By Ollie Richardson
One of the most ancient paradigms known to man is the “good” vs “evil” standoff, where one side is depicted with halos and fluffy white wings, and the other side is shown to have horns protruding from the head and a pointed tail. It would seem that such a paradigm emerged due to a perceived lack of understanding about death and what it represents. This “puzzle” pushed humans towards seeking objective answers to subjective questions, but only within the framework of human understanding. This desire to learn more about life is the driving force behind scientific revolutions and paradigm “shifts” – the quest to find these “objective” answers using empirical evidence. However, the concept of gravity, for example, is widely accepted around the globe, but gravity itself cannot be “seen” with the naked eye – only its perceived “effects”.
Thus, never in the history of mankind has there been a global consensus on any single theme. In a post-modern context, this can be illustrated by the binary “pro”/”anti” positions concerning abortion, homosexuality, gun possession, migration, drugs – in general, governmental policy “X”. But what is interesting is that if today a survey was conducted on the streets of any country in the world with the question “Is dropping bombs on children ‘right’, in the human understanding of the concept of ‘rightness’?”, it can be confidently predicted that even in the most volatile States where so-called “law and order” broke down a long time ago, the majority of respondents would respond in the negative: “No, it isn’t ‘right’.”
So, why do the leaders of countries who preach so much about “human rights” and humanitarianism in general factually indirectly (supplying proxies) or directly drop bombs on children, whether it be in their own country (see AFRICOM’s handiwork in Africa) or abroad (see London-Washington foreign policy since WW1, at the very latest)? After all, that electorate who voted to put these suits and ties in power, in their majority, don’t agree that dropping bombs on children is correct (conduct a survey in your local area to test this). So why is their position on this topic completely ignored?
Taking the Syrian war as an example, on January 18th, 2018, Emmanuel Macron, the new beacon of EU “democracy”, had a meeting for the second time with the so-called “Syrian Negotiation Commission”, and gave this NGO – which in fact is a Saudi proxy that protects the interests of the takfiris it sponsors in Syria and Iraq (there is an ocean of irrefutable proof on this topic available on the Internet) – his full support. The jihadist groups that the “SNC” represents fire projectiles at “filthy shia” civilians. These words are “Russian propaganda”, you say? So please explain the confirmation of these war crimes coming from the mouth of a French humanitarian aid worker in Syria, Pierre Le Corf, whose latest video from Aleppo is just one of many in which he highlights the materiel support that the government in Paris gives to terrorists in Syria.
Apparently, at this meeting Macron and his terrorist friends “emphasised the need to protect civilians in Eastern Ghouta and Idlib”, but failed to mention to the press that both these areas contain exclusively Al-Qaeda militants that are subordinated to Mohammad al-Joulani.
The head of the “SNC” al-Hariri also met with Federica Mogherini in Brussels, who wants so much to “end the conflict”, but continues to defend both al-Nusra and ISIS literally to the end.
Thus, in summary, the leaders of the EU, UK, and France all met with the “SNC” in the same week and showed their support for illegal armed formations that fire projectiles at children. This paves the way for the next question: why doesn’t the electorate of people like Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May (she was unelected actually, but as the Brexit and Catalonia fiascos show, votes and referendums in the West mean nothing) protest against the former’s support for al-Qaeda in Syria and the latter’s support for both the former’s actions and Saudi Arabia’s massacring of Yemenis?
— Navstéva يزور ? (@Navsteva) July 29, 2017
In general, the human mind has shown time and time again that it can be moulded like clay. It is THIS that Edward Bernays exploited when he was instructed to sell a product almost a century ago, even if it could result in the culling of human beings. And has anything changed? Throughout the Syrian war the French media has used footage from the notorious “White Helmets”, “SMART News Agency”, even the camera lens of Bana Alabed to show the “tyrant Assad” in his “true colours”. The YPG’s presence in Raqqa was milked dry to sell the US-led coalition’s “fight against terrorism”. Bernard-Henri Lévy and Paul Moreira bashed away on their keyboards to present the “Free Syrian Army” and the “Syrian Democratic Forces” as God’s word, despite both formations being tasked by Washington with protecting ISIS in Raqqa since it was captured over five years ago.
When all is said and done, the same dead-end questions that were asked after the Iraq invasion (Chilcot enquiry) will be asked about the Syrian war. But it is always too late. No scientific experiments or surveys need to take place to know who is responsible for the latest mess. Sadly, the factual assailants – whether it be ISIS militants or bureaucrats in Brussels – will remain unpunished, and furthermore, they never would have gotten involved in the first place if foreknowledge about this fact didn’t already exist. In fact, the process of recycling ISIS and other such almost State formations (the weapons and ammo they have is in reality not that dissimilar from the arsenal of regular troops of African countries) for another round of “let’s use terrorist organisations to help Israel expand” is well under way. In this case, the violins playing at Bataclan or in Nice should stop, before the level of hypocrisy outgrows the infinite space time in which we reside.
The French State defends terrorists – fact!
Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.