Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Every time the drums of war are pounded, young American men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces are marched off to risk life, limb and mind, not for the security of the U.S., but for a multinational corporation to secure a new market and more profits.

 

Now that news of a chemical weapons attack has splattered across the U.S. media, the fake news [1] war is on. Western media is pushing, hard, the story that Assad’s Syrian air force dropped chemical-weapon bombs. The Assad regime and Russia are pushing the story that Syrian air force bombs accidentally detonated a Syrian rebel group’s chemical-weapon stockpile.

And now, CNN is reporting that witnesses “saw chemical bombs dropped from the air.” And these civilian witnesses would know what a chemical bomb looks like, studying it carefully as it hurtled towards them, rather than fleeing for their lives, how?

The truth is not known, but will it be known?

 

Deja vu…

 

…all over again.

 

And the Syrian civil war has been overflowing with fake news from the start, when Syria was targeted for the “democratization” process.

“Democratization” has become neoliberal code for the “liberalization” of a country’s economy. This liberalization process can include, but is not limited to, the increase of governmental debt in global financial markets (bonds), the increase of indigenous business debt, the increase of indigenous consumer debt, the opening of a country’s stock market to speculation activity, the privatization of governmental functions (particularly utilities, but also banks, save for a central bank), access to a country’s labor markets, access to a country’s domestic retail markets with foreign goods, and so forth.

The sole purpose of this liberalization process is to provide global investors with access to a new nation for the rapid expansion of profits, particularly with countries that are classified as having developing or emerging economies. Developed economies are considered “saturated,” in that incremental profit growth can largely be realized only by small gains in population growth, with exceptions.

There are other considerations of the liberalization process as well, including the natural resources held within the border of a country, or its geopolitical usefulness gained merely by its location in the world.

In regards to Syria, Hillary Clinton (former co-Queen of the Globalists, the other being Angela Merkel of Germany, still on her throne) used verbal chicanery to hold out the possibility of Assad acting as a reformer in early March of 2011. Yet, by the very next month the voices against keeping Assad in power started to gain momentum, with Clinton herself stating Assad had lost legitimacy by July, only four months later. What changed?

For some years, in the early 21st century, International Monetary Fund representatives had been visiting Syria, and meeting with the Assad government on a number of economic reforms during which the IMF pressed for “liberalization.” By reading the IMF reports from 2005 – 2009, one can gain a sense that the Syrian government was willing to enact some reforms being pushed by the IMF, yet on others it was resisting the process, a clear sign there were either a) internal disagreements within Assad’s government or b) no willingness to enact the IMF-backed reforms, thus the Syrian-government representatives were merely placating the IMF.

With Assad slowing down the IMF’s reform process, by early March of 2011, the United States decided to fire a warning shot across Assad’s bow, targeting the Syrian city of Dara’a (more on that in a moment). But the outcome decided by the U.S., the IMF, the EU – and all the globalists standing behind these fronts – started to clarify one goal: regime change in Syria.

After the Syrian civil war broke out later in 2011, the IMF cast a bleak outlook on the Syrian economy five years later, despite having no contact with the Syrian government after 2009. This didn’t prevent the IMF from enumerating the steps necessary for Syria’s economic “revitalization.” The implicit message underlying all these post-conflict statements was “…after Assad’s removal.”

In an October 12, 2012 press briefing in Tokyo, Japan, the IMF’s Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department, Masood Ahmed , remarked, “…we in the IMF have not been able to get direct information about Syria for at least a year.” In fact, it had been closer to two years as the IMF reports stopped after 2009. Again, what changed?

The Arab Spring.

Assad recognized that after the initial, organic protest movements in Tunisia and Egypt, the U.S. government (along with other countries such as Germany) was taking advantage of the chaos to push a neoliberal agenda to other countries such as Libya and Syria.

On March 30, 2011, Bashar al-Assad addressed the Syrian Parliament. In it, Assad framed, in not-so-veiled language and analogies, his opinion of the IMF’s efforts at liberalizing the Syrian economy for the gain of international investors:

“They used to propose ideas which were contrary to our interests….”

“…and (Syria should follow the Palestinian example and) shift from a process of making concessions to a process of holding to rights.”

“And I am sure you all know that Syria is facing a great conspiracy whose tentacles extend to some nearby countries and far-away countries, with some inside the country.”

“The tools are the same: the slogans and talking about freedom. Consequently, if there are calls for reform – and I believe we all call for reform – we get along with them without knowing what is really happening. That is why they mixed up, in a very smart manner, three elements….”

Basically, Assad was telling the IMF – and all the globalists who stand behind it – to piss off. He had recognized the classic pincers move the U.S. was undertaking to get him to concede to IMF economic reforms. The carrot was the promise of international investor money flowing into Syria. The stick was the fomenting of a resistance movement, a threat to Assad should he decide to back away from IMF-demanded reforms.

The resistance started in a backwater in Syria known as Dara’a, a politically insignificant town of 75,000 near the Syrian-Jordan border. This location is significant, however, when one considers the CIA operatives that were working in Jordan with Assad opposition to instigate uprisings against the Syrian government. Dara’a was a border town in which the operatives could get in and out of Syria, quickly.

When Assad saw the U.S. machinations, those covert operations trying to come through his back door, he addressed the Syrian parliament and said in effect, enough already.

No IMF reforms?

Syria was going to have a civil war.

By 2015, when Russia sent its military into Syria, any faint hope of Assad keeping his country independent vanished. Assuming Russia’s intervention is successful in keeping the Assad government intact, Assad will now be in thrall to another economic colonial power… from the east.

The analogy here is the fool who willingly goes deep into debt buying a nice home, car, and clothes, then struggles to stay afloat financially. Looking for a better-paying job, he finds one with a very nice income. He doesn’t take pride in himself for his good luck (there is no such thing in his mind), but his ego believes he held an amazing resume and was very skilled at getting through the interview process. What he doesn’t know is that his financial quagmire was uncovered by his future employer, making him an ideal employee, beholden to the employer. Worse, this fool discovers, too late, the job he accepted turns out to be the absolute worst nightmare an employee could ever face,

Tin-pot despots are a dime a dozen; it’s just a matter of which economic imperialist will eventually take control of his country. Locked into the pincers strategy and out of frustration and fear, such leaders lash out and pursue increasingly authoritarian rule. This internal backlash only strengthens the hand of the globalists and hands them, on a silver platter, the arguments for regime change.

Nevertheless, after Russia’s 2015 intervention, Clinton’s dream of adding Syria to the list of western-friendly globalized, neo-liberalized countries faded. And in its wake has been a 6+ year internal conflict, 13.5 million refugees, some 400,000 dead, and a wrecked country.

In 2015, Colin Powell e-mailed his business partner, Jeffrey Leeds, on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail fiasco, and ended with a statement that perfectly sums up Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state: “Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.”

Powell’s original e-mail is now missing on DCLeaks.com (Leeds’ response is still there), but can be seen here. A listing of what Clinton’s hubris caused across the globe can be read here.

But the globalists are not overly concerned about hubris, and wasted no time in pushing their story to the forefront in the news.

Millions uprooted, hundreds of thousands dead, hundreds of thousands more physically impaired for life, untold numbers mentally impaired for life… all for the cause of finding the next, new, cheap labor market, an action that keeps a damper on labor costs in the US and other Western countries, but allows low-cost products to be sold at double-digit multiples of profit back in the US and other western countries.

U.S. Marine General Smedley Butler was right: War is a Racket. And at least one writer, Owen Jones, recognizes the call for regime change in Syria as being linked to globalism:

“It is increasingly clear that some liberals opposed Trump not because of his authoritarian right-wing populism, but because they feared he would be ‘isolationist’.”

And yet, every American generation continues to buy into the U.S. government’s arguments for the next war.

All the while, young American men and women serving in the U.S. armed forces are marched off to risk life and limb, not for the security of the U.S., but for a multinational corporation to secure a new market and more profits.

Epilogue

On August 2, 2017, The New York Times ran a story on the Trump Administration pulling the plug on the CIA’s $1 billion-dollar covert war operations in Syria.

 

Endnotes

[1] “Fake news” has quickly developed into two concepts. First, “fake news” has become a label that anyone can attach to worldviews with which they disagree. Second, and far more insidious, “fake news” has become a framework by which social media sites can randomly, and without transparency, censor any and all content it deems “fake news,” and is thus eliminated or effectively blocked from dissemination. Corporations, in addition to government, have thus become censors in the process, and without any legal dictates from the government to do so. Yet, fake news from official government sources is rapidly disseminated, and largely without question.

 

 

Advertisements