Embargo The Saudis

(And don’t forget Iran!)

Interpreting holy Muslim texts literally was made a capital crime under Saladin, eight centuries ago. (Meanwhile Iran and the Baghdad Caliphate had long ignored Literal Islam; however, they would fall to the Mongols shortly after.)

Wahhabism revived the literal reading, thus giving the Saudis the moral pretext and the fanaticism they needed to take control of Arabia. In 1945, the government of the USA concluded an alliance with Ibn Saud. Not because the USA needed it to survive: the USA was the world’s largest oil producer. The accord with the Saudis enabled American oil men to make huge profits, while the government of the USA enjoyed controlling most of the world’s oil.

Saudi Arabia had a good weekend: it executed 47 “terrorists”, including a prominent opponent, Shia cleric. Yes forty-seven.

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

Shia Cleric Decapitated, Iran Unamused. Diplomatic Relations Broken

This comes a few days after Iranian rockets landing within 1,500 meters of French and American warships in international water. Some Iranian officials claim that should be seen as a “warning”. Considering the USA bent over backwards for the accord with Iran, and France was skeptical, this is rather curious.

The cleric was “legally” assassinated for (verbal) offenses that included “breaking allegiance with the ruler” and “inciting sectarian strife.” Who made this “ruler” a ruler? Some horrendous war, less than a century ago, when the Saudi family stole most of Arabia, for its own exclusive enjoyment. Nothing said that plutocrats cannot capture entire countries. In Saudi Arabia, justice itself is intrinsically unjust, it’s just an “allegiance to the ruler”..

The Saudi and Iranian plutocracies, hiding behind god’s orders, know what they are doing: if they execute contradictors, they will be contradicted less, as potential contradictors will not look forward arrest, abuse, torture and execution, after being “judged” to be horrendous people.

The New York Times Editorial Board editorial could not resist to strike the usual compromised moral stance in “Saudi Arabia’s Barbaric Executions“. In that otherwise pretty good opinion piece, it squeaks that: “The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria.”

Questions: 1) so are we going to choose or reject allies on which criteria? Greed only? This was tried with the Third Reich before. It made the Nazis’ Reich ever more aggressive, and strong.

Not entering morality in economics enables evil, so we become accomplices of it. The foundation of the Republic is moral. What others are doing (outside of the USA, Europe, and our close allies) is none of our business, however, our purchasing of Saudi oil makes their business our business.

2) who has no choice? With oil and gas lower than in a very long time, why do we need their oil? Who are the barbarians going to sell their black oil to? Russia? A direct oil embargo on Middle East oil would barely inconvenience us, but it would make it much harder for those who violate human rights. Indeed the world oil price would barely move, but the profits the human right violators make on it would collapse (they would have to use circuitous routes, and maybe the Black Market, if enough countries followed the West’s lead).

So what are we waiting for? Imperialism in the name of morality is a bad thing, but imperial morality is the only strategy for survival. As long as said morality is the best that can be devised.

What’s the best? Human ethology, including gender equality, what regimes such as the one in Saudi Arabia are firmly determined to destroy: see the all-out war of the Saudis against Sweden to defend their right to violate human rights, especially those of women.

Rhodesia, South Africa were embargoed for apartheid. The embargoes were highly successful.

Saudi Arabia certainly applies apartheid against females. So doing, it made its entire society not just unfair, but stupid (women instruct children until age 7 or so, traditionally). Now stupidity brings forth aggressivity. So Saudi sexism is a question which impugns upon the security of the West. And, indeed, Saudi Arabia has financed many terrorist networks over the last few decades, when not causing wars outright.

This little planet has room for only one morality, the one which insures humanity’s sustainability. That’s not imperialism, that’s reality.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Embargo The Saudis”

  1. dominique deux Says:

    That boycott would be like France’s proposed withholding of citizenship or Denmark’s revived border controls – a feel-good gesticulation to sop nationalist opinion, inconveniencing the culprits not at all.
    The House of Saud swims in cash. Its members would end up no longer the richest in the land, but the only rich in the land: a pluto’s dream. Sanctions are welcomed by dictators as an useful way to remind their sheep that they’re nor supposed to prosper as long as the evil foreigners breathe. Jihad, Rodina – same thing.
    Also remember that during economic slumps, sanction-induced or self-induced, the local plutos buy local assets at bargain prices from those who need to eat, and end up even wealthier when the slump ends. See Greece.
    Leave oil alone, hit cash. Drop the veil from the years of terrorism funding and masterminding by the Sauds and the ayatollahs, indict them and seize ALL their assets under some kinf of pumped-up RICO. That would grab their attention. They might end up having to work for a living!
    Of course that would assume a supranational judicial power… and that would ensure that their countless accomplices/puppetmasters in Western governments be arraigned, indicted and punished as well. The latter being why the former won’t happen.


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      The RICO angle is an interesting one, as it seems quite evident that the Saudi royals are one big happy mob “family”, complete with drug trafficking and wholesale corruption, abroad as well as in country.
      Still, they also seem to be running their little client-state/satrapy on behalf of Anglo-US interests, the “family” getting to run their “kingdom” for an huge profit, in exchange for being enforcers (djihad for fun and profit, wherever there is oil and/or geopolitical competition), and buying protection through useless weapons and absurd lifestyles.
      Aside from a truly “supranational judicial power”, I cannot imagine these loyal if increasingly encumbering lackeys ever be “prosecuted” by their masters.
      And this even without all the “goodwill” they’ve bought themselves in the West, or even their own supposed “Samson option” (targeting their own oil fields).


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        A Saudi prince was caught with 600 kilograms of a very expensive drug in his jet in Beirut… Remember the evacuation by Bush of the Bin Ladens from all over the USA during the “no fly” period after 9/11. Remember “Bandar” Bush?


        • Kevin Berger Says:

          Happened in France too, late 90’s IIRC, a journalist even wrote a book about the case and how it was handled “delicately” by the authorities (didn’t read it, of course); and Mohamed Atta was “injected” along with his flying tigers buddies (there’s a joke, here) into the USA by what is very seemingly a State-sanctioned/managed/run heroine & cocaine pipeline, bankrolled by the Saudi associates of the usual suspects (the same ones, a straight uninterrupted line from the Flying tigers to the Chinese lobby to the Cuban exiles to the Viet Nam war-era clandestine warriors to the Contras to the mudjahidines supporters).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Lots to answer here, and little time. The Saudis are in a huge cash crisis. So is much of the rest of the (ex) developing world, probably because Dark Money is starting to get seriously worried about a backlash (in other words, the Marine Le Pen mood, which is gaining quickly all over, from Sweden to frantic efforts to block Trump here in the USA)…

      Saudis are drowning in debt. The danger that they lose control is real and increasing. Border controls are a reality. Stripping nationality? I was against it, I have an essay ready on it. I am now for it. But Shakespeare in my crosshair…

      I do agree with hitting the cash and RICOizing them. But that’s the next step. Or maybe you are right it should come first. But when HSBC was caught financing terrorism last year, it was just condemned to a tiny fine. Then HSBC threatened to leave for Singapore, and the British government kissed their ass, giving them all they want… OK, we agree it won’t happen, but protesting about making business, in general, with the Saudis, could be how to approach it… The first step, vague enough to launch a process…

      Sanctions worked for sure against South Africa, Rhodesia, sort of against Myanmar, Iran… Everybody has Cuba’s miserable example to contemplate (a case of non UN sanctions…)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The movement to a boycott would make the Saudis panic. Even a partial boycott would cut their profits. Fact is their oil is not needed. At worst solar energy and storage would grow even faster than it does…


  2. Kevin Berger Says:

    Anyway, the kingdom seems to be on a crash & burn course, lately, accumulating risky (and failed) moves abroad, and with tensions growing inside. Maybe half the princelets are waiting for an ISIS-style new regime, while the others keep their jet fueled and ready to fly off at a moment notice?


  3. Kevin Berger Says:

    Et sinon, pendant ce temps là, qu’est-ce qu’on se marre :

    (Divers autres liens anglais & allemand rassemblés ici : https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/3zgekp/cologne_police_chief_condemns_sex_assaults_on_new/ )


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, thanks Kevin. I saw some of it on German TV. Weirdly the tall blondes with magnificent hair who sobbed about the terrible aggressions, were interviewed only showing their backsides… If they had really been attacked, why the shame? I have been attacked more than once, I don’t like to talk about it, but neither would I feel I had to hide my identity.

      Yet, I do hide my identity because I am viewed as perpetrator by some such as Quranists, Shake Spearers, lovers of empire and established order, etc…. I do because I don’t want to be attacked again… Hence the frightening possibility that those blondes have reason to think they will be attacked again, if they show their faces, and even more severely…

      Interesting where the demographic collapse of Europe has led to… A place where order has broken down so much that attacked citizens have to hide their faces, lest they get victimized again…


  4. Gmax Says:

    We don’t need oil! Why don’t we go solar and hydrogen like Patrice say all the time. F the Saudis very much. And big oil


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: