Tag Archives: Saddam

Strauss-Kahn Alpha Male.

 

Bilderberger, banker, former Finance Minister and prospective French presidential hopeful – all in one handy package – with the prospect of much more to come! Does it get any better than this?

Remember the gradual “coming-out” of Tiger Woods’ victims/conquests/opportunists? At first, it all seemed like a minor tremor but once the newspapers and TV had  trained their collective beady eye on the story, the proper eruption began. Months later, the tremors have more-or-less died down but his career is still affected by the fallout.

IMF Head,  Dominique Strauss-Kahhn has already been hit by a similar media earthquake.  Now, it is only the small matter of the aftershocks – how many and how severe.

First in the queue after the alleged New York Hotel assault will be French journalist Tristane Banon, who claims to have been assaulted by Strauss-Kahn four years ago. She  is the only one so far who is “considering” legal action but there are doubtless other lovelies awaiting the offer of services from a good PR man so that they too can cash-in.  Some of the claims will be true, others at best will be exaggerations. The rest will be lies. 

But what motivates a man such as this? Surprisingly, the behaviour is part of a sub-set of predispositions which define the Alpha Male. Saddam, Gaddafi and others who climbed or fought their way to their own position of power are the alpha males. Their extreme behaviours are no more than manifestations of their self-belief and  delusions of invincibility – or untouchability. Many of us cannot understand their behaviour because it is difficult to conceive extreme power without having experienced it.

Most ambitious men aspire to being alpha males – we call it ‘ambition’. Many act like alpha males for years before they actually ‘make it’. Books have been written on how to become an alpha male. It is something that many men covet because of the glittering prizes which await the true leader of the herd. What they do not realise is that once they have completed the journey, what awaits them is even more spectacular and seductive than they ever visualised. If religion is the opiate of the masses, power is the narcotic of the alpha.

But there’s always a downside: Once  they are the No 1, the only way out is either disgrace or destruction. Retirement is not an option – not for the true alpha.

In the animal kingdom, the alpha male eats first and mates first but he is always having to defend and fight for the privilege. Physical prowess is what sustains the alpha male but as he becomes older, it is inevitable that sooner or later he will be challenged by a younger, stronger male who will defeat him.

In the human world, the physical challenge has been sublimated into a self-destruct button which the corporate or political alpha always carries with him. For example, here in the UK, trainee alpha male Chris Huhne has just had his own destruct button pressed for him.

Very successful men – without exception have very high sex-drives. Whether it has something to do with money or whether it is power, doesn’t matter. It exists. It is not an excuse for naughtiness but it is certainly a major  contributor. It is that power-fuelled sex drive which is very often  their personal self-destruct button.

Over the years, I have met many high-powered individuals who travel the world, dispense life-changing decisions and who are hero-worshipped by their underlings. Most are married and most (not all) engage in extra-marital sex of one sort or another. Sex to them is a normal bodily function and a right. On the rare occasions when it is not given to them, their self-adulation tells them that they are able to help themselves.

There is always an element of ‘exponential decay’ in any couple’s sex-life. Unfortunately, by the time most men achieve professional power and their sex-drive  reverts to the warp-speed last experienced when they were 17  (obligatory and perfectly natural for an alpha male), their wife is either not there or possibly not as interested as he is.

Alpha men stray from their wives for what they perceive to be better (and sometimes younger ) sex, in part driven by the alpha-urge to populate the herd by spreading those alpha genes. 

How many times have you heard women saying to each other “He left his wife for THAT woman. Look at her!” It happens more than you think and it is a generally accepted fact that the most successful men are on (at least) their second or third partner.

Alpha men do not always stray for a better-looking woman because the whole phenomenon has little to do with looks. It is about sex. I am not suggesting that for instance, those ‘doyens of dirt’- the Rock stars who have shagged their way through a statistically significant slice of the female population are in any way not responsible for their actions – but they suffer from the same syndrome. It is NOT an illness – it is life. They are the alpha males in that particular environment.

Currently, Mr Strauss-Kahn’s sex-drive will be very very low. That’s because he will not be experiencing the ‘highs’ of power which have been driving his libido. In one day, he moved from a fully self-actualised Alpha Male to  someone whose self-esteem has been ripped from him and who is now fighting for his freedom . 

Within the last few hours, he will have realised that his professional life may well be over.

He, like many others who have tasted power and acclaim, has defeated himself.

 

STOP PRESS: Arnold Schwarzenneger has just confessed to fathering a child with an employee.

Gaddafi the Dictator-King

Muammar Gaddafi has probably been studied by the West more than any other post-war leader, yet, judging by the way that he is being treated by the anti Gaddafi, pro-rebel Coalition, it is plain to see that to them,  he is still an enigma.

Over the years, I have had contact with many corporate dictators and the behaviours which they exhibit bear a striking resemblance to those of Gaddafi and the only other comparable despot within the last few years – Saddam Hussein. One thing that I can report with certainty: they cannot be changed. Their behaviours are hard-wired.

Dictators rule by fear but ironically, they themselves are ruled by their own fears. Outwardly, they appear to have developed the symptoms of paranoia and as their career progresses, they believe (quite rightly) that there are fewer and fewer people that they can trust. Those feelings of universal mistrust eventually put them onto a self-destructive path which always leads to either their death or foreign exile. There is NO retirement home for them!

Gaddafi probably employs food tasters, doubles, sleeps at numerous locations and has all visitors searched. He definitely sleeps with a gun under his pillow because he constantly senses that it is only a matter of time before he is assassinated.

A dictator will do ANYTHING to remain in power – even if it means a diminution is status and financial or power-deals with the opposition. The overriding aspect and driving force of the dictator’s existence is POWER and its trappings. Too often, a dictator gives the impression of a messianic complex but in reality, compromise and compliance are often not too deep beneath the surface – if approached correctly. Having said that, they often genuinely do believe that they are on a divine mission. That belief can be so fundamental to the dictator’s makeup that  they are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve their legacy for their descendants.

Whenever the West is upset by a dictator – even a benevolent one, they begin to think “regime change ” and “democracy”. The propaganda machine grinds into gear and soon the stock phrases are deployed: “massive violence”, “murdering his own people”, “he’s mad”, “….but he’s a survivor”,  “dangerous if cornered”, “talent for dividing his enemies”, “isolated”, “iron rule” .

Currently, the stock phrases are being applied to Gaddafi but if you think back just a few years, you will recall exactly the same phrases being slung at Saddam Hussein, as they will be to Assad of Syria.

Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Gaddafi, Nasser and many others all used violence in order to retain power – although they didn’t always kill their enemies. For instance, Saddam would force his enemies to watch videos of their wives being raped or their children tortured. It was rumoured that Idi Amin would cut slices of flesh off his victims or their relatives and eat bits in front of them. Terrorism in its purest form.

Often it is most potent when the victim is not killed but instead given such an appalling story to tell that just hearing the stories keeps others in line.

Middle Eastern dictators are currently in the limelight and their opponents are right to be suspicious of   promises of reform because in spite of the fact that they may introduce superficial reforms, their inability to trust anyone makes it impossible for the dictator to work with anyone else apart from close friends and family.

Arab dictators sincerely believe in the moral weakness of the West and tend to reinforce that belief with demonstrations of their own piety in order to create a religious bond and empathy with their own people. Their belief in the superiority of Arab Civilisation is absolute. They see themselves as warriors defending  not-only their country but their faith against  Crusaders. The same Crusaders who used to  raid their lands every few hundreds of years but who nowadays arrive not-only with increasing regularity but with bigger and more powerful weapons.

Arab dictators such as Gaddafi know that the “soft” West will try to avoid the killing of civilians – hence the concept of the “human shield”. Tanks and guns are secreted in residential areas  in the sure knowledge that NATO will be too squeamish to risk blowing-up “innocent civilians”.

In many ways, fighting a dictator such as Gaddafi is an unequal struggle. He believes that he holds the moral, religious and “terror” aces. The “infidels”, “Americans and their Zionist friends” or just plain NATO are warmongers who are “acting illegally”. He may have a point. Gaddafi’s style of leadership is nothing new. He has been on the throne for 43 years and his current enemies have been perfectly aware of his methods for all of that time. They have known of his involvement in many atrocities – from Lockerbie to the various IRA bombings. Yet, the West tolerated him to such an extent that he became lauded as one who had made such progress that in 1988 he initiated the annual $250,000  Swiss-based  Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights. The first recipient was Nelson Mandela.

Less than one year ago, Libya was elected by a majority of its fellow U.N. members to serve on the United Nations’ Human Rights Council.

No wonder that the man (Gaddafi) feels confused and betrayed.

What he sees is the West siding with a bunch of protesting hooligans and terrorists who have no mandate or alternative to the Gaddafi regime. Protestors who began their campaign as a copycat version of the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings and who, by the simple expedient of shouting “democracy and freedom of speech” have managed to persuade NATO to bomb what, until a couple of months ago was a friendly nation.

Many have learned that all they have to shout is “Democracy” and the Americans will come running with the rest of those spoiling for a fight trailing behind them.

Gaddafi knows that when the clarion call “DEMOCRACY!” is shouted loud enough, it distorts during its journey through the ether and take on an altogether different sound:

“OIL”.

Chilcot Inquiry: The End

Chilcot Committee

The Chilcot Inquiry is over!!

Sir John Chilcot says that it will take “some months” to write the whole thing up.

Here’s a summary which I hope he finds helpful.

1.Saddam invaded Kuwait and George Bush Senior ignored Norman Schwarzkopf’s advice to push Saddam “all the way back to Baghdad”.

2. George Bush Senior knew that he’d made a mistake when Saddam continued to be a pain in the butt.

3.  9/11 happened and George W. Bush (the son) realised that by linking “terrorism” to Iraq, he could take Saddam down.

4. He needed someone naive and compliant to support his intention to invade Iraq under ANY pretext and so avenge his dear old pappy.

5. Enter “the Man who said YES”, Tony Blair. He over-committed by agreeing to support George Dubya without seeking a sign-off from Parliament.

6. Saddam continued to goad America by lying about his military capabilities, claiming that he possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)

7. Saddam was proved right. He did possess WMDs. The were called Bush and his poodle Blair.

8. WMD “evidence” was produced but later shown to be false – probably through over-zealous “interpretation” of data, photos and information.

9.Through a process of double-dealing, a loose interpretation of international law and obfuscation, Blair convinced Parliament that we could die at any minute at Saddam’s hands.

10. Iraq was bombed and eventually Saddam was hanged.

11. Bush declared a “victory” and Blair became a Middle East Peace Envoy.

12.Blair gave two Chilcot Inquiry performances which should (at the very least) earn him a BAFTA.

That took 10 minutes.

Blair the Invader

Tony Blair was a bad Prime Minister and his tenure at Downing Street was underpinned by nothing more than spin and window-dressing.

He is now attempting to justify his illegal aiding and abetting of that insaniac George W Bush’s mission to complete the Iraq job – or more specifically, his own father’s (George Bush Snr’s) failure to subdue Saddam in the 1990s.

Blair’s spinning habits have not changed at all and that is why he is suddenly acquiescing to the odd interview prior to his appearance at the Chilcot inquiry. That should be a laugh because judging by the inquiry events so far, Chilcot has already dipped the roller in the whitewash and is about to start redecorating the facts.

One hates to cloud the issues with facts but the only important one is that George W Bush and Tony Blair illegally invaded a sovereign state. They both knew that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Those two are the sole reason for the recent world-wide expansion of the terrorist industry.

Saddam was a merciless tyrant and was not the most popular leader but Iraq was stable, there were no terrorists blowing themselves up and there was nowhere-near the current body-count.

Imposing sanctions on Iraq so that, for instance. there weren’t enough medicines and then  refusing Iraq the ability to sell its oil were both clumsy amateurish attempts to paint Saddam into a corner. He and the Iraqi people felt very vulnerable and were easy prey to anyone who felt like invading them. It is no surprise therefore that Saddam decided to “big himself up” by making all sorts of claims about Iraq’s military prowess.

Everyone with an iota of intelligence could see that Saddam’s pronouncements were nothing more than Generalissimo-type posturing and window-dressing.  All that is except that Dumb and Dumber of politics: Bush and Blair. The thick and the slimy.

Blair is not a bad person, although his conversion to Catholicism does suggest that he enjoys reading fiction such as the WMD dossier. His actions over Iraq do show him to be an incompetent, ill-informed manager. It is difficult to refer to him as a “leader” because that describes  a generic ability which he lacked in abundance. It is also an inability which he so cleverly passed-on to his successor.

What is most worrying though  is the fact that he (Blair) allowed himself to be led by Bush – a man who , one suspects would have had difficulty finding the Presidential helicopter parked on his own lawn.

Looking on the bright side though – had Gordon Brown succeeded John Smith, we definitely would not have invaded Iraq.  The inquiry would  still be in full swing.