As reported in February, the U.S. had been planning a false flag operation as a pretext to initiate its involvement in the Syria conflict.
In March, a false flag operation was foiled, as the Syrian government stopped a civilian bus bomb attack by Syrian rebels. The Syrian rebels had hoped to carry out the bombing and blame the Syrian government for the attack, thereby pushing the U.S. to take “retaliatory” military action against the Syrian government.
And now, here we are in April, with a report of a "gassing attack" in Syria. People are pointing at the Syrian government and asserting that the attack is real and the Syrian government is responsible for it. But consider the facts: the rebels in Syria had been smashed by the Syrian regime as well as Iranian and Russian military power. Moreover, the American forces were staying on the sideline. Under these conditions, what would the Syrian government gain from carrying out a gassing attack?
Perhaps the Syrian government is using the gas attacks to demonstrate power and convince the last pockets of the rebel resistance to give in and accept the Syrian government as its sovereign. On the other hand, with their backs to the wall, the rebels, it would seem, had reason to stage the attack so that the U.S. would enter the war and join their fight against Iran, Russia and the Syrian government.
Amidst the turmoil, quite strangely, it is America's liberals who seem to favor war with the Syrian government. Just have a look at this post on Facebook from an attorney who believes that U.S. President Donald Trump is reluctant to get America involved in Syria due to Trump being a "puppet" of Russia:
Imagine that: a person in a research-heavy profession, where one must be careful about every statement and conclusion, spouting such indefensible nonsense. But that is exactly what we are dealing with. And this is not an isolated case, either.
America's main liberal political party, the Democratic Party, has been hawkish on escalating a proxy war with Russia since at least 2015. The Democrats have been in favor of sending troops to the Baltic states, along Russia's perimeter, and positioning missiles there. They have also been on board with providing more direct assistance to the Syrian rebels against the Syrian government and Russia. They believe that Russia somehow stole their candidate's U.S. Presidential Election victory in 2016. Anyone who disagrees is a racist "Trump-tard" or "Russian bot".
Essentially, the peace-loving flower children of the 1960s have become hateful anti-Russia warmongers. To put it another way, 'Daisy' has grown up to become that which she was summoned to oppose:
But these liberals have plenty of company. Despite campaigning against throwing the U.S. into yet another foreign war, Trump has appointed John Bolton, a pro-war hawk from the Bush era, as his National Security Advisor. Republican John McCain continues to favor sending Americans to die overseas for global democracy. And McCain’s pro-war/pro-immigration friends like Lindsey Graham are on board, too.
So, with the liberal Democrats and McCain war party arm-in-arm on the Syria question, the strongest anti-war bloc appears to be those who, for at least half a century, have been portrayed as the cause of war and state conflict: nationalists, today’s paleo-conservatives, also known as the “alt-right”. As recent events show, they are one of the few, ardent supporters of peace with Russia. Arguably, the focus of the alt-right is most closely aligned with protecting the young 'Daisy' girl in the film in a difference sense, too: no Islamist wear, no gender-bending, no over-population, no drug gangs or illegal immigrants, a world safe for Europeans.
What this shows is that we have done an about-face since the era of the “Daisy’ video. Because while the liberals and one-worldists are cheering for war and more foreign involvement and other things that put young ‘Daisy’ in danger, the nationalists seek peace and wish to defend the girl’s future and secure her homeland. Who says truth is not stranger than fiction?
#generation1968meets2018
#darkestbeforethedawn
In March, a false flag operation was foiled, as the Syrian government stopped a civilian bus bomb attack by Syrian rebels. The Syrian rebels had hoped to carry out the bombing and blame the Syrian government for the attack, thereby pushing the U.S. to take “retaliatory” military action against the Syrian government.
And now, here we are in April, with a report of a "gassing attack" in Syria. People are pointing at the Syrian government and asserting that the attack is real and the Syrian government is responsible for it. But consider the facts: the rebels in Syria had been smashed by the Syrian regime as well as Iranian and Russian military power. Moreover, the American forces were staying on the sideline. Under these conditions, what would the Syrian government gain from carrying out a gassing attack?
Perhaps the Syrian government is using the gas attacks to demonstrate power and convince the last pockets of the rebel resistance to give in and accept the Syrian government as its sovereign. On the other hand, with their backs to the wall, the rebels, it would seem, had reason to stage the attack so that the U.S. would enter the war and join their fight against Iran, Russia and the Syrian government.
Amidst the turmoil, quite strangely, it is America's liberals who seem to favor war with the Syrian government. Just have a look at this post on Facebook from an attorney who believes that U.S. President Donald Trump is reluctant to get America involved in Syria due to Trump being a "puppet" of Russia:
Imagine that: a person in a research-heavy profession, where one must be careful about every statement and conclusion, spouting such indefensible nonsense. But that is exactly what we are dealing with. And this is not an isolated case, either.
America's main liberal political party, the Democratic Party, has been hawkish on escalating a proxy war with Russia since at least 2015. The Democrats have been in favor of sending troops to the Baltic states, along Russia's perimeter, and positioning missiles there. They have also been on board with providing more direct assistance to the Syrian rebels against the Syrian government and Russia. They believe that Russia somehow stole their candidate's U.S. Presidential Election victory in 2016. Anyone who disagrees is a racist "Trump-tard" or "Russian bot".
Essentially, the peace-loving flower children of the 1960s have become hateful anti-Russia warmongers. To put it another way, 'Daisy' has grown up to become that which she was summoned to oppose:
But these liberals have plenty of company. Despite campaigning against throwing the U.S. into yet another foreign war, Trump has appointed John Bolton, a pro-war hawk from the Bush era, as his National Security Advisor. Republican John McCain continues to favor sending Americans to die overseas for global democracy. And McCain’s pro-war/pro-immigration friends like Lindsey Graham are on board, too.
So, with the liberal Democrats and McCain war party arm-in-arm on the Syria question, the strongest anti-war bloc appears to be those who, for at least half a century, have been portrayed as the cause of war and state conflict: nationalists, today’s paleo-conservatives, also known as the “alt-right”. As recent events show, they are one of the few, ardent supporters of peace with Russia. Arguably, the focus of the alt-right is most closely aligned with protecting the young 'Daisy' girl in the film in a difference sense, too: no Islamist wear, no gender-bending, no over-population, no drug gangs or illegal immigrants, a world safe for Europeans.
What this shows is that we have done an about-face since the era of the “Daisy’ video. Because while the liberals and one-worldists are cheering for war and more foreign involvement and other things that put young ‘Daisy’ in danger, the nationalists seek peace and wish to defend the girl’s future and secure her homeland. Who says truth is not stranger than fiction?
#generation1968meets2018
#darkestbeforethedawn
