sQuirrel

The number of posts which litter all aspects of the internet on the subject of Q (Qanon/Q-Anon/Q Anon/#qanon) is truly astounding… perhaps annoying would be a better word. It never ceases to amaze me how many people fall for this stuff; there sure are a lot of them who want to believe in Superman. I hate to be the one to break it to you all, but Superman does NOT exist.

It is important that people not lose their capacity for critical thinking, so let’s look at his (or her) modus operandi for a moment.

Q is anonymous.
Q is scattered and obscure.
Q speaks in short cryptic blurbs.
Q speaks about many topics.
Q does not provide answers, nor bombshells.
Q’s predictions never come to pass.
Q’s predictions always come to pass, depending on how they are interpreted.

Each of these elements should raise red flags on their own, and often do; but when put together, they serve as a blatant warning that you might be in the process of being duped.

Keeping one’s identity hidden is understandable when one is in a sensitive position or when one participates in whistle-blowing, however, it can also be used as a tool. The media, as can be seen in an innumerable series of articles, both on-line and in print, have recently taken to reporting on stories which are often found to be using a single anonymous source. Whenever they do, they are seen in a suspicious light, right off the bat, as they should be. People spend more time investigating the provenance of their collectibles than that of their informational resources. This is a dangerous habit and one which leads to dogmatic belief rather than informed knowledge.
Would a whistle-blower try to stay anonymous? Not many have. It defeats the purpose to a large extent. Would a dis/mis-information agent try to stay anonymous? Of course they would. Whistle-blowers who try to stay anonymous tend not to stay anonymous for very long. Some would say that anonymity is proof of sincerity since no profit is gained for the act of releasing confidential information. Well, some people crave attention, too. Upvotes, likes, and the ‘cred’ which follows can be tempting, as well. Eventually, those who have ulterior motives come into the light.

Another thing about whistle-blowers is that they usually release useful information. Their allegations tend to be clear and precise, and their statements tend to relate to a certain area of their own experience or expertise. Once they have ‘shot their bolt’ as it were, they don’t generally have much to add. Whistle-blowers tend to be modest and tend not to claim knowledge about everything, rather, they tend to focus quite deliberately on specific topics in order not to distract from the information they bring forth. By and large, they tend not to want to attract attention to themselves, instead, they very much want whatever attention they can garner to be shed on the information they make public. This is another reason they are very clear about the allegations they make.

Whistle-blowers also usually release all that they know and all at once, just in case they are discovered and possibly silenced after the initial release. You don’t want to be holding information after having painted a big bold target on your forehead because if you are caught, it might not get out. Those who share information understand that it is the information that is important, not the book deal, even if they do end up taking it. Another reason to release everything all at once is to mitigate the risk of being discovered. The more releases one makes, the more opportunities it presents for getting caught. Holding information is always a sign of eventual bribery, coercion, blackmail, or profit. Releasing damaging information in a very public way is the best defense against retribution.

The information released tends also to serve a purpose. The reasons are varied, but if the information is to help others, it must be comprehensible, it must be accurate, it must be valuable, and it must be timely. It must also be verifiable. Releasing the information must serve a purpose.

Certainly, the role of the whistle-blower is to make information available to the public. The public must be the focus (there are exceptions) but in this case, sharing information with the public which is indecipherable is of little use. If his code is for the intelligence community, why go through the internet? Releasing tidbits instead of dumping it all at once is a clear indication that Q is seeking a following and wants to ‘keep ’em coming back for more.’ The accuracy of his predictions depends only upon the interpretations of his followers and so cannot be verified.
Like an astrologer, if one keeps throwing stuff out there, eventually something will stick.

…made men believe they should find their fortunes, sometimes in the ambiguous or senslesse answers of the priests at Delphi, Delos, Ammon, and other famous Oracles; which answers, were made ambiguous by designe, to own the event both wayes.
-Thomas Hobbes

There are many whistle-blowers who have sacrificed their honour, their oaths, their fortunes, their happiness, their freedom, their families, and even their lives in search of truth. Q is none of these things. He is a false prophet who risks nothing, provides nothing, and seeks only to promote himself, his ideas, and his ego. After all, anyone claiming access to all the information he ‘provides’ should know that the internet is not the best place to be if one wants to remain anonymous, unless of course one has a team working to cover their tracks.

Julian Assange
William Binney
Richard M. Bowen III
Smedley Butler
Milton William Cooper
Sibel Edmonds
Daniel Ellsberg
Daphne Caruana Galizia
John Kiriakou
Sergei Magnitsky
Chelsea Manning
Clive Ponting
Michael Ruppert
Frank Serpico
Karen Silkwood
Edward Snowden
Linda Tripp
Mordechai Vanunu
Joseph Wilson

… are but a few of the brave whistle-blowers without whom the world would remain a much darker place.
A more complete list can be found here.

@Q: Labor Omnia Vincit – You’re more flying squirrel than you are Superman.

A Tiger By The Tail

The world, in its current state, is not sustainable. No reasonable person would argue that it is. This does not refer to population; there is more than enough land and food for all. Besides, populations tend to self-adjust based upon available resources. In other words, there is no need for a cull. Equity is the problem. Capitalism, in its current form, which has been adopted by nearly all the countries of the earth with a central bank (excepting North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and some small Pacific island nations – Monaco and the Vatican being exceptional cases) isn’t sustainable either. [I feel it is important to disambiguate this point further. The capitalist system which is in use today can be, and has been, referred to as crony-capitalism and/or disaster capitalism and does not reflect the tenets of pure capitalism. Adam Smith himself put the emphasis on local systems and stated that one should not take more than one’s share lest the entire system collapse. This is often left out of economic theories.] The problem then is, how do we change the system underpinning all our TBTF* sub-systems? It won’t be pretty, but it inevitably must be done. As Henry Kissinger (I am NOT a fan) famously said, “If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly.” Many people will undoubtedly suffer, and many of them will die. This horrid reality does not escape me. It is more than unfortunate that TPTB* have organized the world in such a way as to make this unavoidable. All we can do, as a community, is minimize this peril by helping each other make it through to the other side.

Anarchy

It’s not what you think it is. Anarchy is a state of total freedom, but not without consequence. Anarchy is not ‘natural law.’ Anarchy is quite the opposite. Anarchy allows individuals to retain their individuality. It does not mean that there are no longer any rules, or that rules do not apply. People still have to live together, after all. Anarchy simply puts the power in the hands of those affected. The concept of ‘mob-rule’ comes to mind when such things are discussed, but it need not. It can be argued that people are generally kind and compassionate and generous. We may have lost sight of this fact given our current state of economic inequity, but it remains a fact, nonetheless. How could we have survived as a species otherwise? As a social animal, community has always been the foundation of society.

Blockchain

Blockchain, very simply put, is a wholly transparent contract. It has no limits and can be applied to any human endeavour involving more than one person. Many people are intimidated by this techy-sounding phrase, but it is something, at its root, with which we are all familiar; only it is digitized, in order to make it common and accessible to all, and verifiable.

Crypto-currency

The world needs a global currency. Why should banks et al. make money from the exchange of one currency into another? Why should they have the power to create wealth and distribute it to whomever they please? Why should banks and central banks constrain human potential in order to turn a profit? What purpose do they serve anymore, anyhow? The banks (Bank of America, HSBC, et al.,) central banks (the Fed, ECB, et al.,) and uber-banks (IMF, BIS, et al.) have had all of humanity under their collective thumbs since they were conceived.

Which coin will be the standard? Will there be several as with Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi vs. Royal Crown? Will there be too many to count? As long as they are freely interchangeable, who cares, right? My personal feeling is that there will be many, but that all will be as interchangeable as good delivery gold bars from different banks, with no exchange rate. The closest comparison which can be drawn is the Linux operating system, which is open-sourced and comes in many ‘flavours’, all of which are compatible with most other versions.

De-centralization

It may just be time to bring back the city-state. Borders are illusory and they are political. Their time too, has passed. This is not a call to mass migration; on the contrary, it is an invitation for all to participate in the global economy without consideration for whence they were born, and without a need to re-locate, but without hindrance to do so, if desired. Under this new paradigm, there will be no need for entire populations to flee oppression or war. There will be no power structure to impose these conditions, and there will be no will of the people to engage in same.

Encryption

Privacy will not need any protection. Privacy has always existed. Be it through secret code, hidden retreats, occult groups, or VPN*, the dark web is nothing new. The need to protect it arises from those who would intrude, such as the state; but if people want to communicate privately, there is no reason they should not have the means to do so. Blockchain can provide this function. People don’t want to be nothing more than just a number. IBM tried that during WWII and the mental image stuck. People don’t want to be issued tattoos. On the other hand, people don’t seem to have a problem tattooing themselves. If we pick a number (or a hash) for ourselves, it becomes part of us. This is the key to being both public and private at the same time.

Freedom

We must be allowed to live our lives as we see fit. We must not be told that since we live in one particular place, we must do certain things with our time. We must not have to live our lives surveilled. It must not be assumed that we are all potential criminals. In order to acquire the freedom to live as we choose, we must either be emancipated or we must emancipate ourselves, and we’ve been waiting long enough to be emancipated. If it hasn’t happened by now, it just isn’t going to happen. It is time to take matters into our own hands and take the bull by the horns. But what do you do when you have a tiger by the tail? If you let go, it will eat you. If you hang on, you can do nothing else. Eventually your strength will wane, and a lot faster than the tiger’s. So what option is available? The only option left is to kick that fucking tiger in the balls so hard and so often that he will want to get as far away from you as fast as possible, instead of making you his meal. This is what we must do to the control structures, and the people who run them, set up to dominate our lives. We must make the job of ruling over us so disagreeable that none would want to have it. This is the nature of anarchy and the birth of freedom. Free to work in our chosen domain, free to raise our children and educate them with our values, free to do what we choose to do with our bodies and with our lives; these should not just be catchy clichés, they should be steps along the path to autonomy. We are adults, after all; it is time we started treating ourselves as such and acting like adults should act.

Globalism

Some of the tenets of globalism are noble and commendable, but the current crop of globalists are not the sort of people you would want in charge. The problem with it is that, under the current plan, the goals of globalism are to be implemented by force or by coercion. This cannot be acceptable. Certainly there should be a common currency. Certainly there should be more co-operation and less competition. Certainly there should be acceptance of individual beliefs and cultural differences. Certainly equality should reign; but not in the two-tiered Orwellian (or Clintonian) sense. Some should not be allowed to be more equal than others. Being ruled is so middle ages.

Hegemony

Hegemony will, for the first time, be organic and not imposed. Hegemony will no longer mean that an entity controls the whole, it will mean that the whole is one, and that ‘control’ is obsolete. The entirety of Earth’s population will have control over their own lives and society will necessarily move in a positive direction. The word ‘progress’ will finally have meaning as it will apply to the betterment of all mankind, not just a select few.

Internet

The internet, perhaps the greatest human development of all time, has made blockchain technology possible and relevant. The world-wide web is the ether through which all human interaction can take place, irrespective of time or location. It is anything to anyone at any time. It facilitates communication and has done more to shrink the size of the world than planes, trains, or automobiles combined. Without communication, co-operation is not possible. The internet is, to paraphrase Aristotle, the means by which the whole of humanity truly can be greater than the sum of its individual parts.

Joy

What other goal can be more noble, than to wish that all sentient organisms everywhere can experience eternal joy, in any form that it should take? Lasting joy is the best possible outcome.

Kin

Family is the nucleation point of society. Family is the seed. We must come to realize that ‘family’ and ‘community’ and ‘society’ and ‘civilization’ are all synonymous. We are all born of the same family, extended or not. We are all kin. If we learn to treat each other as such, only then will we be able to hope to treat any others we might meet along the way as equals, and learn from each other, and share with each other all the joys that make living a worthwhile endeavour for us all. If there are others out there, we are already family as we share the greatest commonality known: life itself.

Longevity

One of the only two reasonable goals of humanity (progress is meaningless without set goals,) longevity or immortality will be the one thing which makes patience into the true virtue it really should be. When time itself is not a factor in human decision-making, only then will the unattainable be within our grasp. Time is the ultimate constraint. Short-term realizations at the expense of long-term benefits will be a thing of the past. Risks will no longer need to be taken if all the time in the universe is at our disposal. Investigations into the mysteries of life will be complete. Succinctness will no longer trump truth.

Maturity

Maturity is the other of the only two reasonable goals of humanity. It is only when we reach maturity can our exploration of exoplanetary endeavours be justified. If we are the first in the universe to reach such a level, we should be beyond reproach as far as standards of morality toward all life forms are concerned. If we are not, we should be at a level beyond pettiness, such that we can engage with more advanced civilizations and share with them as we would share amongst ourselves. If we are to be the seed of intelligent life in the cosmos, we should then put forth the very best we have to offer.

Reset

It is coming, one way or another. It is very near, and people can feel it. There will be a transition, and it will be rough. Many will not survive it. The consequences of a reset would be, for the short term, disastrous. We should not kid ourselves. The JIT* delivery system would make a great many of us vulnerable to starvation, as most of us are nine meals from an empty pantry. Certainly, all the systems we rely upon to deliver and provide medicine, water, payments etc. could not and would not withstand the rapid transition to an anarchic state.

Ownership as a concept would have to be revisited. Essential factories would need to be owned and operated by the workers, as would water treatment plants, farms, hospitals, etc. There would be massive disturbances in all forms of manufacturing, processing, distribution, and not least of all, social services. Payments would be suspended, and the nature of salaries as compensation for work and their incremental nature would also need to be re-thought.

Robotics could be an enormous benefit, not a job-killer as it is perceived today. Robots could free all humans from meaningless work in order to pursue higher goals, spend more time with our children, help the community, or just sit under a tree. Automation of all the necessary goods and services is nothing to fear if we are all equal. There will always be jobs to do, but with so many people available to do them, nobody will mind doing an hour or two of work every month.

Education would benefit, as well. Instead of being forced to regurgitate mantra which benefits private industry, the field of education could be opened up to alternatives not currently discussed. Universities will morph into discussion groups and the PhDs will simply be those whose ideas are accepted. Paper credentials will become meaningless. Credentials will come with proofs.

Will there not be groups who will try to dominate? Yes, but their power will be limited as their small group can never gain an advantage over the rest. There will be no means by which a small group can come to dominate a larger one. Why shouldn’t those who hold even the most extreme views not be allowed to share them within their community? Segregation is generally seen as a bad thing. Self-segregation, on the other hand happens all over the world. From a motorcycle gang to a China-town to a support group, if those birds choose to flock together, whose to stop them? As long as there is no territory to fight over, all ideologies, while not necessarily being welcome, could be readily tolerated.

There will be a crash. When is not known, but soon is an apt estimate. The global economy is running on fumes, despite what the stock-pushing MSM is saying. The inevitability is such that preparations must be made. Stocking up on non-perishable foods is one thing, but preparing to abandon an over-arching system of control is just as important, perhaps more-so. Why should we allow TPTB* the time to get their shit together, as it were. Humanity will not wait for them to re-fasten the shackles they have burdened us with. It will move forward without them. We no longer need them. Their guidance was necessary in the times of rampant illiteracy, but is now irrelevant. We can do these things for ourselves. Good riddance.

Does this vision of the New World Dis-Order seem utopic? Does it look out of reach. Under the current system, it does. Fast-forward ten or twenty years, add blockchain to the mix, bring down all the overt control systems, and all the limitations on our species could easily be lifted. It will come at a price, but the alternative is a possible ELE*.

*Glossary:

• ELE – Extinction Level Event
• JIT – Just In Time
• TBTF – Too Big To Fail
• TPTB – The Powers That Be
• SHTF – (when the) Shit Hits The Fan
• VPN – Virtual Private Network

---

Recommended Resources:

• Bitcoin and the Rise of the Cypherpunks
• A Cypherpunk’s Manifesto
• The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto
• Satoshi’s White Paper – Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
• Ethereum Home page (examples of blockchain uses)
• The Hidden Dark Web – Documentary (52:09)

 

 

 

Facades

When walking past a house after dark, it’s always the big windows that are lit. Is this diversion or hubris? Governments display these same traits.

What’s unseen… what’s underground? What’s behind the facade, the empty room, the well-lit space?

More to come.

Samurai Scissors

Why does Japan’s Emperor Akihito want to quit?

Did he just fall on his sword (or cut his own guts out) by acquiescing to the International Order? (Those hand signs are really disconcerting.) Will there even be another emperor, or will the son turn out to be another Obama or Trudeau, a young(er) and popular sell-out to globalism and world parliament?

Maybe the son is a war-hawk, and Emperor Akihito disagrees that Japan’s military should be used elsewhere than in defense of Japan. Japan just decided the issue of ‘collective defense‘. This is all after Trump accused Japan of not paying its fair share for American defense. (The Yen isn’t enough reparations for having been bombed into the stone age? /s)

Has Japan been castrated?

Thomas Hobbes #3

“…for such men, (commonly called Slaves,) have no obligation at all; but may break their bonds, or the prison; and kill, or carry away captive their Master, justly.”

-Thomas Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’

© laphotoshoppe

.

[I must add here that the message is NOT that if you feel like a slave, you may kill your boss, justly. Murder is murder and should not be belittled or glorified. Were these Medieval times, my opinion might differ. Bonds, however, must be broken – the level to which depends on the force needed to defend, against that applied.]

The question is, “Is your freedom worth your life… and your family’s… and all your brothers’ and sisters’?”

Is the cost of your bondage worth your contribution, to your masters?

We will always have to pay the land-owners. If every man cannot have his plot of land, and no more, there will always be serfs.

We trade liberty and privacy for safety and convenience, each generation, successively, excessively, continuously. We may have come to a state of “Full Pussy“.

Young men have always needed to prove themselves in battle. The young men of today’s slaves have not have that necessity, for some time. Are they then men? Do they feel like men? Is there something missing which superheroes and action stars supply?

On Sea World:

If it weren’t a whale; what if it were a man? If you kept a man in a cage, even a big comfortable cage, and told him to do tricks for you, and if he didn’t do the tricks he would go back into his cage without any food, he’d probably do the tricks; and if you asked him if he was happy to do tricks for his food, he would thank you for the privilege, and bow to you, and speak highly of you, and curse you ’til the day he dies.

How could he do otherwise? You will have taken the world from him.

There is nothing further to say on this subject.

There is, however, plenty to say on the subject of modern slavery, but more on this elsewhere, soon.

Can We Both Be Right?

I had an exchange with a climate alarmist the other day, an exchange for which I felt the need to apologize. I sent him an email today. The subject line read: “Apology”.

Yesterday, we had exchanged opinions and facts about climate change and couldn’t agree about any of it. Today, the day after our exchange, I found myself bothered by it. I wondered why we couldn’t get along? He is a damn good researcher; how could he be so wrong. Maybe he thought the same of me.

I was going through an article I had recently written, looking at a graph which showed temperature and CO2 levels over the past several hundred million years. I saw that both CO2 levels and global temperatures had very rarely ever been this low, and I thought that surely this would lead to desertification. After all, the tundra is a desert, despite its low temperature. How could he think that this natural uptrend after near-record cold was anything but normal, anything to be worried about, anything unexpected? It had since leveled-off, so no problem, right? Why did he look at it as record highs when it was clearly (near) record lows?

My short answer was that he must only have been looking at the local US surface temperature record over a very short time span, and I was looking at satellite data as well as long term data covering more of the history of the earth, and this is what led to his distorted view. If the charts start in the sixties, it’s been getting warmer. If the charts start six-hundred million years ago, brrr. On a planetary level, however, no big deal. This seemed to explain away the problem as well as all the sub-problems like sea-level rise, Arctic ice extent, storm activity, etc. etc. etc. He was the American alarmist who took the ‘nothing outside our borders matters’ and the ‘we have the best equipment so everyone else is wrong’ view, and I was the voice of reason with a view to the world. Typical US-Canada relations.

I went for a walk to clear my head. Why was this still bothering me? I had figured out the problem; I had my answer. But there was more to it than that. There was something missing. As I walked around my neighbourhood, I thought about power structures and relationships, I thought about hegemony and what it can do to one’s perspective, I thought about the philosophy behind the situation when it hit me: Hegel – Mondrian – binary code. What if we were both right?

Harper, the Niqab, and the Concept of Hijab

There has been much talk about the niqab as it relates to the swearing-in portion of citizenship ceremonies. Everyone seems to be missing the point on this subject, especially Stephen Harper.

First, let’s get the facts straight; identification is done through paperwork, not facial recognition. Yes, there is an aspect of facial recognition to the identification process, but ultimately, it comes down to documentation. This is very simply demonstrated with the example of triplets at the border; they don’t all use the same passport simply because they look alike.

Second, the swearing-in ceremony is a chance for people who are new to the country to present themselves as they are. It is an opportunity to introduce themselves to their peers, and if the goal is to be recognizable, then their appearance must reflect who they are even moreso than what they look like. They will not be forced to go through the procedure for a second time should they fall victim to a disfiguring injury, for example. They must, therefore, present their public face. Whether that face is veiled or not, it is their own personal choice and it reflects their own personal identity.

Third, the niqab is not a disguise. Wearing a mask at a protest march is a change in one’s public face in order to hide one’s identity. Wearing a niqab (or a burqa, chador, dupatta, tichel, snood, babushka, or veil) is a celebration of one’s cultural identity, not a duplicitous attempt to conceal it.

Fourth, there are some who would say that because some women are forced to wear such coverings by the males in their social groups, this behaviour should not be encouraged. However, this is not the issue at hand. Surely women who are oppressed by men have avenues available to them in order to help them break free from these bonds. Replacing such bondage by governmental oppression is not an acceptable option.

Fifth, a person should have the right to personal freedom of expression. Furthermore, a person should have the right to adorn one’s body as one sees fit, and to practice the religion of their choice, if this is the case. Be it cultural garb, mandated medical procedures, abortion, prostitution, or euthanasia, a person should have exclusive rights over their bodies and the way these are portrayed, displayed, treated, and cared for. If wearing something cannot be forced upon us, not wearing something should not either.

Sixth, the right to determine one’s own lifestyle should never rest with the state.

A final thought – when a government equates a form of dress with a certain pattern of behaviour, be it overtly or not, that is a form of discrimination and has no place in a modern society. Whether it is stated directly or not, equating the idea of a niqab with a sense of fear from terrorism is no different than identifying a religious group with a special ‘brand’ in the hopes of generating the same feelings of uneasiness. We should all be disgusted that some feel this debate is necessary or even appropriate.

Update – Zunera Ishaq just took the oath of citizenship while displaying her niqab-adorned ‘public face.’ This represents a victory for human rights in Canada, although, the court decision risks being overturned when a new government is elected.

Sex and the Disabled

Should prostitution be legalized? This question has always been met with controversy, but here is an example of the good prostitutes can do for the less fortunate.

Disabled people have always been subject to social stigma and discrimination. Be it for issues of work, mobility, or equal rights, handicapped people have it rough. It is much more difficult for them to hold down good jobs and to participate in society on an equal footing with the rest of the able-bodied population. Does this mean that many of them should die virgins, without ever having experienced what some would describe as the summum bonum of human relations? They have enough hardship as it is; why should they be denied sex given that they must obviously have a very difficult time finding people interested in having a relationship let alone wooing people into their bedrooms?

What a woman (or any consenting non-minor) does with her body is still a topic of debate within several subjects such as: abortion; wearing of the niqab/burqa; euthanasia; mandated medical treatment; and, of course, prostitution. Only religion (despite its good intentions) and government and their historical and cultural significance can be shown to object to this most fundamental human principle. Of course people should have a right to decide their own futures as long as they are not coerced.

The Netherlands considers sex a human right and prostitution legal. This combination has led to legislation which allows for and pays for, in some cases, the services of a prostitute for the disabled of their country. Should this modern attitude towards mercy not be available in more places? It’s only human, after all.

Putin and the UN – Is Change in the Air?

Based on a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Vladimir Putin made some subtle comments regarding the status of the UN and what the future might hold in store. This is simply speculative interpretation, but did he hint at the possibility of an overhaul of the foundations of global governance? The BRICS association analogy may be a valid comparison to draw at this point.

“…I will have to say a few words about…the fact that the United Nations remains the sole universal international organisation designed to maintain global peace. And in this sense it has no alternative today.”

This is an interesting comment. Of course, everybody knows that the UN is unique, so why mention it here? Is there a plan amongst the developing economies to overhaul the UN, or is the plan to replace it with a less partisan body? His qualification of the comment with the word ‘today’ leads one to believe that tomorrow might be a different story. With Russia being a founding member (since its inception at Yalta after WWII,) and if Russia can convince the other members of the BRICS countries to follow suit, they could withdraw from the UN and create their own body to uphold international law without granting the US veto power over all its decisions. On the 25th of September, Putin met with the other members of the UN’s security council to discuss the situation in Syria, as well as current domestic policy issues. One wonders what these issues might be, but given recent comments by Putin (such as those given at Valdai) as well as those given by Assad (here and here,) not to mention the rift which is developing between Germany and France against the US over NATO’s involvement in the Ukraine and US involvement in Syria indicate that the world’s opinion about the US and its activities in the middle-east and elsewhere are changing (or worsening, depending on your point of view.)

“It is also apparent that it should adapt to the ever-changing world, which we discuss all the time: how it should evolve and at what rate, which components should undergo qualitative changes. Of course, I will have to or rather should use this international platform to explain Russia’s vision of today’s international relations, as well as the future of this organisation and the global community.”

It is very clear, based on these statements that the UN is an ever-evolving entity, but it is also clear, given the prevalence of this comment at the beginning of the interview, that there is a will amongst the participants (not including the US) to reform the role of the UN in the near future.

“…in my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter. We have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only.”

This comment was clearly meant to demonstrate US support for the forces opposing Assad – ISIS/ISIL et al. – and its illegality. Will the international community continue to allow the Western forces’ ‘carte blanche’ towards the middle-east, and will it stand idly by as Syria is turned into Libya v2.0? It would not appear to be the case. China has also decided to support Assad’s forces by sending its navy to the port at Tartus in Syria. Has the BRICS military coalition started?

“There is only one regular army there. That is the army of Syrian President al-Assad.”

And in another quote from a past interview,

“It’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government [of Syria] will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya, where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq,” Putin stressed.

“There is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism. But at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform.”

The Russian leader stressed that US-led coalition partners need to understand that only the Syrian people are entitled “to decide who should govern their country and how.”

With this, Putin is upholding the democratic process by which Assad was elected, and legitimizes his presence in the discussion.

That which the future holds, only time will reveal, but clearly the winds of political change are blowing squarely in the face of the US, its official policies, NATO, and the UN.

*Update* Given what the Kazakh president said at his speech to the UN, there are more massive changes coming to the ‘International Order’ as we know it. Buckle up!