After being told that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 presidential election by a landslide, her motorcade, who arrogantly presumed victory was her birthright, sought revenge after Donald Trump stole her thunder. The revenge was Russiagate, a contagious lie that conveniently spread its attack to Wikileaks.
Julian Assange risked – and lost – his reputation amongst leftists after an explosive leak of Clinton’s emails handed a strategic advantage to Trump, but his agenda decidedly was not to privilege a partisan agency. The truth is that the reason Assange wasn’t bothered to be seen to be helping Trump was because Clinton armed ISIS in Libya and Syria.
Historically the US has exhibited a consistent pattern of behaviour whereby it supports all insurgencies against targeted powers, irrespective of ethics. This makes it virtually sure that the Obama administration sought to topple incumbent powers in Libya and Syria by supporting a nascent ISIS.
ISIS were seen to be advantageous to the agenda of US weltpolitik in Libya and Syria. They gifted the US with a bogeyman which could be used to stoke paranoia in the domestic public, while secretly serving as an ally in the theatre of war.
Narrow, selfish US ambitions disregarded the tragic consequences of arming ISIS for middle eastern citizens, who are cynically pitted against each other by divisive imperial propaganda. Arming ISIS gives lie to the notion that US wars in the middle east are motivated by a desire to bring liberalism to it. In all truth, pre-intervention cultures were more liberal than the corporate dictatorship engendered by interventionism.
The US backs insurgencies and then victimises them when they stop being aligned to geostrategic agendas.
When we are begged to believe the propaganda that Russia and China are morally inferior to the US, we would do well to remember that they are the strongest strategic bulwarks against a US empire that invests serious resources in evil to advance its agenda of world domination.Print