The real reason for NATO's annulment of the Romanian election
Strategic Culture Foundation Editorial
Strategic Culture Foundation
What the West can’t stand are leaders who prioritize national independence and sovereignty, the common interest, and social welfare.
If he were far right-wing, the West would happily work with him. That’s the best absorbent cotton test for determining whether or not a particular candidate is extreme right-wing. The West has always had a huge tolerance for right-wingers. From fanatic Islamists to neo-Nazis or Zionists, history is here to prove that.
The capitalist, imperialist, neo-liberal West has never had any problem working with fanatics of any kind, as can be seen in Syria today. What the West can’t stand, whoever they are, are leaders who don’t allow national independence and sovereignty, the common interest, and social welfare to be limited by private appropriation by the international economic and financial interests it protects.
The truth is that West has no problems working with Meloni in Italy, Milei in Argentina, the current South Korean president, or even the Saudi royal family. Even to name the ones who everyone assumes to be hard right-wingers. We must not forget that, nowadays, at the very heart of the Western political system, we have the most fanatic and extremist situationists, such as Von Der Leyen, Baerbock, Sholz, or Macron. They only differ from traditional far-right-wingers in two or three subjects like wokeísm, religiosity (not all of them), acceptance of Brussels’ central power, and their position towards war with Russia.
In Syria, for example, they have joined hands with groups formed from Al-Qaeda, linked to the Islamic Brotherhood, one theological school that also feeds Hamas, overthrowing a secular government that defends gender equality, but also national sovereignty, particularly in terms of ownership of strategic sectors, like energy. It won’t be long before the mainstream press is crying hard over the oppression of Syrian women. For starters, I saw no feminine presence in the press conferences that new Syrian leaders provided. The U.S. and Israel don’t seem to have had any problems dealing with conservative authoritarian Erdogan, as an operative in the upheaval, or with “moderate radicals” that came from known terrorist organizations. If someone can explain to me what is a “moderate radical”, be my guest. A semiotic upgrade made from the ancient paradox concept of “moderate rebels”.