Cabalist "Creative Destruction" Behind Syrian War
September 3, 2013
Current events are driven by an occult agenda, the Cabalism of the Illuminati. (Left, Michael Ledeen, part of the Illuminati Jewish Junta.)
The Syrian "civil war" is wholly funded and directed by the West. It is part of the
Arab Spring whose purpose is to "sow chaos from Morocco to Afghanistan."
In turn, this reflects the Cabalist doctrine that "order" (i.e. NWO tyranny) will
arise out of destruction. The take-away? We're not likely to see
peace until all "resistance" to the NWO, real and imagined, is quelled.
by David Livingstone
Syria: Israel Foreign Policy by Proxy
(abridged by henrymakow.com)
What's happening in Syria has nothing to do with the supposed use of chemical weapons, and everything to do with the imperial ambitions of the state of Israel which is wielding its power through its infamous lobby to use American might to carry out its objectives in the region.
Among the leading neoconservatives in this cabal has been Michael Ledeen, holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute and a founding member of JINSA. As Robert Lind wrote in a 2003 article for Salon: "the major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel."[1]
Already in 2002, Ledeen was pronouncing that an invasion of Iraq would follow, and that it would be a good thing, because, it will give "us" a chance to "ensure the fulfillment of the democratic revolution." Summing up his Machiavellian motives, Ledeen clarified, "Paradoxically, we advanced the cause of freedom by violently undemocratic means." Ledeen further explained:
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace... We must destroy them to advance our historic mission."[2]
[By "our historic Mission" he means Jews, not Americans. See Makow - Kabbalist Doctrine of Destruction Behind War.] Evidently, the countries Ledeen listed in the Middle East do not present a "clear and present" danger to the United States. All these abstract articulations were designed to hide the ignoble pursuit of Israeli foreign policy objectives, as outlined in A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report), a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, then Prime Minister of Israel.
The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East through an appeal to "western values." Among the policies proposed was, "rather than pursuing a 'comprehensive peace' with the entire Arab world, Israel should work jointly with Jordan and Turkey to "contain, destabilize, and roll-back" those entities that are threats to all three."
On how to address these threats, it recommends, "Israel's new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response."
CREATIVE DESTRUCTION = PREEMPTIVE ACTION I.E. AGGRESSION
Preemptive action was considered required in Lebanon because of an agreement between Israel and the US that Iranian nuclear plants would eventually have to be bombed. If that were to happen, Iran would use the Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel. Thus Hezbollah would have to be disarmed and Israel would use force as soon as a pretext became available.[3]
Similarly, because Iraq "could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly" Israel should back Jordan in its efforts to redefine Iraq, and by "supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging--through influence in the U.S. business community--investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan's economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon."
Political commentator Phyllis Bennis pointed to the obvious similarities between the strategies outlined in the Clean Break and the subsequent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.[4] Already in September 2006, Taki of The American Conservative reported:
...recently, Netanyahu suggested that President Bush had assured him Iran will be prevented from going nuclear. I take him at his word. Netanyahu seems to be the main mover in America's official adoption of the 1996 white paper A Clean Break, authored by him and American fellow neocons, which aimed to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go.
Just prior to America's invasion of Iraq, Brian Whitaker had reported in The Guardian in 2002 that "with several of the Clean Break paper's authors now holding key positions in Washington, the plan for Israel to transcend its foes by reshaping the Middle East looks a good deal more achievable today than it did in 1996. Americans may even be persuaded to give up their lives to achieve it."[5] Speaking to the grandiose ambitions of the neoconservative, as Michael Ledeen outlined:
Our unexpectedly quick and impressive victory in Afghanistan is a prelude to a much broader war, which will in all likelihood transform the Middle East for at least a generation, and reshape the politics of many other countries around the world.[6]
Similarly, Richard Perle's 2004 book An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coauthored with fellow neoconservative David Frum defends the invasion of Iraq and described important neoconservative aspirations, including ways to abandon all Israeli-Palestinian peace processes, invade Syria, Iran's strategic ally in the region, Syria. Perle and Frum conclude, shamelessly: "For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generation's great cause... There is no middle way for Americans: it is victory or holocaust."[7]...
DEMOCRACY A PRETEXT
The upheavals of the Arab Spring fall within the context of George W. Bush's Greater Middle East Project, proclaimed after 2001 to bring "democracy" and "liberal free market" economic reform to the Islamic countries from Afghanistan to Morocco.[9] As William Engdahl was reporting in April 2011, "contrary to the carefully-cultivated impression that the Obama Administration is trying to retain the present regime of Mubarak, Washington in fact is orchestrating the Egyptian as well as other regional regime changes from Syria to Yemen to Jordan and well beyond in a process some refer to as 'creative destruction.'"[10]
In advance of the several revolutions of the Arab Spring, as the Wall Street Journal was already reporting in 2007, the State Department's intelligence unit organized a conference of Middle East experts to examine the merits of engagement, particularly in Egypt and Syria, with the Muslim Brotherhood, the CIA's primary tool of destabilization in the Middle East. According to officials, US diplomats and politicians have also met with legislators from parties connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq, to hear their views on democratic reforms in the Middle East.[11]
As Engdahl reveals, the template for such covert regime change was developed by the Pentagon, US intelligence and various think-tanks such as the ubiquitous RAND Corporation, Freedom House and US government-funded NGO, National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The NED is active in all the countries that have experienced "spontaneous" popular uprisings: Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Sudan. As the architect and first head of the NED, Allen Weinstein told the Washington Post in 1991, "a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."[12]
Similarly, on behalf of the Americans, armed and Saudi-funded Salafis have been brought in to help destabilize the government of Syria.[13] American subversive activities in Syria have been coordinated through a Muslim Brotherhood-connected organization, the National Salvation Front (NSF), which unites liberal democrats, Kurds, Marxists and former Syrian officials in an effort to transform President Assad's regime. The founders of the NSF were Ali Sadreddin Al Bayanouni who took over as president of the Brotherhood's Syrian arm in 1979, and Abdul Halim Khaddam, Syria's vice president until 2005 who criticized Assad's rule and fled to Paris.
Initial contact between the White House and the NSF was forged by Najib Ghadbian, a University of Arkansas political scientist, who suggested the US work with his group and its contacts, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Ghadbian began meeting with the deputies of prominent neoconservative and former Iran-Contra operative Elliot Abrams, the White House's chief Middle East adviser in 2006. Through these intermediaries, as the Wall Street Journal reported, "the White House exhorted the NSF to build a wide coalition of opposition groups and to run it in a transparent and democratic manner."[14]
ILLUMINATI BEHIND SYRIAN "INSURGENCY"
As noted by Charlie Skelton in The Guardian, "indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out."[15] Generally recognized as "the main opposition coalition" is the Syrian National Council (SNC). Also a part of the NSF group, The Washington Times described the SNC as "an umbrella group of rival factions based outside Syria."[16]
The most senior of the SNC's official spokespeople is the Paris-based Syrian academic Bassma Kodmani, who in 2012 attended her second Bilderberg conference. In 2005, Kodmani was working in Cairo for the Ford Foundation, a traditional CIA front organization, and in September of that year, was made the executive director of the Arab Reform Initiative (ARI), a research program of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
More specifically, the ARI was initiated by a group within the CFR called the "US/Middle East Project," chaired by General (Ret.) Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser to the US president, also listed in Sibel Edmond's "State Secrets Privilege Gallery." Sitting alongside Scowcroft was Zbigniew Brzezinski, founder of the Trilateral Commission, and Carter's National Security advisor, who instigated the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Earlier in 2005, the CFR assigned "financial oversight" of the project to the Centre for European Reform (CER). The CER is overseen by Lord Kerr, the deputy chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, a former head of the diplomatic service and a senior adviser at the influential British think-tank, Chatham House.[17] ...
Ideally, Muslims will soon awake to the deception, as next on the Neoconservative agenda is Iran. As he once cried wolf about the Soviet sponsorship of international terrorism, Ledeen rails against Iranian terrorism in his recent book The Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We'll Win. According to the Pacific News Service of May 19, Ledeen gave a speech at a JINSA policy forum on April 30, 2011, titled "Time to Focus on Iran--The Mother of Modern Terrorism."
----
This is an excerpt from David Livingstone's new book "Black Terror: White Soldiers"
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/black-terror-white-soldiers-preview#.UiU-h2S5NGh
Related - Syria - A Catastrophe in the Making
http://www.iamthewitness.com/
"That war is to be directed in such a manner that all of Islam and political Zionism will destroy each other while at the same time; the remaining nations, once more divided on this issue, will be forced to fight themselves into a state of complete exhaustion; physically, mentally, spiritually, and economically........"
First Comment from DAN:
Poll results of the last two weeks show only 9% of Americans think we have any business attacking Syria. That percentage is small enough to consist of CIA and the military!
Lest people forget, Obama was elected in 2008 largely on the promise that "As my first act as Commander-n-Chief I will bring the troops home from Afghanistan.
(October 27th, 2007) Obama promises to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
"It is the first thing I will do as President, we will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank.".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p12cAclNCRU
I knew he was lying because he also promised to be "the best Commander in Chief this country has ever had". Because the US President only gets to use that title when the country is involved in war(s). Only during war does the President the host of extra powers including domestic powers. In peacetime the President is limited to powers over foreign policy. Domestic power was originally the domain of the House and Senate.
Constitution - Article 2 - The Executive Branch. Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A2Sec2.html?ModPagespeed=noscript
That's how we know that peace is never going to allowed again.
Jim Perloff writes:
As obvious as it may sound, Henry, I urge your American readers to contact their senators and congressmen (as I have done) and urge them to oppose the bombing of Syria.
Here are some common-sense reasons that any legislator should be able to understand:
• Why should the United States react so quickly to an intelligence report that Assad used chemical weapons, when erroneous intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) led us into a 10-year war in Iraq? What if it turns out that it was not Assad who used these weapons, but the rebels themselves? Why rush headlong into warfare without a thorough investigation, and without allowing Assad to tell his side?
• Even if he used these weapons, why does our response have to be warfare? Why not something less aggressive, such as economic sanctions, which the United States has used in other cases of human rights violations?
• Bombing Syria will obviously kill people who had nothing to do with using chemical weapons. How can the shedding of innocent blood be justified?
• What if there was a report that Putin used chemical weapons in Russia? Should the United States bomb Russia in response, which would trigger World War III and destroy the planet? Surely the United States has options at its disposal besides the dropping of bombs.
To learn how to contact your senators and congressmen, here's a link:
http://www.contactingthecongress.org
Brian said (September 6, 2013):
The resolution before the American Congress to determine whether or not to bomb Syria represents the end game of an elaborate charade.
There is not, nor has there ever been any intention to do this by the true power behind the "American throne". It's simply another classic problem-reaction-solution scenario utilized for the purpose of regime change in Syria, but WITHOUT the spilling of blood. You could liken it to events in the Fall of 1938 which resulted in the Munich Accord. Make it appear, this time by Congress voting "Nay" to an air strike, that a potential all-out war was averted, but instead what is established is the "obvious" need to remove Assad from power because of his Govt.'s "obvious" use of chemical weapons on their own people.The World will be made to perceive that "calmer heads have prevailed" in this manufactured crisis, and the "peaceful means" will then be set in motion for regime change.
If we are to look at these events as running parallel to ones which directly preceded WW2, then we can conclude that the Illuminati/Zionist orchestrated concession of the Sudetenland to Germany is the equivalent of what is happening in Syria now. Predictably, in the Spring of 1939 the rest of Czechoslavakia was assimilated into the German Reich. Similarly, the whole of Syria will fall the way of Iraq, Libya, et al, and the whole World (or more precisely, in a geo-political sense, Russia and China) will see Iran as the 2014 equivalent of 1939 Poland.
To what extent the parallel line can be drawn remains to be seen.