Bent History in the Making

The history of the world that is written in approved texts is a judiciously selected compendium of myriad facts, dates and cautionary tales, tales carefully chosen by the authors and their patrons to reflect their world view. It’s little wonder then that these official histories are rife with inconsistencies and pseudo-facts. But these historical accounts soon evolve and develop from points of view subject to revision and correction to reach the status of accepted myth. Its devotees are quick to defend theses written accounts without the slightest intention of proving the provenance of the many assertions made in these texts. Their devotion to this accepted history is absolute.

One hundred years from now the history of what happened in Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Libya and elsewhere, gleaned from inaccurate accounts of events and slanted and down right biased reporting by journalists in the unwitting employ of powerful nations, will be etched in stone and as unchangeable as the Rock of Gibraltar. The official history will hint, subtly or not, at who wore the white hats and who wore the black hats in those conflicts and uprisings. It will tell those people of the future how it all started, what forces led to popular discontent in these countries, and what the role of the various powers of the day was. If the history was written in English it will reflect one version of the facts, if it was written in Russian or Chinese it will reflect another entirely different version of facts. This is how history is written, imperfectly, it is nearly always written from a definite cultural and political standpoint.

These days histories are written and etched in stone at a much faster pace thanks in large part to the internet and to Hollywood’s role in immortalizing certain historic junctures in world history in celluloid (nowadays in digital format). One extremely slanted and unfair cinematic treatment of an important historical turning point in recent Georgian history, a British production I believe, portrays the black hats and white hats with no room for ambiguity or doubt: the Russian Goliath is seen brutalizing the Georgian David. In view of the younger generation’s aversion to a sober, violence-free retelling of accurate historical facts, I can understand Hollywood’s need to keep manufacturing heroes and villains to feed people’s insatiable appetites for gratuitous violence and righteous indignation. But, does this serve the cause of truth and accuracy? Certainly not, but then the patrons of the slanted, biased cinematic arts are not too concerned with all that, they have an agenda and the film has to serve that agenda.

The Russians have been flexing their political and military muscles recently. They sent out their fleet into the Med., they stood toe to toe with the Americans (yet again); all out war was averted only when the Americans backed down. Alarm bells went off at NATO headquarters. They developed a plan. They resolved to discredit and alienate Russia, cut it off from its Black Sea naval station (the primary means for power projection in the Med., dubbed ‘An English Lake’ by Nelson), but how, they wondered. The answer was simple: stir up popular discontent in the Ukraine (the location of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol) to such a frothy frenzy that riots break out resulting in the ouster of the pro-Russian-anti-NATO president from office. Intense coverage of the ‘popular uprising’ is covered by all Western media (BBC, CNN, etc…) who are in the service of NATO. Its quite Machiavellian one has to admit, but not so far fetched and incredible as to be implausible.  

Ukrainians, like all former Soviet republics, look to the glittering, gilded West with envy and wish to have a slice of that pie. It’s easy to vilify a president who does not wish to develop very close ties with the EU and its military wing (i.e. NATO). It’s easy to pour rubbish from that poisoned Western chalice into the Ukrainian public ear and stir up disaffection among the people who already suffer from joblessness and poor living standards. I’m not defending their government or their president or the likely high levels of corruption that exist in the country, but throwing oneself on to the sword of false Western promises is hardly the answer.

In Syria, the huge role played by the Gulf States in financing rebels in Libya and now in Syria is glossed over, ignored or dismissed outright by most ‘credible’ Western media, For them, the Western media I mean, there is one clear enemy and one clear victim, one clear bad guy and one clear good guy, black hats and white hats. In a world of grey hats, the real world, these media outlets appear like caricatures of their once credible selves. Shame, shame, shame on you all! But we understand, you are only doing your patriotic duty, to serve the cult of Western infallibility. But ‘doing your duty’ and ‘following orders’ was the excuse used by the Nazis, wasn't it!?