Dear friends,
It seems amazing to me, a relic of World War One is still with us, the 1916 Sykes Picot treaty. Which is still causing woe even today. It’s the agreement that made up the map of the Middle East. Creating purely arbitrary countries… not nations. But the globalist elite’s narrative is, bigger is always better… so smaller nations based on the democratic will of the people that live there, is off the table. Each minority will have to disarm, to a faction who’s core philosophy is unlimited power at all costs… as dangerous as it is foolish. Yet the map of Sykes Picot is paramount. If it leads to genocide, oh well, that’s the price people today will have to pay, for the idiocy of yesterday. Maybe instead, we could ask the people who live there what they think should happen to them, and their land?
After WWI the winning side drew up new maps of the spoils. The Sykes Picot agreement created an arbitrary map chopping up the Turkish empire. Leading to the tragic history of the Kurds, who were distributed between Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The outcome has been war, oppression and human suffering. As if the Soviet Union cut Kazakhstan, Georgia or Latvia into three parts, and distributed them to their neighbors. Such an act would create perpetual animosity, oppression and eventually revolution as well. Like it did in Yugoslavia, when it exploded, into ethnic/religious nations. To the shock and disgust of the globalist elites. Nevertheless, the elite across the spectrum are talking about how to resurrect Syria into another frankenstate. Not how to create a lasting peace.
In my view, the paramount issue is always the will of the people who live there. Whether it be in the Falkland Islands, Nagorno Karabakh or Syria. The will of those who live there should always trump the will of elites who don’t. Though we have elites who think they should tell everyone else what to do… without oversight, consequences or skin in the game. To that end, those self same elites have set up “International courts,” to force their will on humanity, without a care to justice, precedent or human heartedness. Then use the “rulings” of their kangaroo court to intimidate. They’ve indicted Benjamin Netanyahu (the elected leader of Israel), while allowing the criminals of October 7 to go unindicted. Which is handy since UNHCR had a hand in the atrocities of that day. They have no skin in the game.
The will of outside elites should be irrelevant to the outcome the residents want. No elite would allow some peasant in Hong Kong to dictate the government he or she should live under. Yet deem themselves worthy to order Hong Kong to live under despotism. Hypocrisy at its finest. If we want to have a say in our government, then we have to allow that others will have a say in theirs. Otherwise we are as hypocritical as the elite. The sad tale of Hong Kong might have been happier had they voted to stay a British protectorate, instead of become vassals of the CCP. But slavery was thrust upon them by the globalist elite. For the globalist elite’s benefit. Which is the point. Only people with skin in the game should have a say. The more skin the more say.
Should the Syrian Christians, (who will be exterminated as the Armenians are today), the Kurds who’ve been historically oppressed, or Alawites who face reprisals… have to join a nation where they’ll be brutalized until they die or leave? To satisfy Sykes Picot. No mouse need worry as long as cats are in charge. No. Human heartedness requires the people who live there have the last say. Then the globalist elites, agitators and Erdogan can suck it up. If the Syrian Christians, Kurds or Alawites want their own state, so be it. Who has sovereignty over the land and people, the globalist elites without skin in the game… or the people who’ve lived there for generations untold? The Golden Rule tells us the answer. What would we want had we been born there? To be subjects of a state or citizens of a nation?
Sincerely,
John Pepin