A Little Background: The U.S. Has Tried to Carry Out Regime Change Since Syria Became An Independent County …
The U.S. government has been trying to replace the Syrian government with folks who will be subservient to America since 1949 … 3 years after Syria became an independent nation.
The CIA succeeded in carrying out a coup in Syria 1949.
In 1957, the American president and British prime minister agreed to launch regime change again in Syria using a false flag. (False flags are not only historically documented, but presidents, prime ministers, congressmen, generals, spooks, soldiers and police have ADMITTED to planning and carrying out false flat attacks).
In 1983, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2009 and 2012, American officials again schemed about regime change in Syria.
The 2013 Syrian Weapons Attack Was Carried Out By …
The 2013 sarin attack in Ghouta, Syria, was blamed by the U.S. on the Syrian government.
However, the United Nations’ report on the attack did NOT blame the government, and the U.N.’s human rights investigator accused the rebels – rather than the Syrian government – of carrying out the attack.
Moreover, high-level American and Turkish officials say that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels in 2013 in order to frame the Syrian government … to provide an excuse for regime change.
⇒ Keep Reading
The French government released a report blaming the Syrian government for this month’s chemical weapons incident.
The report states:
According to the intelligence obtained by the French services, the process of synthesizing sarin, developed by the Scientific Studies and Research Centre (SSRC) and employed by the Syrian armed forces and security services, involves the use of hexamine as a stabilizer.
The presence of the same chemical compounds in the environmental samples collected during the attacks on Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017 and on Saraqib on 29 April 2013 has therefore been formally confirmed by France. The sarin present in the munitions used on 4 April was produced using the same manufacturing process as that used during the sarin attack perpetrated by the Syrian regime in Saraqib. Moreover, the presence of hexamine indicates that this manufacturing process is that developed by the Scientific Studies and Research Centre for the Syrian regime.
Sounds convincing, right?
But the report falls apart upon closer scrutiny …
Specifically, the head of the United Nations’ team investigating the possible use of chemical warfare in Syria (Åke Sellström) wrote an email to MIT rocket scientist Ted Postol in 2014 stating:
Hexamine … is a product simple to get hold of and in no way conclusively points to the [Syrian] government.
⇒ Keep Reading
The campaign by the Obama-Clinton Democratic Party establishment to blame their electoral failures upon Russian leader Vladimir Putin is shown in a recent Pew poll to be a great success:
Share of Democrats calling Russia ‘greatest danger’ to U.S. is at its highest since end of Cold War
20 APRIL 2017, BY ROB SULS10 COMMENTS
Nearly four-in-ten Democrats (39%) name Russia as the country that represents the greatest danger to the United States – the highest percentage expressing this view in nearly three decades, according to a new survey.
Compared with 2013, the last time this question was asked, greater shares in both parties volunteer Russia as posing the greatest danger to the U.S. – but nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans now say this (39% vs. 21%).
The new Pew Research Center survey of 1,501 adults was conducted April 5-11, before the recent rise in tensions with North Korea, its failed missile test and Vice President Mike Pence’s visit to South Korea.
Overall, 31% of Americans, answering an open-ended question, cite Russia as the country representing the greatest danger to the U.S., while 22% point to North Korea. The shares naming both countries are among their highest dating back to 1990.
Fewer cite China (13%), Iran (9%), Syria (6%) and Iraq (5%) as countries representing the greatest danger to the U.S.
⇒ Keep Reading
Psychoanalysis teaches that one cause of depression is repressed anger.
The rising tide of collective anger is visible in many places: road rage, violent street clashes between groups seething for a fight, the destruction of friendships for holding the “incorrect” ideological views, and so on. I Think We Can Safely Say The American Culture War Has Been Taken As Far As It Can Go.
A coarsening of the entire social order is increasingly visible: The Age of Rudeness.
This raises a larger question: are we as a society becoming depressed as we repress our righteous anger and our sense of powerlessness as economic and social inequality rises?
Depression is a complex phenomenon, but it typically includes a loss of hope and vitality, absence of goals, the reinforcement of negative internal dialogs, and anhedonia, the loss of the joy of living (joie de vivre).
Depressive thoughts (and the emotions they generate) tend to be self-reinforcing, and this is why it’s so difficult to break out of depression once in its grip.
One part of the healing process is to expose the sources of anger that we are repressing. As psychiatrist Karen Horney explained in her 1950 masterwork, Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle Towards Self-Realization, anger at ourselves sometimes arises from our failure to live up to the many “shoulds” we’ve internalized, and the idealized track we’ve laid out for ourselves and our lives.
⇒ Keep Reading
“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.” – Étienne de La Boétie
“But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.” ~ Matthew 19:30
All who become educated in real-world objective factual existence discover our Orwellian status of living under ongoing rogue state empire run by a psychopathic and parasitic class of looting liars. With Trump reneging on campaign promises, Americans approach the tragic-comedy of imperial Roman Empire.
The good news, the news of fairness and justice, is that We the People face an Emperor’s New Clothes simple solution whenever enough of us are ready to voice and point to the obvious.
God/Life is not being unreasonable with Her Children to evolve beyond dictatorship: each of us controls our thoughts, voice, and actions. If Earth is meant to become the beautiful place it can be for all inhabitants, humans have the power to make it so. If God/Life so wills it, enough of us must evolve to co-create this bright future to both earn and protect such freedom. If Earth is meant as an ongoing “school” to provide such education to those who are ready, then it is only our responsibility to experience and express what we care most to embrace in virtue without possibility that this planet’s human population will ever have enough awakened to do more than provide choice to others: too many to ignore yet too few to transform policies.
⇒ Keep Reading
If there is any statement about politics in America that qualifies as as a truism accepted by virtually everyone, left, right or independent, it’s that America is a deeply divided nation. But is this really true?
Like everyone else, I too accepted that the line between Hillary supporters and detractors, and Trump supporters and detractors, was about as “either/or” as real life gets.
But are we really that divided? A fascinating 55-minute lecture by historian Michael Kulikowski entitled The Accidental Suicide of the Roman Empire has made me question this consensus certitude.
Maybe the real driver of this division is divisive language–more specifically, language that is designed to drive a wedge between us. In other words, maybe the divisions are an intentional consequence of the language we’re using.
Kulikowski makes a number of nuanced arguments in his talk, but his primary point is that the late-stage Roman Empire collapsed partly as an unintended consequence of rhetorical binaries, polarizing rhetoric that lumped an extremely diverse Imperial populace into false binaries: Roman or Barbarian, Christian or heretic, and so on.
The actual lived reality was completely different from these artificial either-or binary classifications. As Kulikowski explains (and anyone who has read a modern history of late-stage Rome will know this from other accounts), many “Roman generals” were “Barbarian” by birth, and the boundary between “Roman citizen” and “Barbarian” was porous on purpose.
⇒ Keep Reading