Is ISIS a Tool in a Proxy War? Of Course It Is!

I can't tell you how many times I find myself screaming at the TV/radio, "can't anybody see what these bubbly, manicured, useful idiots are doing here?"  Hello!  The mainstream media is the primary tool of disinformation! It's infotainment, at best. Evil propaganda, at worst. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence of this, people, including most of my friends and family, still believe they're being genuinely informed as they're bombarded by images of brutality deliberately created to induce fear, anger, and aggression against a demonized group. So easily led astray by these pied pipers, when all it would take is a little easily accessible research to discover they're being played for fools. 

How many times has the United States been exposed for coup-making (regime change), and/or covertly funding, supporting and even training both sides in order to keep the wars going and the profits/power/resources rolling in?  Too numerous to mention, so I'll just cite a few:  Iran in 1953;   Iran Contra ; Iraq (funding Saddaam Hussein); Afghanistan (Taliban); Libya.

So, is it any surprise that ISIS, not to mention, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram (Nigeria) is nothing more than a US-NATO  full-scale proxy military force?  I mean, since we, the most powerful nation on earth, started supposedly bombing ISIS, it's been gaining territory and growing stronger!  How in the world do you explain this?  Well, they tell us that they're trying to bomb ISIS but accidentally, of course, they bomb those trying to destroy ISIS.    Really?  No. Bombing ISIS is a pretext to further weaken and destabilize Syria  Obviously, they're targeting civilian neighborhoods and infrastructure.

What is the geopolitical goal here? Well, see Zbigniew Brzezinski's theory of micro states and mini states, for one. He says to break up existing countries, creating war lords, secession, failed states, rump states- the kind that can't stand up to major corporations and banksters, let alone other large and powerful nations. 

“For Africa, Brzezinski recommends the so-called ‘micro-nationalities’ concept, which means that national boundaries established in the 19th century should be swept aside in favor of a crazy quilt of petty tribal entities, each one so small that it could not hope to resist even a medium-sized oil multinational” -- Webster Tarpley

You see, by herding these death squads, funded and armed by western powers not to mention, the Saudis, who use the most primitive, gruesome and brutal methods of destruction possible, the United States is able to maintain a veneer of civility.

From recently declassified DIA documents

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

Links:

Confirmed Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US “Created” ISIS As A “Tool” in a Proxy War Against Assad


Slaughter of Iraqi family in suspected US-led air strike hints at cost of war

US-NATO Proxy War in Iraq and Syria: US Financing and Training of “Moderate” ISIS Rebels in Syria

Truth Revealed: McCain's 'Moderate Rebels' in Syria is ISIS.

Read more...

Know the "Agenda" of Your" Proxy Representation"

The representation of people through professionals whose whole career is based on the knowledge of a certain subject or field is sometimes absolutely necessary, but that doesn't mean you (the one being represented) is required to passively accept everything your representative or "expert" says and/or does. Quite the contrary, if you can speak for yourself, then you should do so, but if you must seek representation, you should speak up as well because no one knows "you" as well as you.

After reading Gore After Gore in Vanity Fair Magazine, it occurred to me that letting someone else represent or stand or act in place of you, as a substitute, proxy, or agent is a very risky enterprise considering everyone has a personal and professional "agenda." Not only that, the representative’s organized plan for matters to be attended, or things to be done on your behalf, may be based on one or a combination of many different reasons that range from selflessness, empathy, compassion, love, altruism, idealism to ambition, greed or the desire to gain financially, anger, hatred, revenge, sexual and the list goes on indefinitely, but usually falls under one or many of the categories I mentioned above. The scariest part of "agenda" is that the person serving as a representative may not be conscious that his "agenda" exists, or cognizant that it is completely at odds with the "agenda" he is aware of.

Journalism and law are perfect examples of professions that demand a certain level of objectivity.

Take for example an attorney who works for a firm. Above and beyond all else, he must zealously represent his or her client to the best of his ability, defending the rule of law our Justice system has established and he must also be mindful of the deficiencies in the administration of justice concerning the ability to afford legal representation. This attorney must also establish a career and a reputation amongst the judges and his or her peers that he will be associating with now and in the future. And then of course, there is one's personal "agenda"...conscious or subconscious, one's personal "agenda" is not supposed to play a part in representing his client, but it most certainly does for better or worse.

The problem is that many "professionals" do not admit to having a bias or that their view is somewhat limited depending on the prism of popular culture, personal experience and significant others have had on influencing the construction of their reality and belief system. Therefore, it's best that the person "representing" is as aware as he can be of his personal bias and acknowledge it so that he can recognize when it starts to interfere with his duties.

Unfortunately, many "professionals" do not admit to or are not aware of their personal bias. It's up to "us" as consumers, clients, citizens to know the person representing "us" is indeed human, and that his past, present and what he hopes for the future all will affect the quality of his representation or in a journalist's case, reporting.

Read more...