Manbij siege by US-led International Coalition and SDF becoming a humanitarian catastrophe

Statement issued from the Political Committee in the City of Manbij
“No to the killing of civilians in Manbij”

With the continuation of battles between the sides of the conflict (Syrian Democratic Forces and the Daesh organisation) in the city of Manbij, and which started from 31-5-2016, the suffering of the civilian population increases day after day, whereby talking about the essential necessities for the population from food and medicine is no longer enough to balance against the ghost of death that has come to threaten the old and the women and the children who have been besieged and indeed taken by the Daesh organisation as human shields, and that as a consequence of the siege which has been imposed by the [International] Coalition forces cordoning off the city from its four directions. The Syrian Democratic Forces were able to enter to a number of the city’s neighbourhoods, the matter which has transformed the battle to street fighting which has made the civilians easy prey to all forms of death (Coalition planes – Predating snipers on roofs and inside houses – the mines that were planted by the Daesh organisation in the streets and the paths and the public places), and in the midst of this tragic reality most citizens have now become unable to find a safe haven that prevents from them [i.e. shields them from] the shells and missiles of death which they don’t know at which moment can fall above their heads, to add to that the city has [already] witnessed many cases where no one was able to recover and remove the bodies of the dead from the streets due to the fear of being abruptly killed.

The Political Committee in Manbij has already previously implored – and from the start of fighting – all sides and at their head the United States of America, and the rest of the Coalition countries, and affirmed to everyone that the strategy that has been taken up in fighting Daesh would have disastrous results on the civilian population, and at the time that the committee has affirmed its welcome in fighting Daesh and expelling it from the city except that it has pointed out repeatedly that the Coalition’s insistence on fighting in this way gives the world the impression that what approaches 200,000 individual inhabitants who are civilians are all from the Daesh organisation, and it is worth mentioning in this context that this is not the only time that heavily populated cities are liberated from the authorities of the Assad regime or Daesh but [this happens] without these disasters which do not indicate anything other than not caring about the lives of civilians and a clear indifference towards the lives of Syrians.

The political committee in the city of Manbij whilst expressing more of its sadness and concern regarding the cases of death which are reaping the civilian innocents, it at the same time calls vigorously on the international community in its entirety, and the coalition countries especially, affirming to them the duty of the entire international community to shoulder its moral and humanitarian responsibilities regarding a war imposed on isolated civilians [who are] powerless and defenceless, and almost have nothing in terms of life necessities, as well as them having no option which can enable them to eschew the death which is threatening their life. Noting that the insistence of the coalition states to ignore the humanitarian situation in the city of Manbij cannot be explained except as disregard for the totality of human values which have been guaranteed by all the canons and laws to preserve the sanctity of blood and protection of the human entity.

The Political Committee in the city of Manbij
13-7-2016


يان صادر عن الهيئة السياسية في مدينة منبج
(لا لقتل المدنيين في منبج)

مع استمرار المعارك بين طرفي النزاع ( قوات سورية الديمقراطية وتنظيم داعش)في مدينة منبج، والتي بدأت منذ 31 – 5 – 2016 ،تزداد معاناة السكان المدنيين يوما بعد يوم، إذ لم يعد الحديث عن الاحتياجات الضرورية للسكان من غذاء ودواء كافياً في موازاة شبح الموت الذي بات يهدد الشيوخ والنساء والأطفال الذين حوصروا بل اتخذهم تنظيم داعش دروعاً بشرياً وذلك نتيجة للحصار الذي فرضته قوات التحالف وطوّقت المدينة من جهاتها الأربع. لقد تمكّنت قوات سورية الديمقراطية من الدخول إلى عدد من أحياء المدينة، الأمر الذي حوّل المعركة إلى قتال شوارع مما جعل المدنيين عرضة سهلة لكافة أشكال الموت( طائرات التحالف – قناصات المتربصين على الأسطحة وداخل البيوت – الألغام التي زرعها تنظيم داعش في الشوارع والطرقات والاماكن العامة)،وفي ظل هذا الواقع المأسوي بات معظم المواطنين لا يجدون مأوى آمناً يقيهم قذائف الموت الذي لا يعرفون أية لحظة يمكن أن يحلّ فوق رؤوسهم،إضافة إلى أن المدينة شهدت حالات عديدة لم يتمكن فيها أحد من انتشال جثث الموتى من الشوارع بسبب الخوف من القتل المباغت. لقد سبق وناشدت الهيئة السياسية في منبج – ومنذ بدء القتال – كافة الأطراف وعلى رأسها الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وباقي دول التحالف، وأكدت للجميع بأن الاستراتيجية التي تم اعتمادها في قتال داعش سوف تكون لها نتائج كارثية على السكان المدنيين،وفي الوقت الذي أكدت فيه الهيئة بترحيبها بقتال تنظيم داعش وطرده من المدينة إلا أنها نوّهت مراراً على أن إصرار قوات التحالف على القتال بهذه الطريقة يوحي للعالم بأن ما يقارب ( 200000 ) نسمة من المدنيين وكأنهم جميعا من تنظيم داعش،ومن الجدير ذكره في هذا السياق أنه ليست هذه هي المرة الوحيدة التي تتحرر فيها مدنٌ آهلة بالسكان من سلطات نظام الأسد أو داعش لكن بدون هذه الكوارث التي لا تدل سوى على عدم اكتراث بحياة المدنيين ولامبالاة واضحة تجاه حياة السوريين. إن الهيئة السياسية في مدينة منبج إذ تبدي مزيد حزنها وقلقها حيال حالات الموت التي تحصد المدنيين الأبرياء، فإنها في الوقت ذاته تطالب بشدّة المجتمع الدولي كافة ، ودول التحالف على وجه الخصوص، مؤكّدة على وجوب تحمّل المجتمع الدولي كافة مسؤولياته الأخلاقية والإنسانية حيال حرب مفروضة على مدنيين عُزّل لا حول لهم ولا قوة، وقد باتوا لا يملكون من مقوّمات الحياة شيئاً، فضلاً عن عدم امتلاكهم لأي خيار يمكّنهم من تحاشي الموت الذي يهدد حياتهم. علماً أن إصرار دول التحالف على تجاهل الحالة الإنسانية في مدينة منبج لا يمكن تفسيره إلا كونه تجاهلاً لمجمل القيم الإنسانية التي كفلتها كل الشرائع والقوانين للحفاظ على حرمة استباحة الدم وحماية الكائن البشري.

الهيئة السياسية في مدينة منبج
13
– 7 – 2016

Advertisements

John Kerry blames the Syrian rebellion for Assad’s airstrikes

2 months ago John Kerry came out with his ‘admissions’ of long established on the ground US policy in Syria, a gluttony of statements clarifying the 4-year long so-called “muddled” US position (I never believed it has been) sending a signal that the US was essentially declaring “fun’s over, time to wrap up”. Saying that the regime was not the target of “regime-change” (this reality was well-known of course long before Kerry’s statements for those who were not Assad apologists and who closely followed the Syrian conflict, as US actions on the ground spoke for themselves), rebels should fight alongside the fascist colonial Syrian Army against ISIS, declaring that all sides had “bad guys” and there were “good guys” on the Syrian regime’s side as well, and ‘coincidentally’ “revealing for the first time” that he had obtained a signature from (the dove) Assad in 2010 promising normalisation of ties with Israel before all the trouble broke out.

In a recent Syria donors conference held in London, Kerry continued to reveal his true colours:

“US Secretary of State John Kerry told Syrian aid workers, hours after the Geneva peace talks fell apart, that the country should expect another three months of bombing that would “decimate” the opposition.

During a conversation on the sidelines of this week’s Syria donor conference in London, sources say Kerry blamed the Syrian opposition for leaving the talks and paving the way for a joint offensive by the Syrian government and Russia on Aleppo.

“‘He said, ‘Don’t blame me – go and blame your opposition,’” one of the aid workers, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her organisation, told Middle East Eye.

 

The report goes on to state

“A third MEE source who claims to have served as a liaison between the Syrian and American governments over the past six months said Kerry had passed the message on to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in October that the US did not want him to be removed.

Instead, the source claims, Kerry insisted that Assad should stop using barrel bombs, which terrify civilian populations.

The source claimed that Kerry said if Assad stopped the barrel bombs, Kerry could “sell the story” to the public, the source said.”

[Note: the report went on to make mention of the well-known US “Train and Equip” programme /Division 30 “fiasco”. So much has been written on this and yet such a simple fact is so shockingly absent from all reporting about the programme, including by outlets you’d expect better from like Al-Jazeera: the programme stipulated that recruits sign a declaration not to fight Assad and only to fight ISIS – which was why so few recruits joined it, not because of the ridiculous, orientalist and frankly racist notion that all Syrians who don’t represent Assad’s core fighting minorities are “Islamic extremists” (though Tony Blair is the latest to add his voice to the chorus of those who’d have you think so, in a study perhaps as arbitrary and ridiculous (if not more) than his WMD dossier – in which he notably echoed George Galloway in calling the Assad regime a “castle” standing out against dangerous Jihadis, in more and more evidence of the Red-Brown (Left-Right) Western Assadist agreement on Syria – Blair should probably apply for membership of Stop the War Coalition now)]

 

12650938_955892824464609_3599864546693984908_n.jpg

[From Right to left: “Political control for Russia – The Golan for Israel – The chemicals for America (though apparently there is evidence that the US did not remove all of Assad’s stockpile: in December Sarin was used for the first time since 2013 a week after John Kerry’s statements, and the Obama administration has reportedly blocked FOI requests into the subject) – Military control for Iran – We are a sovereign nationalist country!!”]

 

12631326_1212868665436922_6039926517783200134_n.jpg

[Caricature playing on the marching slogan of Shia miltias -banner reads “O Hussain”, whilst Barack “Hussein” Obama flies overhead stating: “Labaik! [At your service – Arabic phrase responding to an invocation] With you is Hussein Obama from the Family of the White House!?”  (play on Ahl-ul Bayt – Family of the Prophet’s House). Arrow points towards Fallujah]

 

yt14i.jpg

[US policy in one very painful to read meme]

 

Why are the Taliban excluded from the negative examples of “regime change”?

[From FB post]

Note the subtly-orientalist secular bias when those who say (be they Trump or Sanders) “look at what happens when we ‘take out’ those secular dictators” never say “look at what happened when we took the Taliban out” (incidentally a 15 year insurgency – much longer than Libya’s post-Qadaffi troubles) – because the Taliban are dangerous turbanned Muzzies innit, unlike the wise, harsh-but-necessary Qadaffis and Assads (who we apparently don’t like but think they should get overthrown by flowers). Also of course we’ll sound terrible if we say something like that.

[Another example incidentally of how so many within the left seemed to have forgotten all the grievances they used to cite which were the springing beds for al-Qaeda etc, and jumped on the completely opposite bandwagon of “LOOK AL QAEDA” when it appeared on the opposite side of an indigenous post-colonial (colonial remnant) state instead of an “original” current-colonial one (all you need to see is how the likes of al-Qaeda etc were considered part of “the resistance” when they were fighting the US in Iraq and then reverted suitably back to “terrorists” when they were fighting the colonially-founded regime in Syria). Not that it needs mentioning but of course this is not to state that the likes of al-Qaeda or the Taliban were the solution to the region’s colonial hangovers, but to note that they were the product of it similarly to being the product of direct present colonial intervention.]

Bernie Sanders is the latest Western-narcissistic orientalist idiot, telling Hilary Clinton how “she needs to consider the consequences of these regime changes she rushes into” as if there weren’t country-wide rebellions going on, what planets do these people live on? How fucked up is it when the progressive option in these situations happen to coincide with the “genuine” neocons (as opposed to war on terror ones) instead of the left, how fucked up is that? and if he doesn’t know he’s an idiot, maybe he should look across the platform and see how his supposed opposites Trump and Cruz are saying exactly the same thing.

5 points to make on Syria and its future prospects

[From FB post]

5 Points to make on Syria and its future prospects:

1) In any imperialist-imposed “political solution” Nusra will of course be targeted in as similiar an intensity as ISIS (of course it has already been significantly targeted but all restrictions will be off once the US can achieve its “political solution” and ignore complaints by the Syrian opposition), however having alienated quite a lot of Syria’s rebels it is questionable whether all will run to its support. Of course they should rally to defend it against any US/Russian attack, as for all its faults (and these would have to be challenged by Syrians in their own time) it came to support the Syrian people at a time when no one else did – and has more importantly committed far less crimes than either the US coalition, Russia, Assad or his sectarian loyalist militias (who will be spared from the “terror” list, including Hezbollah) – however I suspect Nusra will be a prickly subject.

It is Ahrar al-Sham however which will be the connecting and crucial junction. It is almost certain that Ahrar al-Sham will be put on the US-Russian “terror” list. While unfortunately I think the majority of the FSA (Southern Front in particular) are likely to accept the “political solution” (that brings about the promise of Assad’s eventual resignation and keeps in tact the regime), the FSA MUST stand in solidarity with Ahrar al-Sham if it gets attacked. This cannot be stressed enough.

2) Jaish al-Fatah were repeatedly bombed by the US long before Russia’s intervention for precisely the reason that it did not respect the operational red lines that the US had imposed on other rebel coalitions, notably the Southern Front (with regards to the extent of military campaigns undertaken, such as taking over the entirety of Idlib and proceeding onto Latakia). They were not attacked because they were “extremist”, as we could see in the bombing of even its non-ideological (FSA) components. The same fate could be expected of factions that do not accept the regime-relegitimising “political solution”.

(It is also important to note that any distinctions between attacking the FSA or other rebel groups by the US should be made essentially obsolete, as the vast majority of the 150 or so rebels killed by the US coalition were likely to have been “FSA” at one point in time, and departed it due to a combination of poor funding & lack of operational independenc, and the US fully knows this)

3) The US has not “been defeated” by Russia in Syria, and not even remotely. Rusian strikes in Syria came *right off the back* of an intensification of US bombing against Jaish al-Fatah. [This again betrays a lack of understanding of Russia’s rise being indicative of a return to a “Cold War”, when it is in reality much more reminiscent of a return to a 19th century – not 20th century – world order, in which imperialist relations are based primarily on *geopolitical expansion* not on ideological competition (though the USSR was of course still an imperialist power); this was a form of relationship which routinely entailed ‘competitor alliances’ between ostensibly adversarial powers when dictated by the common interest (in this case, an anti-Islam “War on Terror”)]. For the follower of the Syrian context it is not a stretch to say that the US may have directly (& covertly) requested Russian strikes on the Syrian rebels (incidentally even before this began it was directly wondered whether this would occur), after seeing that its strikes were insufficient to stop Jaish al-Fatah’s advances (requiring a much larger operation, which is what has happened – with Russia’s blitzes hitting everything liberated, military targets or civilian installations and infrastructures – Jaish al-Fatah’s advances have grinded to a halt). Even if the US had not “directly” requested Russian intervention, they had already sent a clear signal to Russia that bombing mainstream Syrian rebels was fair game.

The fact that the US continues to block Arab provided anti-aircraft missiles from the revolutionary forces 3 months into Russia’s massacres should pay put to any idea of the US trying to draw Russia into an “Afghanistan”. That the Russian airstrikes have come with US approval, tacit or requested is beyond dispute.

[Note: there is a reason I focus on US policy in my analyses rather than Russia, because it – not the Russians – is the real powerbroker of the Syrian war (on a level playing field the rebellion would’ve succeeded without a shadow of the doubt, possessing both a greater manpower and popular base than the regime – the fact that there is not a level playing field is due less to Russian and Iranian support for the Syrian government as it is to the US limitations on the provision of anything approaching an equal level from Qatar, Saudi and Turkey)]

4) US policy in Syria has never been to support a *revolutionary movement*, but to support an *opposition movement*. This cannot be stressed enough. The US has never called for the collapse or “downfall of the regime” (indeed it has called for precisely the opposite), it has called for Assad’s negotiated resignation. Whilst I believe that Assad will probably step down, I also sincerely believe that even if he didn’t the US would much more likely accept his remaining (and the so-called political embarrassment that comes with that) than his forcing out by a seriously enroaching rebellion. US policy has been to reach a *settled rebellion* (or to settle the rebellion), not a *successful rebellion*.

[Incidentally I do not think it is a coincidence that the SNC (though not regime collaborators a la the PA in Palestine for example are nonetheless essentially the indigenous US front for Syrian policy, regardless of any potentially well-meaning intentions) possess as relatively a tame name as the National Coalition for OPPOSITION and Revolutionary forces, its tone perhaps sets out a political compromise from the very beginning (a much less radical name incidentally than a revolutionary council/higher command), though I may be reading too much into this. Its structure though of course was as essentially a negotiating opposition coalition rather than a revolutionary leadership structure/government-in-waiting (indeed the SNC’s Interim Syrian Government is not recognised by the US)]

Although this was clear to Syrian revolutionaries at least from a couple of years ago, John Kerry’s statements that he does not see the Syrian Army or the regime as his enemy, reducing all the problems, all the massacres, all the genocidal carpet bombings to the figure of Assad himself, are of course completely ludicrous and indicative.

5) In any political solution I believe the choice of the flag adopted will hold much more than symbolic value. I do not believe the revolutionary flag will be adopted and find it much more likely that the regime flag remains in place (of course there is a compromise flag which was used by Syria during the 60s as well as Iraq later on which essentially combines the two – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Syria… – but I think the regime’s flag is likely to stay)

A 5 minute guide on debunking the notion “Syria is not about Assad not wanting to give up power”

[From FB post]

A 5 minute guide to debunk the notion that Syria’s conflict is not to do with Assad not wanting to give up power:

– Lets assume that there is literally no indigenous Syrian opposition (even though Assad of course acknowledged that there is and has the “harbouring” of “millions” of his population, but lets assume otherwise). Lets assume that every single “attack” the Syrian regime/state (one of the same in the context of Syria) have been subjected to has been an Israeli invasion, lets assume that all the destruction in the country is because of an Israeli airforce. Lets assume that all the destruction in Syria is because of Israel (note: it was Israel that suggested and brokered the chemical weapons deal in 2013 that spared the regime from Obama’s “punitive strikes” – but lets put that aside).

Now considering the scale of the destruction and humanitarian crisis, surely any regime that’s so miserably failed to defend the country against such an “attack” would be expected to make changes in leadership, resignations, etc. When Egypt was defeated in 1967 (in 6 days, not 5 years) Gamal Abdel Nasser came out on national TV and offered his resignation (be it a bluff or otherwise, he did it). If they were truly “patriotic” that is, they would not be able to sit in front of their people with a face betraying anything other than shame and utter abashedness at what’s happened to their country – the shame Nasser showed on his face in his speech. What you have with Assad though, is someone who STILL looks utterly relaxed and cracks jokes 5 years on his country’s utter destruction. Compare that even to Saddam, who would appear genuinely troubled when interviewed with Western media, and would implore them to change policy (again this does not take away from the fact that he was a egotistical melgomaniac as well).

Now unless there is someone who seriously thinks that the Assad’s regime’s “resistance” to this Israeli attack has been successful, this leaves only one option – that the scale of the humanitarian disaster isn’t really that bad, which is *why* the Syrian regime does not go on about the sheer scale of the disaster in the country, even though it would presumably further its “this is what the West and Israel are doing” narrative – it tries to hide it with “come have fun in summer” PR campaigns.

In other words – admitting the humanitarian disaster either means that 1) you have a government whose failure to stand up to its enemies entailing the worst humanitarian catastrophe (nakba) since WW2 could only be put in the most humungous epic failures in military history.

2) You have a government that is actually carrying out this humanitarian disaster.

And this is why the Syrian regime hides the scale of the humanitarian disaster, because even if you follow its lie of a narrative, of a conspiracy by those who’ve actually protected its continued, albeit more and more pathetic existence, it still leaves them entirely deficient and indeed completely emasculated.

This is unlike, note, Saddam’s Iraq during the 90s – though he too was a melgomaniac who wouldn’t give up power even if his whole people suffered and starved (imperialism needs melgomaniacs, have no doubt), his state routinely showed the humanitarian catastrophe (malnutrition, children being born with deformed limbs etc.) that came out of the US-led decade of economic embargo in the country which killed a million Iraqis (half of them children according to the UN).

Because his state was truly under “Western attack” in that instance. When has the Syrian government ever showed pictures of the emaciated figures of those under siege (even lets say by the Israeli proxy terrorists) on its media?

Of course the reality is that it is not a coincidence that the areas which the Syrian regime lost control of happen to be the areas that were the centres of protest against him in 2011 – Idlib, the capital of the revolution, Dara’a, the working-class half of Aleppo, the riff-raff suburbs of Damascus, as well of course as all the smaller cities, towns and village of Syria’s provincial countrysides (countrysides of Homs, Hama, Idlib, Dara’a, Aleppo as well of course as Raqqa, Hassakah and Deir al-Zor – note the only countryside which the rebels have very limited presence in is Latakia). The idea that the regime could have lost these wide swathes of territory when it is armed by a state-of-the-arts military (given all the developed Russian weaponry the US could ever bestow on anyone, as its media routinely brags) as well as an unchallenged airforce, were it not for insane popular resistance against the odds is as delusional as the idea that this conflict ultimately does not boil down to the reluctance of a family, representing a clan, representing (unfortunately) a sect to lose power, and their inflicting of absolute horrors to maintain their ultimate superiority.

A brief and quick debunking of Assad’s eloquent defence

Assad always asks “how could I still be in power if people didn’t want me?”, when the question he should ask is how could he have lost control of 3/4 of his country if the people did not want him? He will state that this was due to a foreign terrorist invasion, yet why would that foreign invasion be so effective against an army whose Russian backing, the Syrian media routinely makes clear, matches anything the US could offer in quantity and quality and beyond? (not to mention an army of course which possesses unchallenged aerial superiority, a reality the regime has never disputed).
And if this was a foreign invasion, why would he think that the displacement of half of his population and loss of 75% of his territory is anything other than a monumental failure to defend the country against this foreign attack? And if he did not care about power as he claims, why does he not resign and give someone else “a shot” considering a reality which only a madman could consider a “success”?
And if the population in these areas were loyalists, why are there no local insurgencies against these invaders in those areas (for example in the same  form of besieged pockets of armed resistance the rebels have throughout Syria – the only two examples which exist for the regime’s side are Fua’a and Kafraya, two Shia villages in the middle of rebel territory), with instead the only loyalist opposition coming from the army and its allies advancing from other areas?
(Note: Of course therein lies the answer to what has often been pointed out, as to why the regime never brags about the sheer scale of the humanitarian disaster (refugees etc) inflicted by the “foreign invasion” and instead tries always to keep it under the surface (unlike Saddam’s Iraq under embargo for example) – because if they did brag about it this would prove the regime’s utter failure to defend the country despite being militarily unimpeded (unlike Saddam who had No-Fly Zones over his head) at best and of course, the truth at worst.)

This does not mean that any of these claims should be treated seriously, nor even that we should be paying too much attention to the person of Assad as people often make the mistake of doing. But it is to note that Assad’s own statements regularly betray the vacuousness of his narrative, as when he admits his reliance on the thousands of foreign troops fighting for him (stating that “Syria is for those who defend it”), a shameless admission incidentally for a “nationalist” leader who had spent the past 5 years stating that his enemies were all foreign extremists (even during the days of peaceful protests, the lie of course repeated by every other Middle Eastern regime, but credit to Assad’s loyal military he survived long enough to allow his mukhabarat to turn the fantasy of a “foreign jihadi” invasion into something on the ground) – or when stating  that millions within his population are providing “refuge” to the “terrorist plot” (blaming it on a society-wide “ethical breakdown” –  which presuming that was the case has been a society ruled over by his family for 40 years).

However, ultimately Assad’s a puppet and a figurehead. When Assad denies the use of barrel bombs (though he doesn’t deny the use of an airforce on urban centres inside his own country, saying “casualties are expected in war”) he may be a psychotic liar or he may not even know the full extent of what’s happening in his country. That’s not to excuse him, he is a person who would have used the same counter-insurgency 100 times even if he knew what the results would be down the line, but to state that he is not the central issue in the Syrian conflict [as the US has incidentally been trying to make out over the past 5 years, in order to limit the scope of the rebellion and potential change to a state with which it has had a stable, 40-year old collaborative relationship (yet a state with a resolutely radical and anti-colonial society, stemming from a century old Arabist tradition), which is why incidentally that Syrian civil society has since 2012 rejected the US’s “diplomatic/political solutions”, and their “there is no military solution for the rebels” bullshit, which seek to maintain the regime and sacrifice the figurehead, a la Egypt]. But it is to note that it is not Assad himself who has been willing to torture, rape, drop bombs from the sky on a 4-year daily basis and kill hundreds of thousands of people in his country, it is an entire set of state intelligence, hateful sectarian loyalists and security apparatuses. They can keep Assad if they think they’ll keep those as well.

The most important thing you will do this year

If you never come to this blog again and ignore anything else I ever post, watch this. I cannot overstate how important it is, I would quote things from it but this would be a mammoth post. Just take an hour of your time whenever that may be and watch this, I guarantee you will not regret it.