stalin once said “that its not important to win, but to ensure everyone else loses�.

The West have a dominant working system, called capitalist democracy, which is as arbitrary as any , which they intend nevertheless to protect, essentially though enforced promulgation.

Capitalist democracy requires an establishment of wealthy beneficiaries in every nation. These are the third world governments, chosen by, sympathetic and loyal to the West, which always remains the ultimate beneficiary.

The downside is the recipients of the message of democracy do not necessarily all form the establishment and the beneficiaries of the system. This is the sole basis to most global conflict where:

-People either do not want to subscribe to the Western sponsored establishment.
-A sitting establishment does not wish to be removed in favour of whom the West would rather see in power.

This model, in its elements either singular or parallel is true of virtually every conflict across the globe following the First World War.

A very ambiguous situation arises, where as in Iran, Venezuela or Afghanistan, an independent establishment comes into existence.

The question is whether such embryonic establishments can provide any stability, in spite of imperial condemnation. Do the citizens believe such an establishment is worth protecting and thus can a subsequent Western sponsored establishment take control. 9 times out of 10, these domestic governments, which when democratically elected in the third World collapse and succumb to Imperial pressure.

This happens because they do not have the institutional depth or money to survive the demands of their public, who through Western PR and advertising have become individuals and consumers. The government in order to survive has to turn to Western support or be replaced by a government that will do so.

In Iran and Venezuela, oil revenue have so far provided the sustenance. The Taliban had heroin and Islam (both dangerous, addictive substances) but it wasn't enough, perhaps because Afghans didn't actually believe in the Taliban or perhaps because Bin Laden (on the face of it) compounded imperial condemnation.

Pakistan is a richer country, with a greater population, with Nuclear weapons and thus more fertile ground to test the viability of the Taliban as an independent establishment.



Until recently, the Pakistani Military was a sitting establishment supported by the West. They seem, for whatever reason to have lost their currency and have been replaced by Zardari and Co. which is yet another Western sponsored government.

I have on a number of previous occasions demonstrated support for the Pakistani military. I can however freely say that I do not support the military in government because I like them and my opinions are founded in simple pragmatism. Without any doubt they are ba$tards and criminals, but to be fair these are not unexpected traits of government in this day and age.

The reason for my support, are because firstly I have no faith whatsoever in the Pakistani political/feudal or Islamist classes, simply because they are mostly illiterate. I believe that the military is the nearest thing to an establishment with some degree of institutional depth that Pakistan has created in its brief history.

In a similar, if not mitigated fashion to the European aristocracies, the Soviet Politburo, the American Corporatocracy and other successful instruments of government, the military have a greater and deeper agenda than short-lived civilian governments, which as we have seen are personal finance projects for pathetic individuals... (as compared to finance projects for a sitting establishment).

For such reasons, although they have significant Western support, the military are nevertheless not blind and powerless in their own backyard.

A further and more significant reason for my support for the military, is with regards the Pakistani public. The military, allow the most “painless� means to the administration of Western slavery. Unlike any civilian administration, the military have some if only meager bargaining power and some actual interest in the state of the nation.

In essence, the military, in my opinion, unlike Pakistani civilian governments, will not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

All this however is largely irrelevant now, as it seems that the Pakistani public have embarked (unwittingly or otherwise) on a greater project, in which, in all likelihood they will probably destroy themselves.

An interesting quote from John Perkins' The Secret History Of American Empire, with regards to the forcing of pro-dollar neo-liberal economic policies in Ecuador , where the US (believe it or not) accused indigenous Ecuadorian Indians of being Al Qaeda.

“In the old days," one (Ecuadorian victim) told me (Perkins), "people who felt threatened by the U.S. could turn to Russia ... Now there is no one, except those Arabs.��

To an extent, although largely suppressed, people who have felt the boot of American foreign policy previously, do identify so called “terrorists� with the “good fight� .. the slave against the master, good against evil etc. as much as the US maintains that any person, who resists the supposed inherent right of Jews and Whites to all the World's resources is a terrorist.

An Islamist is the same (if not more virulent) as a South American Indian peasant farmer, who has to sell his bananas for a pittance to United Fruit.

The West does not see “terrorism� and Islamic Fundamentalism as problematic, in terms of the flogging of women, human rights abuses and the extravagances of the Taliban, but rather as a threat to their alternative tyranny, where the Eastern provinces of the empire fall to barbarians, where they should rightly be subsidizing the lives of happy Californians.

Raza Habib's article is titled “Urban Middle Class’s Steady Descent Into Conservatism and Religious Right�. Although he attributes this phenomenon to social conservatism, I think this is founded on a much deeper socio-psychological realization in the Muslim World following 9/11.

I have often thought it possible, that the West needed to create enemies, where none existed, following the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and thus the notion of a “Clash of Civilizations� came into play. Whether this is the case or otherwise, the West, in particular the US has taken a notably violent stance against the Muslim World from the First Gulf War onwards.

It seems the Islamic World (through their own devices or otherwise and whether they like it or not) have been foisted with the battle for the South American Indian peasant farmer.

For the purposes of Pakistan I personally think they're going to lose, simply because flogging teenage girls seems to be the only means, the avant-garde of this movement can find to reject Western hegemony.

The “Urban Middle Class’s Steady Descent Into Conservatism and Religious Right� is in my opinion a dialectic, where the so-called liberal elements of Pakistani society, jaded with both military and civilian government, have chosen to gravitate towards the Islamists and inadvertently “the good fight�.

This makes the survival of Pakistan extremely remote and in all probability, Pakistan shall be shattered by the West, like Afghanistan into a few weak dependencies and war-zones. I feel though that the Islamists, if their project is to have any chance whatsoever to survive at all, need to reciprocally gravitate sharply towards the Pakistani liberals, precluding therefore the counter-establishment the CIA cooks up after Zardari. Alternatively if Pakistan is to survive, it might be more sensible to abandon this project altogether.

The questions at hand are whether the Islamists as the Pakistani establishment can provide any stability. Can they survive imperial condemnation or will they succumb to it like in Saudi Arabia or will they be bombed back into their slavery like Iraq.

Is Pakistan going to commit national suicide for lack of any other choice.