In his introduction, Skelton describes his investigatory piece as follows:
This is the story of the Syrian war, but there is another story to be told. A tale less bloody, but nevertheless important. This is a story about the storytellers: the spokespeople, the "experts on Syria", the "democracy activists". The statement makers. The people who "urge" and "warn" and "call for action".Citing Skelton's piece at The Occidental Observer, Prof. Kevin MacDonald has an excellent post that captures the greedy, Jewish Zionist-like mindset of these money-worshipping "liberal" Anglo-American globalists who have constructed these phony "opposition" fronts and are today deep into bed with Israel and organized Jewry, and picks up on Skelton's example of the Council on Foreign Relation's US/Middle East Project board member Peter Sutherland as symbolic of the kind of Machiavellian individuals who go to such great lengths to deceive, destroy and exploit both Islamic and Western civilization out of an agenda of self-enrichment.
It's a tale about some of the most quoted members of the Syrian opposition and their connection to the Anglo-American opposition creation business. The mainstream news media have, in the main, been remarkably passive when it comes to Syrian sources: billing them simply as "official spokesmen" or "pro-democracy campaigners" without, for the most part, scrutinising their statements, their backgrounds or their political connections.
It's important to stress: to investigate the background of a Syrian spokesperson is not to doubt the sincerity of his or her opposition to Assad. But a passionate hatred of the Assad regime is no guarantee of independence. Indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out.
Though it is not yet stated US government policy to oust Assad by force, these spokespeople are vocal advocates of foreign military intervention in Syria and thus natural allies of well-known US neoconservatives who supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and are now pressuring the Obama administration to intervene. As we will see, several of these spokespeople have found support, and in some cases developed long and lucrative relationships with advocates of military intervention on both sides of the Atlantic.
"The sand is running out of the hour glass," said Hillary Clinton on Sunday. So, as the fighting in Syria intensifies, and Russian warships set sail for Tartus, it's high time to take a closer look at those who are speaking out on behalf of the Syrian people.
Notes MacDonald in his piece, Globalists and Neocons: Two potent forces opposing the Assad government in Syria:
Sutherland is chairman of Goldman Sachs International and is a major player in the Bilderberg group. He is particularly loathsome character who, as “UN special representative on migration,” has been a strong advocate for the dissolution of all traces of European national identity based on a common peoplehood and a common culture (“EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief.“) Sutherland cynically argues that the EU must have high levels of migration in order to care for an aging population, in the belief that that might be appealing to native Europeans. But it’s clear that he sees multiculturalism and the dissolution of European cultural and ethnic identities as intrinsically positive goals. As indicated in the article, these goals are to be pursued even if the migrants take jobs from natives.This is exactly the kind of money-worshipping, Anglo-fascist mentality common to British Imperialism that I recently criticized in my Libertarian Today article How British Imperialists brought low Western civilization, and how their greedy, Anglo Globalist heirs are compounding the crime in which I review the documentary movie The British Empire In Color.
As I noted in that post,
The documentary is broken into three segments, and the final segment largely revolves around the British colonization of Australia, and how the British government encouraged migration there from Britain by providing essentially free passage for workers and whole families, and then paid for the housing and maintenance of the migrants in camps while they found work and assimilated into Australian society.It has become increasingly clear that establishment Washington and London are utterly dominated by a gaggle of uniformly materialistic globalists and neocons who control "the right," and neolibs and Diaspora Zionist Jews who control "the left," who generally work in rough unison and together form an international class of elites not loyal to their respective nations or the interests of the average people who dwell in them, but are rather loyal to their own bank accounts, careers, government and quasi-government fiefdoms and state-connected corporations...and above all, to their own egoistic self-aggrandizement, and that of their network.
Most of the British immigrants to Australia went there looking for better work, wages, and opportunity. In the later post World War II period, the British economy had stagnated, workers demanded more rights, and the establishments in both Britain and Australia were increasingly at odds with organized labor and panicked by fear of Communism. And while the documentary didn't explicitly state as much, the solution that the British elites seem to have embraced was mass immigration -- first, British labor into Australia to drive down wages and increase labor competition there, and later labor from the former British colonies into England to serve the same function in Britain.
In short, the Anglo money-worshippers at the helm of the British establishment and their representatives in government were more than happy to turn their own society upside down with a massive outflow of native English and a massive influx of often non-English-speaking immigrants from Commonwealth countries in order to preserve the profit margins of their entrenched corporate interests and keep the Communist forces (which these elites correctly identified as themselves a racketeering and monopolistic enterprise that might well supplant them) at bay.
A real puzzle, though, is why it is taking average Americans and Brits so long to figure all of this out?
Shouldn't being lied into a series of now decade-old Mideast wars for Israel and neo-Imperialism that have so disproportionately enriched a cohesive network of Zionist Jews and their Anglo-fascist accomplices, who now together form an insatiably greedy 1% that hogs the largest share of income in U.S. history, have provided average Brits and Americans a clue by now?
But then again, given that a wealthy network of organized Jewry dominates mass media, perhaps the engineered ignorance that afflicts the still-largely-oblivious English speaking populations isn't quite so surprising, after all.
Post a Comment