WE against us?

By Donald Hank

Newsmax.com reported today that the US is making surveillance flights over Syria to gather intel on what ISIS is up to. They naturally infer what we all suspect, namely, that these flights are quite likely the first step in an armed conflict in Syria. Which leaves us with a dilemma, as outlined by the following quote:

Quote:

Administration officials have said a concern for Obama in seeking to take out the Islamic State inside Syria is the prospect that such a move could unintentionally help embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.

This statement reveals a glaring US foreign policy inconsistency – one of many – that I would like to address in the following.

For about a decade, the narrative of the US oligarchs (not to be confused with the US or the USA – that is We the People, a separate group that is starting to understand its separate identity) has been that Assad is evil because he is bombing civilians. But if bombing civilians makes you evil, then why is Israel our ally?

No, I am not suggesting Israel should not be our ally. Of course it should. But let us not pretend that Assad is evil for engaging in urban warfare the same way we did in Kosovo and the way Israel does in Gaza (with the exception that Assad may not be issuing warnings before the air attacks). That is unfair.

The truth is, if the US government had supported Assad in his fight against Islamists, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But the oligarchs wanted Assad out for the same reasons they wanted Mubarak and Ghadaffi out. These men were simply not radical enough and did not support the caliphate desired by the Western elites. As astounding as that may sound to some, here is evidence of Washington's support for the Islamic caliphate.

But what has gone around has come around and now world attention has turned to Israel bombing civilians in Gaza precisely at the time when circumstances seem to dictate our involvement in Syria in ways that could benefit Assad, the man Washington condemns for bombing civilians. And our keepers are wringing their hands because our combatting these miscreants would make Assad look good. In fact it, what they fear the most is that it would make a lot of people wake up and say "wait a darned minute. Why didn't we help Assad defeat these thugs before instead of opposing him every inch of the way? Maybe ISIS would never have been emerged as a threat if we had done that."

You see, our foreign policy is built on a flimsy set of selectively applied slogans and formulas that are designed to hide the ulterior motives for it and will not bear the most cursory scrutiny. For example: the mantra that the US had a moral right to intervene in a civil conflict in Serbia, even though Serbia was sovereign, but Russia does not have the right to do likewise in Ukraine, which the US oligarchy sees as sovereign (but only after their side won, not before the US backed Maidan coup).

So what is the US military doing in the Middle East?

After so many years of fashioning tall tales about the situation in Syria, which was a simple matter of a popular civilized regime battling zombies from the Dark Ages, the oligarchs are all but forced to admit that Assad had the moral high ground all along. Now that ISIS, a by-product of US elitist intrigue, is killing Americans and taking over vast swaths of the Levant, it is all too clear what keen observers knew since the start of the Syrian civil war, namely, that the issue was civilization (represented by Assad and his constituents, the one hated by our oligarchs) versus barbarism (represented by Assad's foes, the ones he was bombing and the oligarchs were supporting – the ones who became ISIS). Yes, indeed, as stated succinctly in the citation above, this does pose a conundrum for a large bipartisan coterie of oligarchs in Washington who in their hearts supported the fascist caliphate and were willing to pay any price to see them win – which meant killing and/or dislodging all the indigenous Christians and other minorities in the region.

Friends, the fact is, our elites can't seem to admit that the Washington oligarchs see themselves as the Master Race, in much the same way as Hitler saw the Germans. They see We the People and anyone else on the globe who dares to defy them as inferior, both morally and intellectually.

To them the inferior races are any nations that dare hew to that passé concept of sovereignty, which they falsely conflate with radical-right nationalism. Their suspect list includes all of Russia (recall that Hitler also called the Slavs inferior, nothing new), the sovereigntists in the state of Israel (as distinct from the supporters of the World Masters in Washington), the sovereigntist parties in Europe who oppose the EU, and now the Egyptians and any other state that refuses to bow to the Washington Oligarchy.

We used to call this disdain for groups unlike oneself fascism – or racism when a whole nation, Russia in this case, is the target of hate.

Let's revive that old linguistic tradition and stop referring to this enemy in Washington as the USA and especially as "we."

That "we" is our mortal enemy. Calling it "we" empowers it.

We the People are the real USA, the real "we," and we want no parts of that other "we." Let's drop that pronoun and stop pretending they represent us.

© Donald Hank