As I listen to the "news, weather and traffic”
radio station of my choice, I often hear representatives of the president, as
well as out-takes of President Obama’s speeches, fervently decrying the use of
poisonous gas by the el-Assad regime in Syria. Republican often seem to chide
the president for his timidity in the face of horrible crimes against “his own
people.”
Repeatedly, the Obama administration has asserted
irrefutable proof of Bashar El-Assad’s guilt. Since this proof has not been
presented by the Obama Administration to the citizens for independent analyses,
once again, the American people have to take the matter on faith.
Parenthetically, as I believe that in Marxist political
schemes, the party functions as a god-surrogate, the stance taken by President
Obama was perfectly consistent with the Marx-Lenin-Gramsci strategy. One must believe
in the party and work for its ideals. If that included deceit, then deceit must
be embraced as a welcome “comrade tool.”
American presidents have often been less than forthright.
Western leaders seem to be at one with this practice. It has been an ancient
practice. Consider the man, Niccolo Machiavelli, in The Prince, as cited by Vincent
Barnett:
“Machiavelli
recommended that ‘a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it
places him at a disadvantage … Because men are wretched creatures who would not
keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them’. Machiavelli then
recommended that ‘one must know how to colour one’s actions and be a great liar
and deceiver’. Further on, Machiavelli explained that a prince who neglected
what was actually done by people for what (by rights) should be done was doomed
to self-destruction. Someone who always acted virtuously would quickly come to
a sticky end among the multitude who were not at all virtuous. Hence the
successful political statesman must learn how and when to act in a dishonest
and immoral way, and must be much better at acting dishonourably than those
around him.”
I believe that American presidents have generally adhered
to this formula. Still, there happens to be another reason why American
presidents might not call honesty a friend: Most have been Freemasons.
The iconic French figure, Voltaire (Francis Mary
Arouet) was a prominent figure in Freemasonry. He had been initiated into
Freemasonry in England and again in France. Different lodges would apparently
widened his range of influence. Voltaire, as cited by John Daniel in volume one
of his three-volume set on Masonry, “…defended lying as a virtue when practiced
for the ‘good’ he advocated. Dillon quotes Voltaire as saying, ‘Lying is a vice
when it does evil. It is a great virtue when it does good. Be therefore more
virtuous than ever. It is necessary to lie like a devil, not timidly and for a
time, but boldly and always.’ Commander Carr, in The Conspiracy, likewise shows Voltaire justifying all kinds of
falsehood, telling his fellow enlightened, ‘We must make them [the populace]
lavish promises and use extravagant phrases….The opposite of what we promise
may be done afterwards…that is of no consequence.’”
My point is that it is common among Western statesmen
and politicians to cloak the real facts, if that furthers their goals. A good
example was the George W. Bush Administration’s actions in regard to 9/11 and
the subsequent attack on Iraq. Atrocity stories and assertions of terrible
weapons of mass destruction flooded America by means of the hydra-headed media
spouts.
In the radio reports to which I have been listening,
the partisanship in favor of the mixed multitude of rebels, revolutionaries and
mercenaries has been pronounced. The Bashar el-Assad regime is always presented
as “evil.” Presently, he is the premier choice of the media-politicians-intelligence
complex for demonization. Ardent spokesmen for “the rebels” beg the American
people to support them against the evil el-Assad regime. There has never been
equal time given to supporters of the el-Assad regime to make a case for
maintaining the secular (Baathist) el-Assad regime.
When war-drums are beating, there is no time for equal
treatment provided to the side that “must go.”
President Obama showed himself to be foolish when he
initially announced a “red line” the crossing of which by the Bashar el-Assad
regime would provoke United States intervention in some unspecified action. He
then made himself and the country hostage to a multitude of devious players in
the Levant. Nor do I exclude “perfidious Albion” from the list of potential
mischief-makers in the Syrian national struggle.
There is reason to believe that the Israelis, who apparently
provide much of the “intelligence” on Syria to the United States, have reason
to want Syria splintered into a cluster of minor states. Using the United
States as its “beast of burden” in this effort at least makes sense for them. Luring
the Americans into the Syrian civil war would be easier if ordinary Americans
thought children were being gassed.
Furthermore, there is an ongoing need to emphasize the
horrors of gassing by the Israelis to buttress their claims for sympathy for
the “gassing of six million Jews” during World War II. This claim has reaped
vast sums in reparations and sympathy for Jewish claims of “moral authority.”
The latter claim has been sharply criticized, based on numerous technical
considerations by historians and scientists.
At the outset of this blog, I spoke of the organized
pose of outrage in regard to the incident(s) of poisonous gas used against
people in the rebel-controlled section of Syria. If it occurred, then the
United States should condemn the use of toxic gas in warfare and indicate clearly
a devastating reprisal would be launched against the party that instigated such
use against the American nation or its navy/merchant marine fleet. It should
not become actively involved as a partisan in a “snake-pit” nation. If it
cannot be certainly determined what party was involved, then interference would
be even less advisable. Since the United States intelligence organizations,
separately or together, could manufacture in the language of Syrians any “radio”
report they desire, they could certainly provide bogus evidence.
Why would they want to do this? They would certainly do
it in furtherance of a mutual goal of America’s present leaders and those of
Israel. For Israel it would certainly be the creation of a zone of influence
that would be the predecessor to “Greater Israel.” For America it would be the
achievement of geopolitical command of the globe, due to its control of
Levantine oil. It would seal United States global hegemony. The United States
could preach to the world, while cloaking “dirty deeds done dirt cheap.”
As distasteful as poisonous gas may seem to Americans
daily preached at by partisan media figures, America itself has used poisonous
gas for many years to kill individuals in capital cases. Whether toxic chemicals
are immoral or not, they have been regularly used as an alternate to the
electric chair and the firing squad. The use of toxic chemicals injected into
the individuals to be killed in capital cases has surpassed the use of toxic
chemicals in gas form, the electric chair and firing squads. However, the
individual to be executed still may have the option of choosing the means by
which the state will ultimately kill him in some cases.
Further, I cannot for the life of me see how one is
worse off being killed by gas or by being riddled with shrapnel or by the
effects of improvised explosives. The United States used depleted uranium
extensively in Iraq, and the health issues and lingering death sentences
resulting there from have not been acknowledged by the United States.
Furthermore, the United States freely and extensively
rained napalm down on enemy belligerents and civilians alike in Vietnam during
that war. In case people aren’t aware of it, napalm is a chemical. One might
say that it wasn’t internationally agreed upon and made illegal by a treaty of the
United Nations, but it cannot be successfully argued that it is moral to roast
a human alive but immoral to force them to breath toxic gas.
Please attend:
"Napalm is the most terrible pain you can imagine," said Kim Phúc, a napalm bombing survivor known from a
famous Vietnam War photograph. "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius
(212°F). Napalm generates temperatures of 800 to 1,200 degrees Celsius
(1,500-2,200°F)."[21]
When used as a part of an incendiary
weapon, napalm can cause severe burns (ranging from superficial
to subdermal)
to the skin and body, asphyxiation, unconsciousness,
and death. In
this implementation, napalm fires can create an atmosphere of greater than 20% carbon
monoxide[2]
and firestorms
with self-perpetuating winds of up to 70 miles per hour (110 km/h).
One of the main anti-personnel features of napalm is that it sticks to
human skin, with no practical method for removal of the burning substance.”
In 1980 a treaty was indeed signed at the United
Nations outlawing the use of napalm gel on large gatherings of civilians. However,
in a civil war where one side has no specific uniform, identifying whether
groups were citizens or active belligerents might be a challenge.
Given the vast range of killing devices possessed by
America’s military/intelligence organizations, the fastidious perspective on
correct modes of killing other human beings possessed by America’s leaders
lends itself well to accusations of hypocrisy.
And let’s not even talk about nuclear weapons, and the
only country on Earth to have employed them against huge gatherings of
civilians. Nor let us consider what nation is still prepared to use nuclear
weapons against “enemies.”
Israeli dogs on Capitol Hill and in the media may
demand for President Obama to enter the killing fields of Syria in behalf of
gassed dead and the “forces of liberty,” but he should simply preach peace and
democracy as a better road than the present costly, bloody road. He should not
leap between two fighting dogs. He should not be a dog.
